Lords Sitting of 7 April 1986

Preamble
Reassembling after the Easter Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

Animal Experimentation
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have information from the research councils on the extent to which animal experimentation helps in the prevention of disease.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I understand from the research councils that research involving animals has contributed to the prevention of disease through the development of vaccines, notably against diphtheria, polio, smallpox, measles, tuberculosis and whooping cough. In addition to disease prevention, tests on animals have also led to improved treatments for diseases such as pneumonia, diabetes, leukaemia and some other cancers; to more effective surgical techniques, particularly in organ transplantation and heart surgery; and to establishing the efficacy and the safety of medicines and other products. Animal health, too, benefits from such work.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that magnificent news. Has he any information as to whether that work is at all handicapped by the pretty apparent British trait of over-sentimentality about animals?
The Earl of Swinton: No, my Lords, I do not think so. As I am sure your Lordships are aware, a Bill is currently going through Parliament; the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill. This is supported not only by the research councils but also by a number of the more responsible animal rights organisations.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that prevention of unnecessary cruelty to animals by way of experimentation would be the wish of the majority of the people of this country?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords, I am sure that that is absolutely right. I should also add that unfortunately some experimentation on animals is necessary to protect the welfare of human beings, too, in this country.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that so far as some unnecessary experimentation is concerned, it is not only the wish of the majority of this country but the wish of the majority—in fact all—of the experimenters?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords, and experimenting with animals is also quite an expensive operation in itself, so there is much to commend not doing more than is absolutely necessary.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, does the noble Earl the Minister agree that the information he has just given is inadequately known to the public? Would he be prepared to indicate to the research councils and to the pharmaceutical industry the desirability of their providing more and better information?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I should be surprised if that information is inadequately known, because the Bill took up a considerable amount of time in your Lordships' House. I believe that at the present time it has just finished its Committee stage in the Commons, so there is plenty of literature about it. I think that it will be well known, and when it becomes law the measures which it introduces will also be widely known.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that probably what causes ordinary people most concern is the possibility that animals are unnecessarily used in cosmetic experiments?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am sure there is a certain amount of feeling about cosmetics. The products must be safe and the safety testing of

3
cosmetics involves a very limited use of animals. This is an EC requirement. Cosmetics account for no more than half of 1 per cent. of all experiments, and when the new legislation comes into force all proposals to test cosmetics on animals will be given special scrutiny by the animal procedures committee.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, is lipstick one of the cosmetics which is derived from these practices? If so, I shall have to change my mode of life!
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I know we have the television cameras on us but, in spite of that, I do not think that noble Lords need to make up with lipstick too much!

South America: US Policy
2.41 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what representations have been made to, or discussions held with, the Government of the USA regarding the possibility of the USA sending combat troops to South America.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, discussions are held regularly with the United States Government on many subjects, including Latin America. There have been no discussions about the possibility of United States combat troops being sent to South America.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Will she not be prepared to consider that the vast amount of publicity that has been given to President Reagan's recent statements that it might be necessary to invade Nicaragua has caused great concern among the allies? Does she agree that we should cease always appearing as the 51st state but should appear instead as a loyal but critical friend of the United States when necessary?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to Nicaragua in central America. We have in fact our own policy which is shared by our European Community partners. We support a comprehensive and verifiable Contadora agreement based on the 21 Contadora objectives, which include peace, stability, democracy and development. The United States has stated repeatedly that it also supports the Contadora process. We advocate a political rather than a military solution, and the United States is well aware of our views.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, do the Government share the anxiety expressed by Mr. Thomas Foley, the House of Representatives majority leader, that the policy of President Reagan brings the United States closer and closer to war in the Nicaragua region? Have the Government made any representations about the increasingly belligerent attitude apparently being adopted by the United States?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are well aware from our discussions with representatives of the United States of the views that the noble and learned Lord mentions. We are aware also that the House of Representatives rejected on 20th March a proposal for aid to be given. An amended proposal was approved by the Senate voting on 27th March and, as we understand it, there is a likelihood of a new decision from the House of Representatives very shortly.
As I said before, as a result of our discussions with the United States Government and with United States representatives, they are very well aware of our views about activities in the region concerned.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not recall that the decision of the Senate seemed to be much influenced by reports of an incursion into Honduras by the army of the Nicaraguan Government? Have the British Government, through their embassies or any other sources, received any information about those reports?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as has been said, the situation in the area is extremely delicate. The United Kingdom Government are kept fully informed by their embassies, and the United States Government and any other governments concerned are kept fully aware of the United Kingdom's views on the subject.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the noble Baroness has stated that the United States is well aware of our views. I believe that this House would like to know what views have actually been expressed by the Government to the United States.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I have said, the United Kingdom Government's attitude is fully to support the objectives of the Contadora Group. That we do in concert with our European Community partners. The basic underlying principle is that we advocate a political rather than a military solution.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that the whole area is a very volatile one? The Americans are scared to death of infiltration into any part of Latin America by the Russians, who are there for one purpose only—to create mischief for the Americans. One can fully understand and comprehend why the Americans adopt the precautionary measures that they do. Some of us, at any rate, support them.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the best contribution that countries outside the region in question can make is to offer political and practical help for the consolidation of democracy in Central America, and to support efforts to achieve peace by the Contadora Group. We are working with our European partners to that end.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that the USA would do better to look for the cause of the troubles in Central America, which is, of course, abject poverty? Would the USA not do better to try to relieve that poverty rather than take the action that it is at the present moment? Poverty is what causes Communism, support for Russia, and so on.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, both the United States and the European Community are well aware of the underlying problems. That is why efforts are being made on the economic front.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, does the noble Baroness have her mind on the statement made by President Theodore Roosevelt—that when he made a declaration on foreign policy, he was in a position to enforce it; but if he was not in a position to enforce it, then he kept his mouth shut? Would that not be good advice for Her Majesty's Government?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, while I may not have had my mind on that particular quotation, I am sure that President Reagan has.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that she should not differentiate between the United States Government and the United States President, because he is that country's Commander-in-Chief? Is the noble Baroness further aware that in the past 48 hours the President of Honduras has condemned the use of the Contras, and has condemned the use of the CIA in his country, in Nicaragua and in El Salvador? By contrast, we have heard a magnificent speech made by the British Foreign Secretary, in which he condemned what the Russians have done in invading other countries. How can we support our Foreign Secretary as we ought to do when we are a little shy of condemning the Americans when they threaten to do precisely what the USSR has done in Afghanistan?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can only restate that the United States Government are well aware of our position and of our thoughts on this subject, and that we support a negotiated settlement of the problems of Central America.

Fuel and Materials: Manufacturers' Costs
2.48 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what has been the fall in manufacturers' fuel and raw material costs over the past year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, the price index for materials and fuel purchased by manufacturing industry in February of this year was 9·5 per cent. lower than at the same time last year.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. To what extent does he attribute that decline to the collapse in the price of oil?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, fuel accounts for 37 per cent. of the total manufacturing costs; that is, fuel both bought from abroad and home produced.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of those more favourable developments, does the noble Lord anticipate, particularly in regard to food manufacturers, that there is likely to be a lowering of the price? In regard to the capital goods industries, can the noble Lord say whether, in view of the fact that profitability will increase, there will now be more capital investment in those industries? It is currently running at some 17 per cent. to 18 per cent. below what it was in 1979.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, investment in British manufacturing industry has improved by 6 per cent. in the past 12 months and is on course to continue this increase.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend say how the Government view the prospect of further investment on the Continental Shelf in view of the collapse in oil prices? Does he believe the companies expect that over the long term prices will recover?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I very much regret that I cannot give my noble friend an answer to that question, since it is a little wide of the original Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that the petrol companies have brought the price of petrol at the pumps sufficiently in line with world oil prices?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, bearing in mind that there are considerable stocks of refined products, particularly in the United Kingdom, which are still awaiting disposal it is a little early for me to anticipate any kind of answer.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in the light of that will the noble Lord forecast when we can expect to see a significant drop in petrol prices at the pumps?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I certainly cannot give any kind of forecast, but there have been marked reductions in the retail prices of refined oil throughout the country.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Minister must surely be aware of the fact that millions—
Lord Diamond: My Lords, in relation to the noble Lord's comment about stocks, the policies of the companies in regard to stocks and prices, and therefore the likely prices at the pumps, can he say whether this information was available to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer when they made their statement about the possibility of prices falling at the pumps?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: No, my Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, what information was available to my right honourable friends at the time they made their statement. I was asked whether I could forecast. I cannot forecast; neither can I comment on the policies of the individual oil companies.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware—as surely he must be—that as a result of the oil price reduction millions of pounds must have been made by the oil companies by having, in many cases, maintained their earlier prices? For example, the Automobile Association said that today the price should be about £1·55 per gallon, but where in London can you purchase petrol under £1·67, 1·68 or £1·69? Frankly, the Minister must give a better reply than that; it shows an ineptitude that is not worthy of him.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, there are lower prices than that around the country. It depends on the arrangements between the supplying company and the retailing company. I was asked whether I could forecast. I cannot forecast, but I can anticipate, like other noble Lords in your Lordships' House.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, does my noble friend have readily to mind the total tax per gallon that is paid in this country at present? Is it of the order of 80 pence a gallon?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am sorry, my Lords, I do not have the complete breakdown. However, I remember seeing a graph in one of the weekend newspapers which showed that from, I think, 150 pence there was 22 pence retail profit, with 5 per cent. distribution costs and 80 pence in taxation, and the remainder was crude oil costs.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, for the sake of the record can the noble Lord elucidate the precise period which he interprets as the past year? Does it include or exclude the recent catastrophic fall in oil prices?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the date I gave was the end of February 1986 on the end of February 1985.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if, as the noble Lord says, the index has declined by 9·5 per cent. of input costs, why is it that manufacturers' output costs are still rising?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, in fact, output costs for the 12 months ending February 1986 on February 1985 declined by 1·1 per cent.; that is, they were 6·1 per cent. in 1985 and 5 per cent. in 1986. The large majority of the difference is made up in earnings, which rose by 8 per cent., though the output per unit rose by only 3 per cent.

Ethiopia: Detention of Former Royal Family
2.55 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they are making in their efforts to secure the release from custody of members of the former Royal Family of Ethiopia.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we regret that our many appeals to the Ethiopian Government to release the detained members of the former Ethiopian Royal Family have been of no avail. We have ensured, and we shall continue to ensure, that our concern is made clear to the Ethiopian authorities at every opportunity.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply and I am glad to hear that efforts are continuing. Is the noble Baroness aware that the ladies concerned, seven of whom are grand-daughters of the Emperor and who never held any political post whatever, have been imprisoned for 10 years? Is the noble Baroness further aware that they have to sleep on a damp floor with mattresses only and that at various times their health has suffered severely?
Furthermore, is the noble Baroness aware that they are the symbol of many other political prisoners in that country who are held in like circumstances? They were imprisoned on the excuse that it was to protect them from the wrath of the people. Does the noble Baroness not agree that perhaps the wrath of the people in the past 10 years has died down and has even turned into a longing for previous regimes?
Will the noble Baroness also enlist the help of our partners in Europe, to whom the Ethiopian Government may well be obliged for aid, and try to show that government that an act of clemency towards the royal prisoners and others would improve their name in the world and do them no harm? Will the noble Baroness see that we prosecute, along with Amnesty, vigorous measures to try to release these people?
Baronesss Hooper: My Lords, we are well aware that these prisoners have been kept in detention without charges since the revolution in 1974. We are, as I said, making every effort with our European partners to take every opportunity to remedy the situation. In fact, we have no information to suggest that the prisoners are being ill-treated or that they are in ill health. For example, we understand that their medical treatment, when necessary, has been adequate. However, we are fully aware of the difficulties of their situation.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, do not the particularly friendly links between this country and the former Emperor and his family—which became very intense when Mussolini attacked the country; indeed, the Emperor took refuge in this country—give us a special footing in this matter for intervention on the lines that the Government have already carried out? If these efforts fail through that kind of direct diplomatic exchange, can the matter be raised before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in answer to the first part of the noble and learned Lord's question I should say that nine members of the former Ethiopian Royal Family were released from custody under an amnesty in September 1983. In fact, one of them came to the United Kingdom for medical treatment and has been allowed to stay. Although Ministers have made clear our concern on numerous occasions, it is our assessment that any decision to release these prisoners is unlikely to be taken by the Ethiopians in response to external pressure.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is it not a fact that we in this country have a close association with the members of the Ethiopian Royal Family? Was not the Emperor a guest of this country for some years? Were not his grand-daughters educated in this country?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are well aware of those factors, none of which, unfortunately, necessarily carries great weight with the present Ethiopian Government.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell me when the last representations about the prisoners were made by this Government to the Ethiopian Government?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords; the Secretary of State raised this subject with the Ethiopian Foreign Minister in March last year and subsequently reiterated our concern to the new Ethiopian ambassador on his arrival in London in July last year. These of course were formal occasions, but there has been no lack of opportunities for informal representations to be made as well.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Baroness, but can she perhaps respond to my suggestion that we might enlist the help of our EEC partners?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I think I have already said that we are acting in co-operation with our European Community partners in this matter, and I feel sure that the Government will continue to do so.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I am not quite certain what was the answer to the question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. Although outside pressure may not be very effective, will the Minister say whether she thinks that it would be a good idea to raise this matter through some agency of the United Nations? After all, the Ethiopians are in receipt of immense aid from all over the world and it seems to me possible that some conditions could be attached to it.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have already responded to one part of the noble Lord's question. In replying now to the noble Lord I can answer specifically that as regards the suggestion of a United Nations resolution, or representations made through the United Nations, so far as I am aware no specific steps have been taken, but no doubt it is under consideration with the various governments concerned. Certainly where aid is given to Ethiopia in this context, particularly through the European Community, representations are always made in so far as human rights are concerned.

Marine Science and Technology: Report
3.1 p.m.
Lord Gregson Lord Gregson rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the Science and Technology Committee on Marine Science and Technology (2nd Report, 1985–86, H.L. 47).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for nearly 200 years this country was the foremost maritime nation in the world; there is considerable public and institutional concern regarding all matters relating to maritime affairs and there is a great deal of public debate in many forums. It was to be expected therefore that, when your Lordships' Select Committee decided to inquire into this important subject concerning maritime science and technology, there would be a considerable interest from many quarters, and there was. Evidence was received from over 100 organisations and individuals On behalf of the Select Committee I must express our gratitude to those very many people and organisations who helped us with our inquiries either by submitting written evidence or by coming and giving oral evidence. I should also like to place on record the committee's gratitude to those many people in Canada, the USA, Japan and France who took so much trouble to help us with our inquiries; and the committee is grateful indeed to its special advisers.
In opening this debate I said that the United Kingdom was pre-eminent in maritime affairs for nearly 200 years. Sadly, this is no longer the case and the recent rapid decline of shipbuilding and marine manufacture and of the fisheries industries has tended to screen this country's traditional dependence for over thousands of years on the sea and the seabed. Nonetheless, we are an island nation, and despite this decline the sea and the seabed are still of crucial importance to us. Many of our citizens live on the coast and around the estuaries, which are also areas of great recreational importance. The majority of our overseas trade is transported on the sea. The sea is an important depository for our waste products and it is a very important source of raw materials. Our naval capability is one of the United Kingdom's prime responsibilities under NATO; and now of course we have the offshore industries in the North Sea on a massive scale.
As pressure increases on the use of the existing threshold resources, there is no question in my mind but that the sea will become more and more important as a source of energy, food, raw materials and space. We alone of the Common Market have this abundance of opportunity and yet, despite our heritage in the marine environment, we seem to devote far more effort to the new technologies of space than we do to the bounty that lies all around us in the sea. Our knowledge of the shore, the sea and the seabed is incomplete. In some areas it is almost nonexistent. To me it is unbelievable that our marine environment is probably less understood and less well researched than the new frontiers of space. Within our existing territorial waters even mapping is incomplete. The role of the sea in dispersing and absorbing pollutants is only partially understood. Our understanding of the effects of climate are incomplete and speculative. We are neglecting our resources. There is a great deal of work to be done and the potential is very considerable indeed.
The Select Committee has inquired into a whole range of questions relating to this complex subject and I make no excuse, considering the importance to the nation of the potential opportunities offered by the sea and the seabed, that your Lordships' committee has

11
submitted 64 conclusions and recommendations. The House will no doubt be pleased to hear that I do not intend to explain them all this afternoon. However, I should like to present some of the more important issues for consideration and I have no doubt that the speakers who follow me in this debate will raise many of the other questions which arose during our inquiry.
These days it is almost axiomatic when discussing science and technology for the question of funding to be a primary issue, and I feel it is sad—indeed tragic—that I know I am talking to the deaf when I advance the arguments of the committee on this issue in the field of marine science and technology. Nonetheless, I believe that the subject is too important and too crucial to the nation to accept the Treasury's pre-emptive "No", even though I stand in your Lordships' House feeling like Oliver Twist.
Marine research is of critical importance to this country, but it is also expensive and other than in North Sea oil it is not an area where there are sufficient short-term gains for industry to provide alternative funding. Throughout the world it is recognised and accepted that funding of marine research and technology is a matter for government and it would be a clear abdication of responsibility for this Government not to recognise this fact. The reduction in the real value of Science Vote funding for marine research has now reached serious proportions and I have the greatest sympathy for the Natural Environment Research Council in its attempt to continue a meaningful research programme under a regime of such vicious budget cuts. It is really irresponsible of government to expect research councils to hire and fire devoted scientific staff in the way of the worst Victorian employers that this House did so much to reform. I ask that the Government carefully consider the first 13 paragraphs of chapter 5 of the report and only after careful consideration tell this House that they intend to reform their ways.
I said earlier that over many years the United Kingdom was foremost in marine research and that sadly this is no longer so. Yet, though it is important to recognise the limits of our resources, there is a balance to be struck. The budget of one of the many scientific marine institutions in the USA is 52 million dollars—and that is for one institution alone. That is approximately equivalent to two-thirds of total government spending on civil marine science and technology in the United Kingdom. In Japan, which is an island nation with some similarities to the United Kingdom in this field, investment of £1.25 billion is being made into institutional fishery developments for aquaculture over the next six years. While such comparisons need to be looked at in detail, the committee considers that there is no doubt that other countries are investing more in intensive marine research than is the United Kingdom.
The equipment and resources available in British marine laboratories are quickly becoming obsolete in comparison with their well-found foreign equivalents. In particular, the scale of engineering and computer support for researchers is significantly behind that available in France or Canada, let alone in the United States and Japan. In spite of the commissioning of the new and impressive research vessel, the "Charles
12
Darwin", there is a chronic shortage of ship time available for scientists both in universities and government research institutes. Not enough money is available even to keep the research vessels that we have at sea. One consequence of this lack of money is that the morale of researchers is suffering. The feeling in the United States was that a new exodus of United Kingdom scientists to United States laboratories was beginning.
The second question of immediate concern is the extraordinary fragmentation and lack of co-ordination of the United Kingdom effort on marine science and technology. In government, nine separate departments have some responsibilities for marine research. Two main marine research councils are involved, and there is a host of organisations and bodies involved at a local level. While the committee wishes to encourage a diversity of research approaches, these must be based on the support of excellence and must, in all conscience, stop short of anarchy.
The committee's conclusion, firmly based on the evidence submitted, was that in marine science and technology the piecemeal organisational framework detracted from the pursuit of excellence and led to inefficiencies in the conduct of research and in the dissemination of research results. This has reflected the general failure of the marine section to project a dynamic image and to publicise the economic and recreational potential of the oceans, a failing that appeared especially anomalous to the committee in comparison with the aerospace industries. Much of the committee's report is therefore concerned with identifying means of bringing together the various factors in marine research and encouraging the creation of a forward-looking approach to capitalise on the United Kingdom's position as an island nation with a long tradition of maritime activity.
Your committee was struck by the example of foreign countries where recognition of the importance of the seas has led to a more cohesive organisation to oversee marine research. In Japan, the national budget for marine R & D is set by the Ministry of Science and Technology which is directly under the control of the Prime Minister. The ministry has an overview of the marine science and technology programmes of government departments with whom it discusses their programmes of research, and it controls some activities directly in its own institutes. France has a similar system through the Ministry of Research and Technology under which there is a co-ordinating committee for marine science and technology. In the United States, which, like the United Kingdom, has no Minister for Science, there is a federal co-ordinating committee for science and technology that has a marine advisory committee. In addition, in France, there is a Ministry for the Sea, and in the United States, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which provide a vital focus for at least some users of the seas.
The commitee believes that it is equally desirable to establish a co-ordinating mechanism in the United Kingdom. A piecemeal approach may be sustainable when funds are abundant. Anarchy is expensive. When funds are short, projects requiring support from a range of agencies are less likely to be successful. The committee agrees with Sir Hermann Bondi that the

13
diffusion of effort in the United Kingdom leads to a danger that among the parochial concerns of each body the sponsorship of marine science and technology will suffer because it is generally not of paramount importance to any individual department. The ability to take an overview is needed to enable the collective impact of the separate policies of each department on the total effort in marine science to be recognised. Improved co-ordination will also avoid duplication of current research programmes. It will mean improved communication of, and accessibility to, scientific information, and provide a more economic use of resources, especially those requiring heavy capital investment.
The committee concluded that a central body was needed to promote and direct United Kingdom research. The committee spent some time debating what form such a body would take. In the end, it seemed most logical and suitable for it to be placed within the research council system, though strongly connected to customers for research in government departments and in industry. Because of its misgivings with regard to the management style of the NERC, the committee's own preference was that SERC should establish a new marine board to take on its own and NERC's marine research and to provide integrated management of research in universities and polytechnics.
In addition to the necessity to co-ordinate, there is need for a long-term strategy. There is no way, with a subject as fundamental as our marine environment, that we can chop and change on a short-term basis in an area of activity with time-cycles as long as 10 and sometimes 20 years. One of the first tasks of such a marine board, as we propose, is to establish a long-term strategy.
It must be apparent that marine environment is not simply parochial to the United Kingdom or even to Europe. In parallel with space and the earth sciences, it is above all a global science. An essential part therefore of our science and technology activity must be undertaken on a regional and more and more on a totally international basis. This has been recognised in the past. Your committee was pleased to hear from many international witnesses how highly they regard the United Kingdom effort and contribution to international progress. But they also expressed their utter dismay at the chopping and changing, stop and start attitude of the United Kingdom Government to the long-term international programmes.
For the United Kingdom to take part in an international programme of considerable technological meaning to the United Kingdom, to establish an enthusiastic staff contribution and then to withdraw support so that our United Kingdom representatives are rejected from the committee's structure and the programme, but afterwards to come back and say, "I am terribly sorry; it was all a mistake; we would really like to rejoin", is ludicrous. These sorts of antics on the deep-hole drilling programme, I would suggest, should never be allowed to happen again.
International programmes are cost-effective but they should only be supported on the basis of a long-term strategy. To play cat and mouse with our international collaborators on the basis of internal
14
United Kingdom departmental politics is unforgivable. The committee considers that marine science and technology has an important contribution to make to the future economic wellbeing of this country. We have the most excellent scientists devoted to this field of study. They are presently demoralised and unsure of their future. We are warned in the United States that the brain drain from this area is rapidly developing. It must not be allowed to happen. The Government must think again. It is important that they respond positively to the recommendations that your committee has made.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the Science and Technology Committee on Marine Science and Technology (2nd Report, 1985–86, H.L. 47).—(Lord Gregson).
3.18 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, it is a pleasure for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, and to congratulate him on his fluent and cogent speech commending his report to your Lordships. We arc all proud of our great maritime tradition in this country. It is sad news to read this report and to see how far we are slipping. Undoubtedly, the noble Lord, together with his assiduous noble colleagues, has called the attention of this House to the seriousness of the situation, to how much is at stake and to possible lines on which we might proceed in the future. I should like to congratulate him most warmly on an excellent report and to thank him for putting it before us.
The major point which the noble Lord revealed was the inadequacy of Government funding, which is low now and is set on a decreasing scale—it is already far short of an adequate level and much less than that of the other maritime nations which he mentioned, such as the United States, Japan and even France—and that we are missing opportunities and shall miss more around the world both on our own shores and throughout the oceans of the world. Unless we can mount a greater research effort and provide bigger funds, we shall simply fall out of the big league.
My noble friend Lord Swinton, who will answer us and who speaks for the Government, must take on board this sombre message and consider it in the context of the national budgeting to see whether more can be spared for this very important part of our national life. I should say that I address these words to my noble friend with the deference due to a Minister of a Government which, by firmly controlling national spending within our national income, has reduced inflation in this country to approximately 3 per cent. for the first time for a quarter of a century. I am not asking my noble friend for a change in this policy, which has brought such tremendous benefits to our people. I am asking him to take on board the very cogent message which the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, has put over to us in his report as to what is at stake unless we can provide more.
The report's second major point, which the noble Lord elucidated for our benefit, was the need for better co-ordination of the research effort. Of course, he made his point extremely well. The report also sets it out in very great detail and the analysis is most persuasive. Quite obviously, the less there is available the more carefully one must co-ordinate the various

15
activities to make sure that one gets the best possible result.
The noble Lord dealt with the complexity, if not apparently the confusion, at Government department level and then explained to us his thought on the marine board. At present we have the Natural Environment Research Council, which is the leading partner in this scene, taking the greater part in marine research; and the Scientific Engineering Research Council, which takes the lesser part. The report is entirely convincing in demonstratng that there is fragmentation in the present structure and lack of an adequate long-term strategy.
I am bound to say that I found the arguments in favour of a marine board very persuasive. The prospect of making better use of our limited resources in this way is clearly attractive. However, setting the marine board within the Scientific Engineering Research Council—the junior partner in the enterprise—would involve certain penalties which I felt were not fully dealt with in this report. A major virtue of the structure of the Natural Environment Research Council is that it covers the entire field of the environment, land as well as sea. This is a great strength because of the perspective that it can bring to bear in its considerations and the contributions that it can make.
This report of the noble Lord makes a recommendation which I think adds a certain additional weight to the point I am making. The recommendation is that Britain should without delay declare a full Exclusive Economic Zone around our
200-mile band of coastal waters and develop a policy for its comprehensive management and exploitation. That seems very good sense to me. But obviously in that context NERC is far the better qualified to handle such a development because full development of the coastal shelf of 200 miles as an Exclusive Economic Zone involves land-based as well as marine considerations. I think that this makes the point I had in mind when I read his recommendation that the location where this marine board is to be based should be given a great deal of consideration. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Swinton and his ministerial colleagues will give great weight to the detailed analysis and arguments about this innovation which the report puts before them. But I should have thought, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, may agree with me on this, that, before reaching a final conclusion, they would wish to see the next report which this indefatigable Select Committee is about to produce on the structure of research councils.
The noble Lord knows far more about the subject than I do but it is a very complex structure and so many of these matters are a balance of judgment between the different arguments. I daresay that Ministers would like the benefit of that report before they finally reach their conclusion. I dare say too that they would also like to see how the new corporate plan of NERC is working out under the leadership of its new chairman and whether its management style is making the desired improvement.
In the meantime I should like to add one more personal point of interest. I should like especially to thank the Select Committee for the light which their
16
report has thrown on the subject now under study by Sub-Committee G of the EC Select Committee. That is the EC's directive to reduce the pollution in the North Sea by reducing by 50 per cent. the dumping of sewage sludge in the North Sea. This sounds a dull subject. However, if noble Lords understood how much we depend on dumping large quantities of sewage sludge in the North Sea, they would realise that this is a pretty serious matter. We dump—not only in the North Sea but all round our coasts—on selected spots large quantities of sewage sludge. It is very carefully monitored. It has been for years. We are satisfied from the monitoring that is carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and to some extent by the DoE, that the result is not polluting. But this report calls attention to the need for the water authorities, which are primarily concerned—it is their sewage sludge—the DoE, which is next concerned, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (together they form the Marine Pollution Monitoring Management Group) to review existing monitoring activity with a view to developing an agreed definition of factors to be measured and, equally important, the archiving and the public presentation of data collected.
The evidence which our Sub-Committee G has heard from the Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Ministry of Biological Association indicates that monitoring of dumping sites has been methodically done for years with satisfactory results which conform with the Oslo and London conventions. But this good news does not seem to have reached the august ears of the European Commissioners in Brussels, because this directive is directly aimed at the British practice; nobody else does it. Our sub-committee have yet to receive any scientific evidence of the polluting effect of this controlled sludge dumping. However, we have already received evidence that the discharge of heavy metals in the estuaries of Continental rivers such as the River Rhine is on a very large scale and is making a major contribution to North Sea pollution.
It is early days to predict the shape of the sub-committee's report, but even at this stage I feel sure that we shall agree with Recommendations 9.33, 9.34 and 9.35 in the noble Lord's report about strengthening the monitoring system. Clearly, it is up to those of us in Britain who wish to continue this practice to publish the evidence showing that our sludge dumping at sea is carefully monitored, is acceptable and does not pollute. That is in our interests and clearly up to now we have not done that effectively. Therefore, we are very grateful to the noble Lord and his report for calling attention to this point, and I am sure we shall do so too.
I should like to conclude by once again thanking the noble Lord for a most valuable report to which I am sure the Government will give the closest attention. On behalf of us all I should like to congratulate him on his achievement.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, and his sub-committee on the excellent work contained in their report. I should also like to congrat

17
ulate the noble Lord on the eloquence with which he presented it. Many of us have known for a long time that what he describes is indeed the situation, but surely the full range of evidence that he has laid before the House will now persuade even the most reluctant of the need for really urgent action to get things back on the rails.
I should like to take up a few crucial points which are all contained in Chapter 1 of the report. The report says that:
"knowledge of the seas remains extremely uneven".
That is indeed so. In our coastal shipping lanes there are still patches which have not been surveyed since I do not know when; perhaps the early 19th century. At any rate, the dates of the latest survey of the sea bed round our coastal shipping lanes vary from last year, which is desirable, to 100 years ago, and in some places more. It also says:
"marine science… depends largely on governments for support".
Marine science is international. Support for marine science is not international, except in very small measure through UNESCO, which we have just left. Public support for marine science is national and it comes from governments. How could this not be so? The very purpose of government is to do for its people, its entrepreneurs and its industries what they cannot—whether as individuals or in large and even economically powerful groups—conveniently and safely do for themselves. A sufficient infrastructure of maritime policy and administration is a requirement of a healthy industry, in any country, from the government of that country. Marine industries in this country are now not receiving it.
The report says that it is:
"difficult to identify particular customer departments for research"—
that means government departments—
"… in the absence in the UK of any specific body with oversight of the whole marine environment".
The report then says that this situation leads to:
"lack of focus, duplication or dissipation of effort and a failure to detect and exploit new opportunities".
Indeed, that is exactly so, and some of us, both in the Labour Party and on these Benches, have been saying it for 10 to 12 years past. The present Government turned back the clock, and it is now time to turn it forward again.
The report further says that there is insufficient funding and that the:
"commissioning activities of departments, under the Rothschild system, … have declined".
I think it is fair to use the famous remark: "They would, wouldn't they?" One of their first acts when the present Government came to office in 1979 was the abolition of the Lord Privy Seal's co-ordinating role in maritime policy formulation. Although it is not very well known, if is one of the most damaging and ill-considered acts ever taken by this Government. When Mr. Callaghan was Prime Minister he first created the post of Co-ordinator of Maritime Policy and appointed to it Lord Peart, then Leader of this House. That was in response to a debate in this House on the country's "need for sea-use management and planning". That need has steadily increased over the years, while the level of the Government's ability to
18
meet it has steadily decreased, and at no moment more sharply and tragically than in 1979 when they first came into office.
The report states:
"The level of capability … is being run down almost across the board. This is in direct contrast to many of our international competitors".
That is quite true. For a government well known for their attachment to and belief in the bracing effects of competition, it is amazing that they should be unwilling to play even a normal role in competing with other governments in this field. Competition is very virtuous among British firms, according to the Government. It is very virtuous between British firms and firms of other countries. But if it can be shown—and how splendidly it has been shown in this report—that firms of other countries with which our firms are expected to compete very largely rely on government funding and enterprise for research in these matters, why is it not equally virtuous for the British Government to compete with foreign governments? What is the difference between that sort of competition and competition of other sorts, and why does the Government's nerve fail them at the point when the Government, as an economic actor, are required to compete?
The report says that:
"the oceans must be managed on an international basis by those who use them";
of course. Britain must very soon sign the Law of the Sea Convention, which is now the basic text for all who use the oceans. Only the United States, Britain and one or two other countries stand aside from that achievement.
The report also says:
"The Committee have chosen to view marine science and technology as a whole … A multidisciplinary approach is essential".
The committee is very right to say so. Is it possible to hope that this multidisciplinary approach is what the Government have in mind for the hived-off Marine Technology Directorate, about which the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, was kind enough to give a full and helpful Written Answer to me quite recently? Perhaps it is; or perhaps it is not. The absence of the word "science" from the directorate's title and its removal from the orbit of the Science and Engineering Research Council could augur yet more kinds of fragmentation at yet greater arm's length from the unavoidable centre of maritime policy formation which is, or ought to be, the Government themselves.
The House has now received this report. There is also the report of the sub-committee of Lord Rochdale on European shipping policy. Last summer, in answer to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, the Leader of the House did not close the door on the noble Lord's proposal that there should be a Select Committee of this House on British shipping. He implied that that could well be possible when there was staff capacity available. I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, whether at the end of the debate he can give us some news about that possibility now.
It seems that sub-committees of Select Committees start their work and conclude it, and then another sub-committee starts, and that staff are not being devoted to this new and larger possibility which was—I

19
shall not say dangled before the House—permitted to be mentioned in the House last June or July. I quite understand that the Select Committees of this House are probably not the most popular institutions in Parliament in the view of the Government, and I am very glad to welcome the fact that this is now the second sub-committee report in succession which the Government have not rubbished before it is published. So we are coming on, and maybe the time will come when we shall be able to go yet further.
That leads me to my final point. Let me take this opportunity of urging once again, as I have before, the setting up of a Select Committee of this House, not on shipping, not on marine research, not on marine pollution, not on the law of the sea, not on dumping, whether radioactive or sewage, not on hydro-carbon extraction, or sand and gravel extraction, or the navy, or shipbuilding, or ship chartering, or marine insurance, or marine education, or marine development aid, or port administration, or coastal zones, or fisheries; not on any of these things, but on British maritime policy as a whole. It is in the marine sector as a whole that our country, and our country alone, has suffered a catastrophic economic decline over the past 10 or 15 years.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, as a member of your Lordships' committee on this subject I should like to pay my tribute to our chairman, Lord Gregson. His experience and the penetrating vigour with which he led our inquiry made an invaluable contribution to it. He left no pebble on the beach unturned in his quest for something of interest to marine science and technology underneath, however prickly or slimy it might turn out to be. I should also like to follow him in saying how much we owe to our specialist advisers, the oceanographer Professor Charnock, and the marine biologist Professor Naylor.
Our study covered a wide field and I propose to concentrate my comments on two aspects only: first, the relation of the Ministry of Defence and defence interests to the field we studied; and, secondly, the wider issue which goes beyond the strict remit of the study, and which is very much to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has just been making, of how we as a nation and our governmental machine address our interests in the whole maritime field. I would not pretend to be as great an expert on these subjects as my dark blue noble and gallant colleagues, neither of whom is here, I am sorry to say. All I can say, as a former admiral of the Army Sailing Association, is that I frequently came into contact with the elements, particularly when my dinghy capsised.
First of all I shall deal with the defence field. The paragraphs in the report which are relevant to this are paragraphs 28 to 34 of Chapter 2, paragraph 21 of Chapter 3, paragraphs 11 to 17 of Chapter 4, paragraphs 30 to 33 of Chapter 7, and recommendations 41 to 48 in Chapter 9. It is an indication of the fragmentation of responsibility for marine affairs among different government departments, to which the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, referred, that it is impossible to discover from the annual review of government expenditure how much of Government
20
funds is devoted to marine science. Indeed, had it not been for your Lordships' committee, that document would not even exist, and we must thank our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, for that.
But your sub-committee, my Lords, delved into the murky waters and extracted the information that about £70 million a year is at present spent on civil research and that the Ministry of Defence spends about £100 million; three-quarters is spent by the Admiralty Research Establishment, the Hydrographer of the Navy and the Met. Office accounting for most of the rest. Of the £77 million spent by ARE on research, £50 million is spent in house, £23 million in industry and only £3 million in the universities. Only 7 per cent. of the total is devoted to long-term research. Almost all the rest is directly related to the development of ships, their weapon systems and, to a certain extent, their communications.
This situation has been criticised on many grounds. It was criticised by members of the committee, by those who gave evidence to us, and often by others. There are those who suggest that if some of the money devoted to defence research and development were diverted to the civil field, not only would the nation gain generally but so also would defence. The simple answer to that, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, an ex-Secretary of State for Defence, would give if he were here, is—as he often said in the committee—that the money is voted by Parliament for defence purposes and must be spent to provide equipment for the armed forces, and that if it were not so voted, there is little chance that it would be added to the R & D votes of other departments.
A second criticism is that there is not enough spin-off into the civil field from the research and development financed by the Ministry of Defence, and that this is due to the obsessive concern of the defence establishment with security. That this is a much more complex matter than appears at first sight was made clear by the very significant report made by Sir Ieuan Maddock in February 1983 to the Electronics Development Council of Neddy, entitled Civil Exploitation of Defence Technology. I commend it to those of your Lordships who are interested in the subject. His report refuted both those who claimed that it was only the obtuseness and lack of imagination of the defence establishment which stood in the way of a fruitful spin-off, and also those who claimed that there was already a significant spin-off: that money spent on defence is indirectly of considerable benefit to the civil economy. Sir Ieuan made clear that both the ministry and the major industrial defence contractors saw the spin-off primarily in terms of defence sales overseas or as a contribution to the civil aviation industry, which in many ways is rather like defence.
However, I am glad to say that the Ministry of Defence took note of his report and of the seminar which they themselves organised on this subject in 1982; and I am also glad to say that they have taken some steps to try to improve matters. One of them is the establishment of Development Technology Enterprises Limited, which was announced in last year's Defence White Paper. However, I must say that I doubt if that will make more than a very marginal impact in the field of marine science and technology.

21
The ministry's policy of running down their research and development establishments in favour of farming out R & D to industry, which is the opposite of what Sir Ieuan recommended, will not help. The giant defence contractors will get it all and they will plough it back into defence. What is needed, as his report suggested, is an extension of contacts between the Ministry of Defence research and development establishments and firms which are not primarily working in the defence field. That would very much apply to marine science.
The final main criticism is that the Ministry of Defence devotes little effort or finance to fostering fundamental research. The United States Navy's Office of Naval Research is quoted as an example. It funds projects in universities and independent research institutes on a wide scale, with a liberal attitude towards security and a strong emphasis on fundamental scientific research. The marine sciences—oceanography, biology, meteorology and all the disciplines connected with the sea—benefit greatly from that. So why, the critics say, should the Ministry of Defence not do likewise?
The answers usually given are the expected ones: the one that I suggest the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, would give—that Parliament does not grant money to the Ministry of Defence to spend for that purpose—and that the United States defence budget is so huge that they can afford that sort of extravagance. There are also historical factors involved.
Nevertheless, of all the criticisms made of the apparent imbalance between civil and defence R & D spending in the marine field, I believe this one to be the most valid. We need to remember that the present Institute of Oceanographic Science, which is doing excellent work within the limits of its finance, started life as part of the Admiralty research establishment. It was set up in the last war when the navy, who were under the impression that Britannia ruled the waves, discovered that in fact they knew nothing about them; and that was especially so when they neared the land. That was important when they had to try to put people like myself ashore, as they did at Salerno and on the beaches of Normandy.
Although I do not for a moment suggest that we should reverse the process by which the Admiralty was absorbed into the Ministry of Defence, nevertheless one of the disadvantages of it has been that there is no department of state which feels itself responsible for everything to do with the sea. I shall shortly revert to that as my second point, but before I do so I would urge the Ministry of Defence to take a broader view of how it spends its money on research and to increase its extra-mural funding of basic research in universities which might conceivably have some future relevance to defence.
Its present policy would not have encouraged research into steam propulsion for ships, into submarines, into heavier-than-air flying machines, into radar, into jet engines for aircraft, or indeed into atomic fission. The relationship which the old Air Ministry established with the Met. Office, and which is still continued by the Ministry of Defence with the Met. Office, and the latter's enlightened and successful exploitation of science and technology, seem to me to be an example which might well be followed by the
22
naval side of the Ministry of Defence in respect of marine science and technology.
I have already led into my second subject: how the Government deal, or do not deal, with the whole field of maritime affairs. That goes well beyond the remit of your Lordships' committee, but many of the unsatisfactory aspects that our report uncovers stemmed from it. If anything is to result from two of the most important recommendations of the report, something will have to be done about it.
I refer to recommendations 9, 13 and 14. The first is that a long-term view needs to be taken of national research priorities, for which we suggest that one step is the setting up of the marine board; and the second is that a major consideration of research strategy should be the investigation, exploration and exploitation of the exclusive economic zone.
I was much impressed by a phrase used by one of the witnesses who gave evidence to us. It was that the seas around us were just as much a part of the national estate as the land, and their management should receive the same degree of attention. The trouble is that there is no Cabinet Minister who feels it is his responsibility for dealing with the broad field of maritime matters; nobody who, when the annual review of research and development is considered, should draw attention to the needs of marine science and technology. As I have already mentioned, its he did exist he would be hard put to it to find out what is going on.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Scottish Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Ministry of Defence, the Departments of Energy, Environment, Transport, and Trade and Industry are all involved. Of them, the records of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and its Scottish sister are much the best. I shall not tell your Lordships who is the worst, but I could.
The Rothschild principle, which is supposed to see that they provide sufficient funds for science in support of their responsibilities, is certainly not working so far as marine science is concerned. I can imagine what happens when all those Ministers assemble to consider the annual review of research and development. As they pick up their papers to hurry to the Cabinet meeting, they glance at a brief from their private secretary which says something like this: "Minister, there is no need for you to read the report. I have flagged the pages which refer to our department's expenditure. If you are criticised for spending too much, a suggested answer is at flag X; if for too little, at flag Y."
It would have been outside our terms of reference to address ourselves to what the solution to that should be. Some countries have a Ministry of Marine, some a Ministry of Science and Technology. As the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, mentioned, France has both, as well as a Ministry of Defence. In previous centuries, the Admiralty exercised the function to a certain degree, but I would not recommend that the Secretary of State for Defence should be further burdened with that responsibility now. He has inherited quite enough on his plate already.
But it seems to me to be a serious matter, highlighted by this report, that this country, which is

23
so dependent on the sea in many different ways and has such a great maritime experience, has no department of government or individual in Cabinet who feels responsible for watching over our varied maritime interests to which science and, technology can contribute so much; and, what is more, for doing something about it. In this field, if we do not swim fast enough or strongly enough, we shall sink.
3.54 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I intervene in this debate in support of the recommendations made by the committee which was so ably and energetically chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Gregson. After his quite brilliant speech, if I may say so, I am particularly proud to have had the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, as a colleague. I have served on a number of committees and commissions in scientific fields, but, I can say today, on none which seemed to me at once more important and more baffling than the one with which we are now concerned.
Underlying all our detailed work and investigation at home and in the United States, Canada, France and Japan there was one major theme, one great unanswered question, which has been touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, in opening this debate. The question is: if Britain, in its impoverished state, has to make a choice for the next two or possibly three decades of major scientific effort on the international stage, ought we to concentrate on space research and its application in its various guises, or should we take much more seriously than we are now doing the potential of the oceans? From that follows the further question: how can we make an intelligent choice when our current organisation for dealing with marine science and technology is so hopelessly fragmented and lacking in firm leadership? Those considerations were in our minds throughout our investigation.
In our studies, as I think your Lordships know, we became so much frustrated by the gaps in our national scientific organisation that we have now embarked on a wider study under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield. But today we must resist the temptation to stray into that wider field and concentrate our minds on the more specific area of marine science and technology with which the report we are debating was concerned.
The introductory chapter of the report sets the scene very simply. As we say, the marine environment is both less understood and more hostile than space. Yet it has a potential which our rapidly developing technology could unlock. It is also an essential element in the necessary research into climatic and other changes, which can have the most serious effects in the future on the wellbeing of not only our national but our global existence.
Although as an island Britain has a strong domestic interest and historical and expertise in marine affairs, today the stage is, and must be, international. To have any major effect we must collaborate and co-ordinate with appropriate partners. I was able to take part in our visits to Canada, the United States and France. I did not go to Japan. It was both gratifying and galling in Halifax and at Woods Hole in Massachusetts to find
24
that the directors of two of the major research establishments on the other side of the Atlantic hailed from the United Kingdom, one from Plymouth and the other from Aberdeen. I should say that the Canadians had some problems not entirely dissimilar from our own, but at Woods Hole and later at Brest one had a sense of well-found, well-supported, confident institutions, one basically privately financed and the other mainly publicly funded.
I wish we could say the same of our own. As we point out on page 53 of the report, the budget for the government marine research agency at Brest, Ifremer, is equivalent to that of all marine public sector civil research in the United Kingdom. Yet Ifremer, although it covers important biological and other work, is primarily the technological arm of French public marine research, with a number of other institutions responsible for basic science and for specialised investigations. The noble Lord, Lord Gregson, has given other examples of the way in which we are simply not keeping up with our immediate neighbours, let alone with the United States or Japan.
We have of course some first-class work in Britain, but as we say again on page 13:
"The level of capability in marine science and technology in the UK is being run down almost across the board".
Morale is low, and the gestures made since our committee started its questioning are certainly not sufficient to inspire any significant return of confidence. I shall come back to that in a moment.
There are two other international aspects on which I wish to touch. I hestitate to mention one of them because it has been so admirably, thoroughly and authoritatively dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Carver. But I must tell the House that nothing was more striking in our talks in Washington with the major scientific and governmental establishments than the relatively open attitude of the American defence research officials compared with our own. Their philosphy is, it appeared to me, to classify only if you must. Ours seems to be keep everything under wraps unless forced to disclose it. I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Carver, has said about Sir Ieuan Maddock's report, but he also explained to the House what has been the result, or lack of it, of the recommendations made by Sir Ieuan. But it seemed to a person like myself in our discussions in Washington and from our witnesses here in the Palace of Westminster that at least in the United States industry is encouraged to benefit from relevant defence research whereas we on the contrary seem to be organised to minimise the spin-off.
The other international factor which is of supreme importance in this field is how are we to maintain the standing of the United Kingdom as an actual or potential partner at a European or on a wider basis. Here our behaviour over the ocean drilling programme, touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, is supremely relevant. Although we have now ultimately rejoined the club, our vacillation and delay brought us into complete and ludicrous disrepute among our international partners. It has already been mentioned that our scientists were actually banned from attending the planning committees and, as deepsea work has to be planned a couple of years ahead, it means that we have now lost

25
out on the earlier stages of work on the new programme, even though we are now members of the organisation itself.
Fortunately our status has to some extent been rescued by the success of Gloria—the sonar heroine of the Institute of Oceanographic Sciences at Wormley. This is largely due not only to the admirable work done at IOS itself, but its further advances have been very much encouraged by the important partnership which the institute has established with Marconi. The ship, which has been for some time on lease to the United States Geological Survey, is back in home waters, and the newly-built Gloria mark III will take its place any time now on the other side of the Atlantic. There is a further vessel due to be commissioned here early next year. These developments ought to open the way for the Natural Environment Research Council research vessel "Charles Darwin" and Gloria to collaborate in the proposed ocean drilling work in the Indian Ocean and possibly the Western Pacific in 1987 and 1988.
This is very gratifying, but the French and Germans are already working in the areas in the Pacific where we should be. There are so many islands in that part of the world that almost every space is someone's Exclusive Economic Zone. There is hardly any international water left. There is not only our own domestic Exclusive Economic Zone which we ought to work in with much more enthusiasm than we have done hitherto, but there is this experimental work in other areas of the world on the EEZs which plainly offers opportunities for rewarding scientific and commercial endeavour. It does not help for us to be seen to be lagging behind.
To return to the United Kingdom itself: recent developments there may be but they are hardly spectacular. I shall not go into the details of the rather sombre game of musical chairs being played at NERC in Scotland and elsewhere.
Some of the problems have been touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. They are indeed difficult, but the current solutions so far available seem to be, it would be fair to say, parochial and internal to NERC rather than being elements in solving the major problem with which we are concerned in our report.
On 20th March we had a reply from the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, to the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, on the handing over by SERC of its Marine Technology Directorate to the care of the Fellowship of Engineering. I found his Answer slightly obscure, but subsequent inquiries have shown that this particular rearrangement may be advantageous. I am told that the new body will be a company limited by guarantee and therefore not a profit distributing commercial venture. Other government departments and firms will take part and I am also assured that university interests will be safeguarded. As far as it goes this re-organisation no doubt has some promise if one regards it in isolation. But again it does not solve the central problem.
The other recent move has come from Mr. Geoffrey Pattie, the Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry. On 24th January he issued a press notice rather ambitiously titled Resources from the Sea. It was followed by an inter-departmental seminar on 14th March. At least it sounded encouraging, until
26
one realised that the resources were peanuts (or whatever the marine equivalent should be: I suppose winkles). The sum involved is £3 million over three years with industry expected to make up 75 per cent. or, in certain circumstances, 50 per cent. of the balance according to various rules. Frankly, that is not much "cop", to put it vulgarly. That will not put us back into the place which we ought to occupy in the marine endeavours of the globe. Nowhere have we seen any sign of the major shift to co-ordinated policy for which we asked in our report. It is not too late. We can only hope, though I very much doubt whether our aspirations will be met by the speech we are looking forward to from the noble Earl, Lord Swinton.
As to the resources which we ought to be putting into this field of endeavour, all I can say is that when one thinks of what we ought to be doing for the poorest sector of our society and what we ought to be investing for our scientific future, I for one (and I am sure many people feel the same as I do) think of that penny off the income tax, and I should like metaphorically to throw it back in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's face.
4.9 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, ignoring income tax and sticking to the subject in question, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, as chairman of the sub-committee and the two members of that committee, the noble and gallant Lord and the noble Baroness who have spoken just before me, on what I consider to be an extremely important, timely and comprehensive report. Taken with the two volumes of evidence which are of equal importance, I think that this set of volumes provides a unique and valuable review of marine science and technology at this present time.
I am a member of the Natural Environment Research Council, but I do not think that it is appropriate for me to take any particular steps to elaborate on the present rearrangements that are being undertaken by that council, except to say that there has now been appointed a Director of Marine Sciences, and one of his responsibilities will be to co-ordinate the activities of NERC in this field.
In a personal capacity I should like to highlight the importance of marine science from two aspects: first, the science that is needed to back national policy decisions; and, secondly, just a few examples among the many of science which has significant potential for profitable commercial development.
In the first, I strongly support the views of the Select Committee on the urgent need to focus research attention on the resources of the national Exclusive Economic Zone. The EEZ opens a new frontier for national enterprise. It increases at least twofold the territorial area over which the international community recognises our national rights and over which we thereby also exert national responsibilities for proper care of the environment.
The technology already exists to conduct a comprehensive resource survey and, as the report shows, this has yet to be done. We urgently need to understand more fully the physical and biological processes—and I repeat "urgently"—in order to plan the wise use and the management of the United

27
Kingdom EEZ. By "management" in these terms I mean the science-based programme for rational exploitation on a sustainable basis; that is to say, taking the benefits without causing incidental damage to the unharvested resources, especially to the living resources. I agree with the Select Committee very strongly that our Government should give increased priority to investigations of all aspects of the EEZ. This is a clear example of research of a strategic nature that is appropriate to be commissioned under the contractor-customer principle (which is sometimes called "the Rothschild principle").
Secondly, and closer to the horizon, there are urgent, immediate priorities for research needed to back up the United Kingdom's position on the international scene. Towards the end of 1987 we shall be hosts to the revolving North Sea conference, the international conference on the protection of the North Sea, and already within the relevant departments planning for our national position must be in hand. The papers that emanated from the previous conference held in Bremen in October 1984—and Annex A, in particular—called for particular actions to protect the marine environment of the North Sea. On several of these the United Kingdom is at issue with other coastal states over practices which have major economic implications for us.
The attitude of those states which border the southern North Sea, especially The Netherlands, the Federal Republic of Germany and Denmark, is naturally coloured by their appreciation of the vulnerability of the shallow inshore waters of the Wadden Sea and of the German Bight. Another coastal nation, Sweden, is all too familiar with the critical pollution that has overtaken the Baltic Sea. With regard to pollution of the marine environment, the United Kingdom persistently asserts that "environmental quality objectives is a basic principle of United Kingdom policy towards the aquatic environment". This quotation can be found, for instance, in Annex 5 of the Seventh Annual Report of the Paris Commission on the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-based Sources; but it is a familiar quotation to those of us who are concerned with the control and prevention of aquatic pollution.
Unfortunately, the application of the system of environmental quality objectives is widely misunderstood—and, I think, sometimes deliberately misunderstood—among our Continental neighbours and is often described in the most disparaging terms. United Kingdom practices differ from those of our Continental neighbours, first, in the marine disposal of sewage sludge, a point which has already been stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. The amount of sewage that is disposed at sea by United Kingdom waste-disposal authorities is a large fraction of the total.
We are aware, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, stressed, that sites are monitored. This has shown that there is some local degradation of the sea bottom but, if we are to avoid international anathema, we must intensify our scientific effort not to demonstrate merely that there is no serious degradation of the sea
28
bed beyond a limited zone but also to quieten the serious concerns of our maritime neighbours around the North Sea that we are repeatedly, persistently and deliberately adding to the load of potential poisons. Secondly, I believe that in any overall waste-disposal strategy—which has been a topic that has attracted your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology, again under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Gregson—there must remain an option for the marine incineration of hazardous wastes, especially for chlorinate compounds.
I had an interesting conversation towards the end of last year with a large German chemical company that has been operating a marine incineration ship off the shore in the southern North Sea. It admits that there are clouds of gaseous acid hydrogen chloride which extend up to a mile and a half around the ship. But it is also fully aware that the buffering capacity of the sea is absolutely superb and that this acid gas does not extend significantly to the land. It has identified attributable acid inputs arriving at the Dutch frontier as 12 grammes per annum. This is an utterly trivial figure in relation to the enormous quantities of naturally-occurring hydrogen chloride acid gas which arise by the equilibrium of salt in the sea and moisture and which naturally occur in the atmosphere.
Nonetheless, this company is abandoning the practice under political pressure. The alternatives of land-based disposal facilities are more expensive and in many ways more difficult to operate.
The third point which must still remain an important element in our strategy, at least to be discussed, is the marine disposal of low-level radioactive wastes. Professor Holliday's report is referred to—and Professor Holliday himself came before the committee—in Volume II in pages 227 and following. There has also recently been issued a study by a Department of Environment professional group on best practical environmental options for the disposal of such wastes. It is clear from discussion, as I say, that marine disposal must remain an option, provided that it can be guaranteed safe and sound.
In all these areas the thinking between the United Kingdom and our maritime partners around the shores of the North Sea, and indeed of the Commission of the European Communities, as has been mentioned, is heavily influenced by what is nowadays called the "Precautionary Principle". This principle, as I understand it, was first clearly enunciated by the Committee of Environmental Experts of the Federal Republic of Germany in its report on the North Sea. This principle is strongly opposed to the release of any potentially harmful substance to the marine environment.
I would support the traditional definition of "pollution"; that is, one which potentially causes actual harm to the environment. But I consider it absolutely imperative that the United Kingdom should deploy to the full, irrefutable scientific evidence that the sea is capable of absorbing, buffering and neutralising the substances that we wish to introduce to it. I believe that Her Majesty's Government need to increase commissioned research in this field. I believe that more than mere monitoring is necessary and that predictive analysis will be necessary in order to restore

29
the confidence of our partners in the Community and our fellow maritime states round the North Sea.
I said I would also mention areas of research where I believe there are distinct commercial opportunities. One of those is, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, mentioned in a jocular fashion, wave research. As an example, for each metre of wave height that an oil rig has to withstand, the consequent costs on design are £3 million; that is, £3 million per metre. So there is a very clear economic value in reliable predictions of wave height in varying conditions in the marine environment. Secondly, sparing the blushes of my noble friend Lady Hooper, GLORIA has resulted, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, has said, in an important contract worth £15 million over three years in the survey of the Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States. GLORIA provides a facility that is undoubtedly a valuable tool which could be more widely marketed.
Among the many staff of the Natural Environment Research Council who amaze me with their expositions of their research in the marine environment, I was lately particularly intrigued by that undertaken by Professor Sargeant, who heads the research unit at the University of Stirling, and who has been doing work into the fat-rich marine micro-organisms. These organisms consist, in their bodies, of an enormous proportion of polyunsaturated oils, which are of course thought to be particularly beneficial in the human diet. There is great potential for the commercial culture of such marine organisms. I have given just three examples where we are on the threshold of important scientific developments that clearly have great commercial potential.
The theme that was stressed in the report, and which has been echoed in the debate this afternoon, is the over-riding problem of co-ordinating the national research effort in marine science and technology. I strongly support the remarks of the Select Committee in paragraphs 5.14 to 5.19; but if the solution is a marine board I echo the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, in so far as I am concerned that such a board should not jeopardise the vital unity of environ-mental research which is at present co-ordinated under the Natural Environment Research Council. The structure of NERC reflects the essential integrity of the natural environment itself.
I will give two examples. For instance, in estuarine studies it is quite impossible to separate the land, freshwater and marine components of the system. On the subject of acid deposition or acid rain, which is extremely topical at the minute, although man-made inputs may tip the critical balance, there are already huge natural inputs of acid sulphate, acid chloride, nitrate and other chemicals from the sea into the air. Unless the mechanisms by which they are transferred from one medium to another are clearly understood and their reactions in these two media are fully researched, any effort to control the man-made inputs may in fact be an expensive waste of time.
In the course of their inquiry, the committee members were no doubt impressed by the effectiveness of the marine technology directorate which was in SERC from 1977 but which has now been transferred to the fellowship of engineering. There were also comments by SERC witnesses that the component
30
elements within or under the control of a board of that nature need not lose their autonomy. Obviously marine technology is not an aspect of NERC administrative control but many of the NERC research institutes are highly skilled in technological aspects of their science. Marine science is not exclusive to NERC, but NERC and its institutes must play a very strong part in any co-ordinating body and must not be impeded in interpreting the essential links with other media of the environment.
What are we to make of the national governmental role in co-ordination? The committee did not believe that a Ministry would be appropriate but there are so many areas, as has been brought out this afternoon, where co-ordination is essential and a response is required at the level of national policy. I personally cannot see that any government will be satisfied to leave the solution to a board and to purely institutional processes. Whether or not departmental responsibilities are rearranged, I believe that one senior person should be given a duty to produce a co-ordinated national policy on maritime issues (including in this case especially science and technology) and should have the power to superintend the allocation of resources within a defined national strategy. I am very strongly inclined to believe that that person ought to be a Minister.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Sherfield: My Lords, the inquiry, the outcome of which we are debating today, was one cat some complexity owing to the wide-ranging, multidisciplinary nature of the subject and the piecemeal and fragmented way in which it is dealt with in this country. As a participant, I too admired the thorough and tenacious way in which our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, approached the task with the assistance of the specialist advisers and the clerk. The report was described by a foreign authority to whom I showed it as "very lucid and succinct and, I am sure, sound".
I shall try to add something to what previous speakers have said about the international aspects of the subject, with reference to the opportunities for international collaboration and for British overseas business, with some allusion to the example and experience of other countries, particularly the United States, France and Japan. In the international field, the United Kingdom starts with the advantage that the quality of British work has hitherto been very highly regarded overseas. It is indeed significant, and perhaps symptomatic, that, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, mentioned, the principal marine laboratories in Canada and in the United States are each led by a British scientist.
The committee recognised that, owing to the high cost of research, especially in deep and distant ocean programmes, the United Kingdom cannot proceed independently and that greater emphasis should be placed on international collaboration. It received evidence to the effect that the United Kingdom had been slow to participate in joint international research projects and concluded that this criticism was justified. However, the United Kingdom is already committed to two important projects, the Tropical Oceans and Global Atmosphere Programme and the World Ocean

31
Circulation Experiment, in the second of which the Institute of Oceanographic
Sciences has a leading role. The United Kingdom has finally joined the ocean drilling programme, though—and I make no apology for alluding to this subject again—the manner in which this was handled was a prime example of how not to go about things. It caused astonishment and indeed mystification among our former partners, (which happily are still our partners) in the extended project.
Important work is done in the International Oceanographic Commission under the auspices of UNESCO—the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred to this—and the committee welcomes the Government's commitment to continue to support this programme. Prospective programmes include one proposal by the National Science Foundation of the United States, the global ocean flux study, for which international support is being sought. The committee recommends United Kingdom participation in this and other related projects.
The activities of the European Commission in the marine field offer further opportunity for collaboration by the United Kingdom. It is an opportunity of which so far we have taken too little advantage, in contrast to other EC countries, particularly France. The EC effort, rather like our own, has so far been somewhat fragmented, but there are moves to remedy this and we should be ready to take advantage of them. The decision by the Natural Environment Research Council to have a representative in Brussels is a laudable first step.
There are also bilateral prospects. The members of the committee who visited France were impressed by French readiness to collaborate with us, and our report observes that France is a natural partner for us in marine research. The committee recommends the forging of further links with the French programme and closer contact at a higher level.
In Japan, the members of the committee who went there were impressed both by the scale of the Japanese effort and by the total lack of any bilateral Anglo-Japanese collaboration. Although the committee was officially informed in evidence that Anglo-Japanese science and technology arrangments were more effectively arrived at through individual agreements between interested parties, it believes that very little progress will be made in the absence of an inter-governmental science and technology agreement between the two countries. I was struck by the orchestrated hints to this effect which were dropped on all sides during our visit to Tokyo, and we recommend that negotiations for such an agreement should be resumed forthwith. I hope that the Minister will be able to take a positive attitude to these various prospects for international collaboration when he comes to reply.
I turn now to the prospects for overseas business. The committee identified several directions in which these could be promoted. One of its main recommendations, as has been highlighted by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, is that priority should be given to the management and exploitation of the United Kingdom's Exclusive Economic Zone.
32
In evidence, the departmental witnesses were somewhat reticent on the subject of the EEZ. Not so other witnesses, many of whom were critical of the Government's failure to develop an EEZ policy, particularly as other countries are turning to the exploitation of their own zones. This, our evidence suggested, was an export market which the United Kingdom should be making efforts to tap. It may be that the Government's negative stance is due to their probably well-founded opposition to certain aspects of the Law of the Sea Convention.
But this has not deterred other governments who are opponents of these provisions, notably the United States, from declaring their economic zone and taking vigorous steps to exploit it with the aid, as has been mentioned, and as it happens, of a side-scanning device developed in the United Kingdom. The committee in general accepted the views of the non-departmental witnesses on this subject. I, too, should welcome an indication from the Minister as to whether the Government have formulated a policy for the exploitation of our EEZ.
One consequence of the development of the techniques and technologies needed for EEZ development could be that business should follow in the form of assistance in the exploration of the EEZs of many countries which have not the experience and the resources to operate on their own. The commercial openings overseas for mapping and survey work have already been recognised by, for example, the Institute of Oceanographic Sciences, the British Geological Survey and the Hydrographer of the Navy. The committee recommends that the potential of this work should be demonstrated by undertaking a full resource evaluation survey of the United Kingdom's Exclusive Economic Zone. It also recommends that the success of the underwater scanning device, GLORIA, should be further developed and exploited.
Secondly, in the field of underwater engineering the committee saw opportunities for British industry, as the need arises, to work at deeper levels and in more hostile environments. The committee did not recommend that the United Kingdom should go in for manned submersibles, but felt that it should rather concentrate on underwater communications and on remotely controlled and automated systems for both continental shelf and deep ocean work. In all this offshore work the ability or the willingness of British industry to expand its effort is a crucial factor.
I shall not attempt to summarise the rather full and careful examination of the possibilities in paragraphs 7.23 to 7.29 of the report, but merely state the opinion of the committee that the departments have hitherto taken too reactive an attitude to their relations with the industry. The committee has therefore welcomed the reconstitution of the Offshore Energy Technology Board, with the objective of:
"moving from a primarily responsive organisation to one that will take the initiative in formulating a strategy in offshore technology".
A further step announced by the Department of Trade and Industry while our report was in the press is also to be welcomed; namely, that a co-ordinated national programme of assistance and encouragement would be instituted, following discussion with the relevant sectors of industry, for the development and supply of equipment and services for exploring and

33
exploiting the ocean. The noble Baroness, Lady White, referred to this proposal
in rather pessimistic terms. I feel sure that the Minister will want to take the opportunity of informing the House of the progress of both these initiatives.
I sometimes have the feeling that the Government regard the reports of your Lordships' Select Committees as amounting in the end to little more than requests for more funding in all directions. On this I should like to make two or three observations. First, the overwhelming evidence is that more resources are needed and that the Government have recognised this by topping up the science budget at the eleventh hour in each of the last two years. But the system of throwing the lifebelt when an organisation is coming up for the third time is bad for planning, bad for morale and bad for the nerves, and leads to such damaging affairs as the long agony over British participation in the ocean drilling programme. Moreover, rather nice timing is required in this exercise, as the lifebelt sometimes arrives too late.
Secondly, your Lordships' committee has always recognised that the United Kingdom cannot do everything and that new resources have to be selectively applied, both on the research and development side and in the encouragement and stimulation of the relevant sectors of industry. Nor have our proposals ever, I think, involved the commitment of large sums of money. Thirdly, such forward moves as the Government make—and I have just referred to two recent ones in the marine field—give the impression, perhaps unfairly so, of the piecemeal, fragmented approach to which I referred earlier, underlining the need for better co-ordination of policy. This was the theme of almost every single one of the witnesses at our inquiry.
Lastly, there is little doubt that the planned reductions in the research and development effort, not only in the marine field but across the board, forecast for the next two or three years, come at a time when all our industrial competitors are increasing their support for and enlargement of their research and development effort. These reductions, as I have said before and now repeat, seem to me to run completely counter to the main and wholly admirable policy of the Government, which is to revive and increase the industrial competitiveness and performance of the United Kingdom.
4.41 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, having heard all these very eloquent speeches of people who were on the committee, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, for so kindly pointing out the various best points, shall we say, and bringing other points to my notice, and also for the fact that he has taken so much trouble to come himself and give us a detailed explanation. I should like also to say that I am naturally rather nervous as I am the only one so far to speak who has had no real contact with this type of work. However, I should like to think about the general theme of the committee's report—the need to improve co-ordination of research in the marine sciences.
One important aspect of this is to concentrate research effort in a few centres of excellence where, by
34
pooling expertise and resources, more effective development of the science is possible. Increased effectiveness can be measured both in financial terms and as scientific excellence. Marine science is an interdisciplinary subject. It depends on the joint, collaborative efforts of specialists in many areas of science—physics, chemistry and biology. A regional centre of excellence makes interdisciplinary developments more likely.
Marine science also depends on close collaboration between research and technology. For example, research at sea increasingly demands high technology instrumentation to measure and to sample remotely to great depths. A viable centre of excellence will pool technologists with research scientists. In this, I am perhaps being parochial, but Plymouth can provide a rich mixture of both, with the polytechnic being strong in marine technology and the research institutes being strong in fundamental science.
The report indicates that research and teaching at the highest level should proceed together. The integrated activities of the Plymouth research institutes and the polytechnic can provide for both these functions, teaching and research. A centre of excellence based on close collaboration between equal partners should ensure economies of scale which, in turn, would render the research effort less vulnerable to short-term fluctuations in funding. This should appeal to most noble Lords. The report is correct, therefore, in recommending centres of excellence which would receive preferential treatment for development of the research.
Allied to this, but not brought out so strongly in the report, is the likelihood that with a regional strength in research and in technology, small high-technology industries with a maritime emphasis can be encouraged. This is particularly important to help with unemployment. There are already some small industries down in the West Country, one of which came originally from Chelsea, that are doing extremely well. Of course, in that part of the world the apprentices in the dockyards have been extremely well trained and are very helpful.
In discussing a national research strategy, the report emphasises the importance of research in the Exclusive Economic Zone. Strictly speaking (and this has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet), the United Kingdom does not have an EEZ, since we have not signed the Law of the Sea. However, the report is correct in recommending a national programme of research on the equivalent to an EEZ for the United Kingdom: for example, waters within 200 miles of the coast. In effect, the EEZ will more than double the present area of the United Kingdom land mass; yet we know very little of the fundamental processes occurring in this region: for example, the currents and the tides, the fate of wastes, which have been mentioned already, which are discharged to the coastal seas, the biological processes which support the fisheries, and so on.
As more countries recognise their own EEZ there will be a considerable export potential in expert knowledge and in the technology required to support research in this area. In fact, I understand that United Kingdom marine scientists are second to none in research relevant to this problem, and Plymouth in

35
particular has built up a considerable reputation worldwide for its contribution to this research.
Increasingly, it becomes necessary to use the coastal seas for discharging chemical wastes from man's industrial activities. This has already been
mentioned by some noble Lords. We need to know the capacity of these seas to receive and to purify these wastes by a combination of chemical and biological processes. We also need to measure the risk that wastes discharged to sea will return to challenge human health: for example, by becoming concentrated in fish which are then eaten. There are considerable natural resources available within the EEZ: for example, North Sea oil. As the report recommends, resource evaluations are essential, but these should take into account biological resources, fish and shellfish, as well as mineral resources, and there is an urgent need for research into the effects of industrial exploitation on the biological resources and on the environment.
Concern for environmental conservation continues to increase in the public mind. Our coastal seas and estuaries are particularly vulnerable and we should enhance the research into environmental processes that must be maintained if a natural marine environment is to be preserved. The United Kingdom is uniquely placed to make advances in appropriate research and technological development. The Plymouth research institutes are more than playing their part.
There is also the question of research vessels. The report correctly urges on page 90 that the research fleet is maintained,
"as near institutes as possible";
in other words, institutes that are fairly near to the sea. Plymouth is an obvious candidate here, with the facilities of Devonport dockyard available and with a skilled local workforce with, unfortunately, surplus capacity imminent. It would be sensible for arrangements to be made to relocate the NERC research vessel base to Plymouth.
Perhaps I may conclude with another blurb on behalf of Plymouth. Plymouth's long naval and maritime tradition is well known. It is their intention to introduce to the three institutions in the city a range of activities which are concerned with the sciences of the sea and to express the merits of the city of Plymouth as an international centre of excellence. The emphasis is on the Plymouth Polytechnic, the Marine Biological Association and the Institute for Marine Environmental Research. We draw attention also to the presence of Fort Bovis and the Royal Naval Engineering College as evidence of the overall commitment within Plymouth to advancing the sciences of the sea.
The Plymouth laboratory of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom was opened as far back as 1888. The association employs 94 scientific and support staff and hosts about 170 visiting workers each year. The MBA engages in a wide variety of research in the marine sciences and is managed by a council of distinguished scientists. The laboratory is supported mainly by a grant-in-aid from the Natural Environment Research Council. That is why I support what was said by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook in that respect.
36
Plymouth Polytechnic was designated in 1970 and now enrols approximately 4,800 full-time and sandwich students, with a further 3,500 students on part-time and short courses. The 30 degree and higher national diploma programmes and the 10 postgraduate courses are primarily in science, maritime studies, technology and business. There is a completely separate business course that I believe is very helpful in this case. The academic staff of 420 is supported by approximately
120 research staff and 350 technical and administrative staff. Of those, approximately 150 are directly involved in marine science and technology.
Furthermore, the polytechnic underwater training centre at Fort Bovis and in Plymouth Sound works closely with Plymouth Ocean Projects Limited, which is a commercial organisation that runs one of the three professional driving schools in the United Kingdom. The Institute for Marine Environmental Research was established by the Natural Environment Research Council in 1970 and is charged with carrying out fundamental research in estuaries and in coastal waters, to establish relationships between the physics, chemistry and biology of those systems and to increase knowledge of the effects of man's activities on marine ecosystems.
The institute currently employs 92 full-time staff and provides facilities for upwards of 30 students and visiting scientists. I mention that because it is in my opinion a very good centre. If we are to be short of funding, then I make the point that those institutes are all in the same area. One can walk from one to the other without having to travel, as one does, from Wormley down to Southampton. It is a real centre of excellence and one that might be considered by the Select Committee in the future.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I also welcome this report and should like to extend my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, and to his committee on a very timely, thorough, but also—as the noble Lord said—very complex matter. It ranges from oceanography, as your Lordships have heard, to exclusive economic zones; and from coastal erosion to aquaculture and sewage disposal.
I hasten to assure the noble Baroness who has just sat down that she is not the only lay person in this exalted company. I, too, am not versed in the sciences that we are discussing today. However, I was privileged to go to the British Marine Technology undertaking at Feltham recently—a visit arranged by the Parliamentary Maritime Group. I found it a little disappointing that, although I know we are busy people in Parliament, I was the only representative from either House of Parliament on that visit. I find that a little disappointing when we are discussing the serious problems that we are debating this afternoon.
I shall give your Lordships a little background about British Marine Technology. It is a commercial undertaking which was formed almost exactly one year ago by the marriage of two equal bodies: the Civil Service-run National Maritime Institute and the British Ship Research Association run by the shipbuilding industry.

37
As one might imagine, the merger was not an easy one, but it is now unified and the different sectors of interest have been re-educated as separate profit centres. There has been some rationalisation of the technical resources. For example, the St. Albans ship testing tank has been closed down. The other incidence of such tanks in the country includes one at Cowes, which is part of the British Hovercraft Corporation. That facility is dying on its feet at the moment, leaving only the Admiralty Research Establishment tanks at Haslar to rival those obtaining at Feltham, at British Marine Technology.
The tanks are fairly massive objects. There is a tank that would quite happily contain your Lordships' House, in which can be recreated almost any known and unknown wave conditions existing throughout the world. Mention has been made by
the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, of research into wave heights. That research is being done at Feltham.
Those tanks are extremely expensive to provide. Are they a dying asset? That is one of the main worries at British Marine Technology. At present, there is no way that they can think of replacing the tanks by income from commercial sources alone. Thus they will need Government support in due course, if it comes to a question of replacing those enormous facilities.
The Government could probably argue that much of the work of ship testing can now be done by computers. Indeed, British Marine Technology has been closely involved in the computerisation of such facilities, to the extent that much of the knowledge available has now been tabulated and is available in the form of software to those interested throughout the world. It is not only the design of ships that we are talking about here, because BMT also look into the design of oil structures. I have already mentioned wave heights, coastal erosion, and such associated matters.
All noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon have mentioned the lack of funding with regard to marine science and technology. From BMT's point of view, in the old days, when we had a healthy shipbuilding and shipping industry, much of the funding for research came from those industries. The rest came from the Government. Today, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, the marine industries are sadly in decline, and so that side of the funding is fading away. However, I must say that to a certain extent that is counterbalanced by the fact that although we build fewer ships today, modern ships are much more complex animals, due to stricter safety measures and such like. Therefore, each problem needs more technology.
The market is declining, but then BMT have been forced to look elsewhere to sell their expertise. They have had some success in that—notably in the sale of software to the US Navy. Also, there are recent encouraging signs that those modern bastions of shipbuilding—Japan and Korea—are also seeking help here.
The proportion that was government funding has traditionally been used for basic research. At present, the DTI are helping BMT, albeit on a decreasing scale, over a five-year period. That help is not over-generous but it could, I believe, be described as fair. What will happen after five years? BMT urgently needs an underlying 20 to 25 per cent. of its turnover for basic
38
research—not long-term, fundamental work, which is better handled by the universities, but what might be described as pre-emptive research with commercial applications. That is certainly a question that the Government will have to consider, albeit that they have been asked to consider finance on a much wider scale and this is only one small aspect of the matter.
Before I leave finance it is perhaps worth mentioning that some of the projects that are undertaken at BMT—for example, designing new oil rig structures—are potentially tying up millions of pounds of capital and therefore the professional indemnity is very expensive. At the moment it is costing in the region of £150,000 a year. That figure is rising rapidly and it is possible that the Government could help in that respect in future years.
Another problem facing BMT and other bodies is subsidised competition. We have already heard quite a lot about this. Norway, Sweden, Germany, France, Holland, the United States and Canada have all been mentioned. Surprisingly, no one has mentioned the USSR, which has by far the largest research fleet in the world. It is bigger than the fleets of the rest of the world put together. In my opinion the information that these ships are gathering must stand the Soviet Union in good stead in the years to come. The shortage of ship time—I refer to our own ships—which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, and the lack of money and facilities aboard our latest research ship are nothing short of a scandal.
I shall now say a few brief words about morale, which has also been mentioned, and the possibility of a brain drain. At present many of the staff in these research establishments are what I would describe as being of mature years. The others are youngsters coming in, well trained, from universities. At the moment the major lack is in what I would term the middle experienced staff. That is a problem that must soon be addressed.
The fourth problem—and one which again has been mentioned widely—is the lack of a national strategy. BMT and other such establishments have the capability and the excellence to match that available in other countries. It is experience that has been gained over many years when we had a flourishing marine industry. This information is stored and is available for use by others. As we have heard, the problem is that it is in bits and pieces all over the country. The French are much better than us in this respect. They have a much more co-ordinated policy, as again we have heard, and recent indications are that the Dutch are beginning to co-ordinate in a like way.
There is a definite need for national guidance, be it in the form of a marine board, as has been proposed, or otherwise. BMT feels that it cannot really get on with any research that is going to lead us anywhere in the long term unless it is given some guidance from above. Its desire to research is there, and it is willing to co-operate. It does so already with the universities, though, sadly, a proposed joint venture with Hydraulics Research Limited, which was privatised before BMT, came to nought. The reason was that Hydraulics Research Limited, having tasted commercial life, found it slightly to its liking and was not too keen to share in that with another organisation. This highlights one of the problems that

39
may well exist if more of our research organisations are privatised. There will be more people competing for fewer jobs.
Before leaving this subject I should like to ask the Government what has happened to Mr. Heseltine's partnership with industry whereby the management of certain government establishments was to be put out to competitive tender involving private organisations? I refer in particular to the tanks at Haslar which I should have thought BMT would be admirably placed to manage were the conditions to arise again in the future. Are the Government still thinking of this matter or have they shelved it indefinitely? In my opinion that would produce a real centre of excellence.
I am sure that several of your Lordships watched a television programme last night on the history of our nuclear bomb wherein it was made abundantly clear that government decisions, or at times lack of them, cost us dear and we were forever spending large sums of money in order to catch up. To me that comes as a
timely warning. Are we similarly to fritter away the maritime expertise that we still have in this country? Despite the decline which has been mentioned we are
still very active in offshore oil and gas, short sea transport and coastal engineering, which includes environmental protection. It is not yet too late, but time is fast running out and government action is needed now.
Finally, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Kennet—who, I am sorry to see, is not in his place—in his plea to the Leader of the House to set up a special sub-committee of your Lordships' House to deal with not only shipping but the whole maritime-related sphere. We have heard mention this afternoon of centres of excellence. I think that in all modesty your Lordships' House could be regarded as a certain centre of excellence. By setting up such a committee the Government would at least be seen to be making a commitment that would give encouragement to all those engaged in maritime technology and research.
5.6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, tribute has rightly been paid by all speakers in the debate to my noble friend Lord Gregson and his colleagues for a most remarkable report. Speaking as one who comes to this subject totally afresh—indeed, one who would not come too close anyway because I am the kind of sailor who gets seasick even in his own bath—I find the analysis of the report and the description of the issues which face government and our society exhaustive and the conclusions which the report reaches devastating. I am bound to say that I have never before seen a set of recommendations which are more comprehensive in the way that they cover the field, more closely linked to each other in argument and more challenging to those responsible for our science policy than the recommendations which are in the report before us today.
The first issue is that of funding. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, will have a honeyed reply to the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, who indicated a suspicion that the Government's response to all such reports may be that they are looking for more funding for all purposes. That is undoubtedly the case here.
40
It is undoubtedly true that the sheer level of funding for marine science and technology in this country, when measured against any of the international comparisons that have been made by the committee, is totally inadequate. When we consider, as my noble friend Lord Gregson said, that Japan spends £1.25 billion a year on research on the issue of coastal fisheries only; when we look at the fact that a single institute at Brest, in France, has a budget which is more than twice that of the total civil budget for marine science and technology in this country—and there are many more examples which have been referred to this afternoon—and when we make any of those international comparisons, the amount of money available in this country for these technologies (one must put it in those terms) is totally inadequate for the purpose.
We must therefore ask ourselves this question: if the total amount of money is inadequate, is this a cause or a result of the inadequacies of organisation which have been described this afternoon? My noble friend Lord Gregson said that anarchy is expensive. I think that that is a very apt summary of the situation in which we find ourselves. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, referred to the difficulty, if one looks at the annual review of research and development expenditure, of finding how much and where the expenditure on research and development in the marine area actually lies.
The sums are simply not done that way. The sums are done on a departmental basis and, to some extent, on a disciplinary basis, whereas, as has been made clear in the report and in the debate on the report, this is above all not only a multidisciplinary field of research but also a field of research which affects almost all aspects of government and almost all government departments. That is why my noble friend Lady White described the report as not only powerful but baffling, because in order to understand it completely—and I certainly do not claim that in my brief period of study I have done so—it is necessary to go into the fields of activity of a very wide range of government departments as well as into a number of scientific and technological disciplines.
I shall return in a minute to the recommendations of the committee on the organisation of funding of marine science and technology, but there are two points I wish to raise before I do so: first, on the issue of defence; and secondly, on the issue of international collaboration.
The first point to be made about defence expenditure is that to my mind the share of the total budget, as it can be analysed, which is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence and its agencies is grossly excessive. It cannot be right that £122 million out of the total of £193 million spent on marine science and technology should be the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. This would be true even if the policies in relation to collaboration with civil research projects were the same in this country as they are in the United States, and even if the degree of co-operation between civil and defence projects, and above all the degree of release of what are here called classified research results, were as great as in other countries. In fact, the reverse is the case. We find that the defence expenditure on marine science

41
and technology concentrates particularly on weaponry—sonar weaponry, mine warfare, undersea communications (which is of course only one step removed from weaponry itself), and such areas as signal reduction.
As has been said, that is a possible interpretation of the remit of the Ministry of Defence. It is possible to say that budgets would not be allocated to the defence function unless defence expenditure were strictly restricted to the kind of research which I have been describing, principally weaponry research. Of course, that is not the interpretation which is taken by the Office of Naval Research in the United States, which the questioning of the witness from the Admiralty Research Establishment made very clear indeed. Yet if that is the case, and if it is the case that we would not get a defence budget of the kind that we now have unless there were such restrictions on defence research expenditure in this area, then surely the argument that the proportion of our total expenditure which is the responsibility of the defence function is too great is even stronger than it would otherwise be.
I am afraid that this is an argument which applies not only to marine science and technology but to far too many areas of our scientific and technological research, and it is a matter to which we shall certainly wish to return in the coming months.
The second topic to which I want to refer before coming back to the organisation side is the whole issue of international collaboration. The situation becomes clearer than perhaps it has been in the past when we make the distinction that is now possible and necessary between the Exclusive Economic Zones and the deepsea areas where international collaboration seems to be absolutely essential if anything at all effective is to be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, asked the Government—and I repeat his question: if we are to move to a claim for EEZs, what is to be the Government's policy for the exploitation of those zones and what is to be the research back-up to such a policy? Unless a policy is laid down clearly right from the beginning, there will be no coherent research programme to follow. The Government will not be able to get away from these issues because, as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has said, the next North Sea Conference is to take place in London and the United Kingdom will be in the chair of that conference. Therefore, it is the United Kingdom which must presumably be playing a major role in the preparation of the programme and the papers for the conference. The Government have a direct responsibility for ensuring that we make a coherent response to the issues to be faced in the North Sea, not only in environmental matters but also in regard to the exploitation and depletion rates of the resources of the North Sea.
Again, the Government cannot avoid the issue of what will be the effect of our much regretted withdrawal from UNESCO. We have been told by the Government in answer to a Question in this House last December that our participation in the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission is assured for the future. That is good news and we welcome it because, as has been said, the IOC is the main forum for the international exchange of scientific
42
data. But will it not be extremely difficult for us to maintain our membership and participation in some of these UNESCO activities without being active in UNESCO itself? The full effects of our withdrawal in terms of our participation in the staffing of UNESCO and the work of its committees have yet to be seen. We shall find ourselves out on a limb if we opt for a policy of individual participation without accepting the share of responsibilities and rights which accompany full membership of an international organisation such as UNESCO. My noble friends Lord Gregson and Lady White made very effective reference to this point when talking about our participation in the ocean drilling programme.
What are the lessons to be drawn from the report which is before your Lordships' House today? I believe that there are lessons to be drawn for marine science and technology from other areas of research. Indeed, the report specifically refers to the example of the British national space centre as a way in which it is possible to have a body which takes responsibility across a range of different scientific disciplines and a number of different government departments. I want to place on record my agreement with the conclusion of the committee that there should be a marine board which takes responsibility for all these matters and which is responsible for producing a research strategy for marine science and technology. The suggestion that it should take account of the work of the Royal Society and its British National Committee on Oceanic Research is, I think, a wise one which increases the possibility that there will be independent guidance for the marine board in the way in which it operates. But surely the fundamental principle that there should be a single source of funding in that way is one which your Lordships' House ought to welcome and urge on the Government.
I believe that equally important is the issue, which has been raised by a number of speakers this afternoon, of the application of the Rothschild principle to this area of research. It has been said with a degree of conviction that I find cannot be gainsaid that marine science and technology is an area where, inevitably, government funding will play a greater role and commercial funding a smaller role than in many other areas of science and technology. In other words, the role of basic or strategic research, according to which ever report one uses, is more important than the development side.
I find a good deal of sympathy for the proposal of the committee that there should be a customer surcharge on the departments that are supposed to have been funding commissioned research in this area but that have not been doing so. It is shattering to discover that despite the decrease—a decrease that is to be continued—in funding for marine science and technology from the research councils, the share of the diminishing total that comes from commissioned research is still decreasing. It has gone down from 35 per cent. to 25 per cent.
There are so many government departments that must have responsibilities relating to marine science and technology. Nearly all of them—environment, energy, trade, transport and fisheries—have been mentioned this afternoon. But we should include in the same breath, I suggest, defence, because defence

43
has responsibilities as well as its own rights. It seems to me a sound suggestion that a notional customer surcharge should be made on those departments that fail to carry out adequate research in discharge of their responsibilities. This is rather analogous to the industrial training boards where there is a levy, in effect, on those who do not carry out adequate training. The suggestion that such a surcharge should be devoted to the science budget and controlled by the marine board also makes good sense.
It makes good sense for another reason. It is important that the research strategy that is adopted and that is the responsibility of the marine board should be independent of individual government departments with these responsibilities. All too often, such government departments tend to find themselves in accord with their own client organisations. There are the examples of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with the fishing industry and the Department of the Environment—if I dare mention this, with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, present—with its own associates in the water industry, so concerned for the continuation of sludge dumping on which, I hasten to add, I express no technical view whatever. It is important that they should be contributing to research but that they should not have control of the direction in which the research goes. That, to me, is the value of the suggestion of the customer surcharge with the funds under the control of the marine board.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who unfortunately is not here, and the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, referred to the ultimate political responsibility for such a marine board. At the moment, it is with the Department of Education and Science. We are delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, will be replying for the Government on this matter. Dare I suggest, however, that the Department of Education has not only enough on its plate, but far too much in terms of political responsibilities and its ability to deal with the political responsibilities of education policy? I am not suggesting that we have another Cabinet Minister or another government department. We do not want to get into the situation, despite the good example of Japan or France, where, as in the Soviet Union, there is a Ministry of Non-Ferrous Metals. I suspect, too, that there may be Ministries for those above and below a certain place in the atomic table of non-ferrous metals.
Too many Cabinet Ministers with specialist responsibilities of this kind are not a recommendation that we wish to make. However, to have a senior political person—there has been reference to my noble friend Lord Peart having that responsibility in the final months of the last Labour Government—with an overall responsibility for marine science and technology seems to us a rational method of dealing with the complexities, the difficulties and the inadequacies of the present organisation, funding and administration of marine science and technology.
5.25 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I too should like to echo the unanimous thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, for initiating what has been a most useful debate on a subject of great importance to the United
44
Kingdom. The Select Committee on Science and Technology is to be congratulated on the amount of work that it has undertaken during its study. The report and, indeed, this debate have demonstrated once again that noble Lords have a wealth of expertise and experience when it comes to matters of science and technology.
The introductory chapter of the report states that,
"marine research impinges on a large range of issues".
This is perhaps the one place where the report is in danger of some understatement. Anyone listening to the debate cannot have failed to appreciate that message. Marine science and technology might sound like a well-defined and relatively narrow area of activity, but the reality is quite different. I find it difficult to think of another topic in the field of science and technology that covers such a wide range of activities, with such radically different objectives, and involves the interests of so many different parts of government.
The Government are at present actively working on producing their response to the report. But, with such a wide area covered and with over 60 conclusions and recommendations, involving a large number of different departments, I hope that noble Lords will understand that we have not yet been able to present a response such as this report deserves. It is, however, the Government's intention to respond to the report as soon as possible and certainly before the Summer Recess. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will also understand if I do not anticipate our response to specific recommendations in the report but concentrate on the general issues that the report raises and those that have been raised this afternoon.
It was in response to an earlier report of the Select Committee—that on science and government in 1982—that the Government accepted the need for more effective review of the broad deployment of effort in science and technology and announced a system of annual reviews of research. The annual review of government-funded R & D is now a well-established part of the scientific scene. It is my belief that it enables debates such as this to take place in a much more informed climate than would otherwise be the case. One of the objectives of the annual review is to identify gaps and overlaps in research expenditure. Marine science and technology was early identified as a field with
an unusually wide range of departmental and research council interests. Accordingly, it was chosen for the first study of a specific area. This was included as an annex to the 1984 annual review.
I make this point to show that some of the problems of the organisation of marine science and technology in the United Kingdom have already been brought to the Government's attention. Thus, many of the points in the Select Committee's report fall, if I may resort to a terrestrial metaphor, on fertile ground. The Select Committee was impressed by the quality of work that it saw. According to the report—this was pointed out more than once by the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, in his excellent speech—the United Kingdom has been at the forefront of marine research ever since the start of modern oceanography. Today, it has a valuable pool of talent and expertise in this field. The Government, and, I am sure, all noble Lords, applaud this and hope that it will continue.

45
The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, has raised the issue of exploitation. The Government agree with the Select Committee that there is considerable potential for further exploitation of marine resources. There have been a number of recent government initiatives in this area, some of them noted by the Select Committee. More recently, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady White, and by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, my honourable friend the Minister of State for Industry, Mr. Geoffrey Pattie, has announced the launching of the Department of Trade and Industry's Resources from the Sea initiative. Under this scheme, government funding would be available to support projects by companies that lead to commercial exploitation of marine resources as diverse as plankton and seaweed, cobalt crusts on the ocean floor, and wave and tidal energy. It is the Government's intention in particular to encourage those schemes which are undertaken on a collaborative basis between a number of parties and which also involve longer term and more speculative R & D.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, was a little less than forthcoming in her praise for this scheme and for the finance involved. The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, invited me to enlarge upon this, and I gladly take that opportunity. At the present time the resources available for the programme amount to some £3 million over the next three years, as the noble Baroness quite rightly pointed out. However, it is up to the marine industries to put forward the proposals which will meet the DTI's criteria for support. If innovative, viable, commercially exploitable proposals which need support in order to go ahead are not forthcoming then the funds will be directed towards other sectors and other industries which can produce such proposals. Conversely, the DTI accepts responsibility to respond to well-conceived proposals and if the available funds are over-subscribed then I can assure the noble Baroness that the DTI will consider making more funds available.
Since my right honourable friend's announcement the DTI has been very active in seeking the support of industry for the programme, culminating in a seminar attended by over 100 representatives of industry a fortnight ago. The enthusiastic welcome of the industry was heartening. Of course, like the noble Baroness, they would like to see more money available, but we shall surely have to see what currently on offer is taken up before seeking more. The DTI is now analysing the results of the seminar in order to define the next stages.
As part of the same department's recent initiative on advanced robotics, a collaborative group has been formed to investigate the feasibility of developments in this area for sub-sea applications. I think that these new initiatives illustrate clearly the importance which we attach to marine R & D and to the exploitation of marine resources.
I should like also to take the opportunity of this debate to clarify the Government's position on Exclusive Economic Zones, a point which a number of noble Lords—in particular the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield—have referred to and a concept which was developed in the course of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. As the Select Committee report points out, the United Kingdom
46
has not declared such a zone. Perhaps I may embroider on this and explain why. We see no point at present in creating one in order to secure resources. The United Kingdom already has a fishery zone extending to a maximum of 200 nautical miles and, since rights over our continental shelf (which extends well beyond 200 miles) are inherent and do not have to be proclaimed, there would be no advantage to the United Kingdom in declaring such a zone. However, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, in particular that the Government will continue to ensure that resources within United Kingdom limits are explored and exploited in accordance with both national and international law.
The main thrust of this report is that United Kingdom marine research suffers from fragmentation and a lack of funds. This latter point has obviously been seized on by a number of speakers in the debate this afternoon. As I mentioned earlier, the Government are already aware that this is a field in which a large number of Government bodies have interests and responsibilities. We accept that more needs to be done to co-ordinate the roles of these bodies and careful consideration is currently being given as to how this might best be done in the light of the Select Committee's recommendations. However, I have to tell noble Lords that, while it may be easy to point to deficiencies in the present system, it is less easy to be confident that radical changes to the organisation of marine R & D in this country will best solve the underlying problems. But we are urgently studying the Select Committee's constructive recommendations.
The Government accept that a long-term view should be taken of research priorities. Devising a national strategy for marine research may not be a straightforward matter in view of the wide span of objectives of this research and the diverse nature of its applications. But again we are examining the report's proposals for achieving such a strategy.
Turning now to the matter of funding, the Government, and those departments which have a responsibility for the allocation of the science budget and departments' research funds, are giving attention to the report's findings on the level of resources. There are encouraging signs that the private sector is increasing its involvement in this field. In addition to the government initiatives involving the private sector which I have already mentioned noble Lords will be aware of the substantial contribution which industry is making to the cost of the United Kingdom participation in the Ocean Drilling Programme, and of the increased industrial backing for the Marine Technology Directorate, responsibility for which is transferring from the Science and Engineering Research Council to the Fellowship of Engineering.
I think that at this point I shall briefly respond to the critical comments made by several noble Lords, and by the noble Baroness, Lady White, about the delay in reaching a decision to join the Ocean Drilling Programme. I think it is worth recalling that the United Kingdom contribution to the Ocean Drilling Programme is made up of subventions from both the public and private sectors, and that assembling the necessary money took time. I see nothing reprehensible in this, given the financial constraints bearing on both industry and public organisations.

47
Surely the important thing is that a satisfactory outcome has been achieved.
The report lays stress on the need for a greater emphasis on international collaboration in deep ocean research. The Government accept the importance of international collaboration in this field and I feel that the Select Committee may not have appreciated the full extent of the involvement of United Kingdom marine scientists in such programmes. However, I am delighted to know that at least the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, certainly has, whereas I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who was not a member of the committee, has not. The United Kingdom already plays leading roles in both the Tropical Oceans/Global Atmosphere and World Ocean Circulation Experiment programmes; and, as the report acknowledges, the United Kingdom has now announced its participation in the Ocean Drilling Programme. I think that all three of these were mentioned by the
noble Lord, Lord Sherfield. It is integral to the Government's thinking on the Resources from the Sea initiative that opportunities for international collaboration should be actively explored on a bilateral, European Community or EUREKA basis, and it is hoped as soon as possible to call an international EUREKA Marine Resources Forum in the United Kingdom.
There are many more instances where the United Kingdom is taking a leading role in international programmes of marine research—for example, in the fields of geology and geophysics. Perhaps one reason why this involvement is sometimes underestimated is that we place greater value on firm co-operation in specific projects rather than on general agreements. All too often it is the general agreements which receive the greater public attention.
The issue of what is now generally known as "strategic research" is an important one and we welcome the decision of the Select Committee to include in one of its current studies the working of the Rothschild principle and strategic research across the whole of civil R & D.
The report quite properly draws attention to the need for close collaboration between research establishments and higher education institutions. This was
mentioned by my noble friend Lady Vickers. I doubt whether there is any argument at all over this. What is more problematic, however, is how best to achieve this within the constraints of history, geography and limited resources.
At this point I feel I must express my disappointment at the criticism in the report of the Natural Environment Research Council. I have to say that it seems that the Select Committee has chosen the easy target of the management style of NERC rather than addressing underlying difficulties. I also feel that the censuring of the reorganisation of NERC is premature. I agree with my noble friends Lord Nugent and Lord Cranbrook that NERC is uniquely well constituted to consider across-the-board environmental problems, many of which do not respect boundaries between environmental sectors.
The Government welcome the developments withn NERC leading to "communities of science" and is
48
confident that the recent appointment of a Director of Marine Sciences will make a major contribution to closer collaboration between the NERC research establishments and the higher education institutions.
The report rightly stresses the importance of research vessels, other facilities and equipment for marine R & D. The position of remote sensing has moved forward considerably during the last year. The Government have established the British National Space Centre—a partnership between the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence, NERC and SERC. Co-operation in remote sensing, including that of the oceans, will be greatly enhanced by the formation of the centre.
My noble friend Lord Nugent has drawn attention to the proposal by the Commission of the European Communities aimed at regulating and reducing the disposal to sea of non-radioactive waste. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Cranbrook also mentioned this. We look forward to the forthcoming report on this proposal by the Select Committee on the European Communities. However, the Government's policy on this issue has already been stated quite clearly in a debate earlier this year in another place. The Government attach great importance to the protection not only of the seas but of the whole environment. Our approach to the disposal of waste at sea is based on careful scientific evaluation and on the principle of the best practicable environmental option. We are confident that sea disposal can be the best option for certain wastes and that, as practised by the United Kingdom, it has no unacceptable consequences for the marine environment.
I am conscious that this afternoon I have not been able to address all the diverse but important areas which the report covered. There is much more which could be said, for example, on environmental protection or the links between civil and military research. Of course, I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, on this subject, and I can assure him that we shall deal fully with those matters in our response to the report. However, I hope that I have covered most of the points which noble Lords have raised. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, asked me whether we had abandoned Mr. Heseltine's partnership with industry. No, my Lords, we are still working on this idea. However, we have to proceed with great care because it would result in irreversible change to the status of parts of the Admiralty research establishments, of which Haslar is a part.
Once again, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, for initiating what has been a most helpful debate. My noble friend Lord Nugent asked me to take on board—which I thought was a singularly appropriate phrase for this debate—the financial implications of this report, and I can assure him that the Government will do so. The Select Committee's report has already given us many ideas to consider. We welcome the further constructive points which noble Lords have made this afternoon, and we shall be taking them all on board for consideration.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Gregson: My Lords, at the end of this debate, I should simply like to thank all noble Lords who have

49
taken part and to comment that this type of debate shows this House at its most effective. It makes a major contribution to the government of the nation. I should also like to thank the noble Earl the Minister for his holding reply and I look forward to the full reply from the Government before the Summer Recess. However, although I travel hopefully towards the Summer Recess, I fear the arrival.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Licensing Laws in England and Wales
5.43 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Viscount Montgomery of Alamein rose to ask Her Majesty's Government when, in the light of the Scottish experience, they will consider reform of the licensing laws for England and Wales.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question concerning the reform of the licensing laws which stands in my name on the Order Paper. Before I turn to this Question, perhaps I may comment that this is, I believe, the first Unstarred Question which my noble friend Lord Davidson has answered from
the Front Bench and therefore I congratulate him. It may be of interest that some 36 years ago I was present in the Arts Theatre at Cambridge as a fellow undergraduate when my noble friend made his debut in the first of three distinguished performances in the footlights review. He went on to produce the review, so that augurs well for his parliamentary career. However, there is one big difference: in the footlights review everything was in verse with piano accompaniment, whereas here he is unfortunately stuck with prose.
Turning to the subject matter, we debated this subject in July last year, and at that time the history of licensing was outlined in great detail and the case for reform was postulated very cogently by a number of speakers. Noble Lords might well ask what has changed in the interim. The answer is the publication of the long overdue report on the results of the Scottish experience. This admirable document, which was commissioned by the Scottish Home Office and written by Eileen Goddard for the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, has finally emerged. It is a splendid document, and I cannot imagine why it has been delayed so long and why it has had to be extracted from the Government with so much difficulty. It demonstrates quite clearly that the limited reforms which have been introduced in Scotland have been extremely effective, and that any fears that may have been expressed about supposed problems have really been without foundation.
It is in this context that it is interesting to examine the history of licensing reform in Scotland against what has happened—or rather, perhaps more accurately, what has not happened—in England and Wales. In 1971, following recommendations from an earlier report by the Monopolies Commission, two parallel committees were set up to review the licensing laws: one for England and Wales under the chairmanship of Lord Erroll of Hale and one for Scotland under Dr. Christopher Clayson.
I am particularly glad that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy is speaking in this debate, as it was during his time as Secretary of State for Scotland that the Clayson Committee was set up. My noble friend will be able to speak very authoritatively on this subject. I am also very glad that there are a number of other speakers on the list of speakers, not only some who spoke in the debate in July last year, but also some who did not. Their contributions will be very important.
The Erroll Report appeared in 1972 and the Clayson Report appeared in 1973. As a result of the latter, most of the recommendations were introduced in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. However, my Lords, what happened in England and Wales? Absolutely nothing. Government inertia set in, and this is a sad tale of inaction and inactivity.
There are many reasons—and very good ones—for the urgent need to reform the licensing laws. They include the special interests of the restaurant trade, the benefits for tourism and the impact on employment. These arguments have been presented before, will be presented again tonight, and need to be repeated again and again.
However, I want to take this opportunity to mention a further publication which has just been published by the Adam Smith Institute. It is called Time to Call Time, and it is a very good document indeed. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will recommend this document to his right honourable friend the Home Secretary and also to his noble friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I would go even further and suggest that this publication should be required reading for every member of the Government. It is not very long, but it is very clear.
Having read this remarkable document, one begins to wonder why there is not a more general movement for the total repeal of the licensing laws. In the debate on this subject in July last year this was what my noble friend Lord Harris of High Cross proposed. Of course he is quite right and I am sure he will come back to it. But having been brought up, as it were, in a school where limited objectives were the order of the day, I have decided to confine myself to reform as being a more practical way to start.
In this context, in the light of the Scottish experience there can be no reason for further delay in introducing in England and Wales the liberalisation of licensing which has been proposed by the Erroll Committee. I refer particularly to the extension of opening hours during the period between 10 a.m. and midnight. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to say something more positive tonight to the effect that this will happen.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, and to congratulate him on bringing this vexed but important subject onto our agenda for us at least to examine it here, as well as having the examination in the other place. The brutal fact is that we have not kept pace with the modernisation of our nation in all things and certainly not with the licensing laws. They, for some unknown reason, have remained as at 1915 when they

51
were introduced by David Lloyd George under the Defence of the Realm Act. That was done because it was recognised that if the workers did not work to produce goods and spent too much time on the booze, production would fail and we could lose the war. Those laws were not designed to be imposed on the City of London, the racecourses or any other places like those but on the places of work. There was a great deal of sense in that.
But I would suggest that we have moved on a little since then; everybody has moved on since then except the successive governments of this nation. That is a fact beyond dispute. We still have these ridiculous situations where a restaurant can open and sell liquor but a bar must close; or a restaurant can open, but come 3 p.m. it cannot give you another glass of wine or another drink. This is a musical joke everywhere; indeed, it is on the hoardings of London Transport. Throughout the USA and Europe we were rightly the butts of the ridiculous licensing law system.
Indeed, in London today, I think, one licensing law operates at one time in one borough and at another time in another borough. I can remember when I was leader of Fulham Borough Council I used to enjoy a Sunday drink. I went to the corner of the road until 2 p.m. and when we got chucked out we simply crossed the road. By doing so we had left Fulham and were in Hammersmith and we could have another hour for drinking. Then, if we were having a big discussion, it was quite comfortable to jump on our bikes and go down to Putney to continue it with another couple of pints in a bar in Putney.
That might seem fun. It was all right; we enjoyed it. But can you imagine what would happen—I ask your Lordships to listen to this—to the millions of tourists who spend so much time in our country, particularly in the capital city, when they realised, as we all realise now, that you can buy as much liquor as you like in any supermarket? You can buy as much as you like; you can pull up a great big van and load it at any off-licence with all the liquor in the world, with nothing to stop you giving it away, if you want to, or arranging to collect it later on. This is the farce we are operating. The licensing laws of Great Britain can be summed up as organised frustration, making Britain look silly.
Another point I want to make is that it appears that in some halls, as long as there is a dance, one may have drinks a little longer than if it is simply an ordinary pub. We all know the restaurant supper hours. If there is a special occasion, whatever that means, one can enjoy a few more drinks with supper in a restaurant than in an ordinary pub, say, in the City or any other part of the country with the exception of Scotland. I am bound to say, if I may speak paranthetically, that I believe that what has been done in Scotland has been sensible and has had a great deal of success.
I appreciate that the temperance movement has genuine concern for the physical and spiritual aspects of alcohol abuse. But its argument is totally blunted when one realises that you can get much more alcohol outside the licensing laws in Great Britain than you can within them. This is the crass absurdity that we must do away with.
52
It should be seen that while flexibility—whatever than means—is a change, it is impossible to change the licensing laws of Britain for the worse unless you get prohibition. We all know what that did for the USA; it made for totally free drinking everywhere. If a person wanted a drink in the United States, he did not do what I can remember happening in Wales on a Sunday. People went to the British Legion Club and hopped round to the back door of the pub, which was all great fun. You had to get in "the know" of the gangsters who, during prohibition, slew close on 200,000 Americans. That was the result of this piece of stupidity. We have nothing like that in this country. People are fairly level-headed in Great Britain and there has been no massive demand. People have maintained the laws; they have carried out the laws as they exist.
Then came the Scottish experiment. This has been a success from every point of view, but one of the most fundamental reasons why it has been a success is that it has been approved by an overwhelming majority of Scots. I do not think we should dismiss that by any means whatsoever. It is not so much that there is far more to drink or that they drink far more. I read in one report that the Scots like these extra hours not to consume more drink but to consume it more slowly and to be able to have a little more time to talk. That is a heinous reason, I am sure, for relaxing the licensing laws!
Another point we should note is that crimes related to drunkenness in Scotland have declined during the experiment by 41 per cent. since 1979. I believe right the way through it has been remarkable. When crimes related to drunkenness have declined by this amount, there must be something in the idea of making the licensing laws more sensible.
We must admit. as I have already said, that 30 million pub users and several million restaurant users have abided by our licensing laws. That is completely guiltless of any logic. People should not be punished because they have been sensible. When one looks at the Scottish experiment, one can see how helpful it has been to people in Scotland, and I believe it would be wrong to deny what is now enjoyed in Scotland to the Welsh and the English.
In so far as we have seen that there was harm from excessive consumption before the experiment in Scotland, the amount of harm from excessive consumption has reduced. This was not because of restrictive laws but through providing a little more elbow room in the spirit of going out to have a drink and allowing people a little more time. It will be realised that vast purchases can be made at off-licences and other stores. People will realise that they must get home. They will leave the pub at three o'clock because they cannot get another drink and will store up a few more at home. All that the licensing law seems to be, at every turn of the argument, is just a squalid nuisance, and this is an absurdity.
On the other hand, the BMA warning must also be heeded. There is an alcohol problem in society. There is a drug problem in society. We all know—and this has particular application to the alcohol problem—that forbidden fruits are always the most attractive. When you can flog a bottle of Scotch somewhere to someone in those circumstances he will

53
have it even if he does not really want it. If you can walk into any off-licence or public house and simply buy liquor that will reduce the alcohol problem. When something is not necessarily in short supply yet ordinary people are prevented from purchasing it in step the criminals and the black market.
It is true that 50 per cent. of people who commit homicide and 50 per cent. of their victims are under the influence of drink. We have seen terrible things as a result of drinking and driving. We have seen what cirrhosis of the liver has meant, and the costs to the NHS. One has to look at all the arguments, and let them be recognised. In Scotland all the problems occurred when there were restrictions like those which we now endure in England and Wales. If I stood here and said that a massive change in the licensing laws would result in more murders, more drunken driving and more cirrhosis of the liver, I would have no case. But that is not so, and we must have the courage to look at the situation.
We need not merely sensible licensing laws, but laws that will help and not hinder the trade; laws covering both those who enjoy a drink and those who provide it. I believe that our country needs a policy on alcohol. The Government
should collate all the reports which exist. Some were referred to by the noble
Viscount, Lord Montgomery. There is a need to get them all together and to look at what we can do.
I have already mentioned the example of prohibition in the United States. That was the one extreme. I do not think we should go to the other extreme, but we are at a half-way house, and a half-way house is a miserable house. We are in the middle of the road with our licensing laws; and if you want to get knocked down at some time or other, stay in the middle of the road. The present situation is an absurdity.
In conclusion I want to say that we need to modernise the law. We need to reduce illicit drinking by youths and addicts, but at the same time we need to make life reasonably tolerable for the masses of ordinary citizens of our country who have for so long patiently abided by, though laughed at, our licensing laws. I support the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, in the way in which he opened this debate, and I hope that others will support him. If there is any change, it will be richly deserved by the British people.
6.3 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, like the noble Lord I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Montgomery for raising this subject once more. As he said, 15th July was when we last discussed the subject in this Chamber, and we then had a long and informed debate. He has helped us this afternoon by telling us about the Scottish experiment, which seems to have been more successful than even the Scottish people envisaged at the time.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, I want to say a few words about the tourists coming to our country. I do not think that he mentioned the numbers of tourists. In 1984 13,644,000 people came to our country. They spent £4,175,000. That is a lot of money. They did not spend it on drink; often they could not get it. If the Government move their
54
position on this matter, tourists might spend something on drink; whenever they come they are welcome.
They come to our country for many reasons. They come to see the beauty of our country. They come to see the pageantry of our country when it is on display. They come to see the cultural heritage of which we are so proud and about which perhaps we boast too little. I refer to our beautiful houses, our cathedrals—all the lovely buildings we have in our islands.
Tourists also say that the food has improved. There are more restaurants open. They are run by people of all nationalities who have come to live here and who have opened restaurants. We all hope that the tourists enjoy their visits. We hope that having been here they understand more about our island people. But we know that in no way can they be expected to understand our licensing laws.
As I know from going to Spain, a Spaniard, for instance, lunches at three o'clock. You cannot have a glass of wine with your Spanish food at three o'clock in this country, and visitors cannot understand this. It is possible to go out and buy a bottle of wine but it is not permissible to take it into the restaurant during closing hours.
I shall be brief. I think I said a few words about the public houses and the great part they play in the life of our country during my brief remarks last July, and certainly I shall not repeat that. I hope that the Government will take the plunge. It is just a plunge to try out an experiment. If it is wrong, if it does not suit the country, if it does not help our tourist trade, they can of course go back to what is an out-of-date set of laws.
The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, was right in saying that much is swiftly changing in our country and that this is a completely out-of-date law. In my view the shops hours situation is almost a parallel. We are grown-up people. I do not believe that if flexible hours are allowed, abuse of this law will have much effect. I do not think that the laws will be abused by people in this country. A change in the law will mean that people will not down several pints quickly just because they feel that they must drink a certain amount before the pub closes. It will help because in certain cases where the publican decides to stay open later people can enjoy themselves for a longer time. I feel that the time is right to try an experiment with more flexible hours of opening. Last July I quoted my late husband, who said, "Set the people free". That is what I should like the Government to do now.
6.8 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, for giving us a chance again to discuss this most interesting topic. It is always one which produces colourful speeches. I already feel a bit of a wet blanket following the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, with whose sentiments I agree, but I am afraid that I shall probably introduce one or two caveats. This does not mean to say that I am not entirely for the idea of the liberalisation of our licensing laws, but one may forget that it has been 10 years since the Scots tried this departure from the British method of the control of

55
drinking in these islands, which has differed from what happens with some of our European neighbours who have no such controls.
In those countries they have grown used to using alcohol in a different way socially. Social drinking habits in those countries are quite different. Nevertheless the dangers of alcohol are still present in those countries. The effects of the dangers of alcohol are simply different under our system from those which prevail in those other countries. As the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, graphically pointed out to us, we have in this country a frustrating atmosphere in which people drink. We have these fixed hours. We have had them since they originated, as he said, under the Defence of the Realm Act in the First World War, for reasons which are quite remote from the reasons for which they are enforced now.
We went along the road of controlling drinking by producing rigid hours and out of this, perhaps, came some ills which we see now, such as particularly concentrated bouts of drinking which resulted in increased hooliganism. The consumption of alcohol has gone up. We have seen increased road accidents over the years, though there has been a reduction recently due to better policing and so on. I do not know the reason and I cannot answer the question posed by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, about why the Government have taken so long to react to the Scottish experiment. Nevertheless it has taken 10 years to effect a change in social drinking habits in Scotland.
To begin with, the experiment was slow in taking off. It was four years before one could see that people's drinking habits had changed. They have indeed changed and the statistics are unarguable. The numbers of drink-related crimes such as assault and battery, sexual attacks and drunken driving have all decreased by large percentages. One may quibble at the statistics. It may not be 40 per cent. but it may be 20 per cent., and so on. Nevertheless there has been a marked change in social drinking in Scotland and that could take place here. Indeed, I agree with other speakers that now is the time for us to embark upon that road. I agree that it is really absurd that we should have these kinds of controls and that we should be the odd people out. I agree with the Government that we do not want a nanny-ed society. We do not want a society which is told to do this or told to do that. More responsibility should be put on the individual to decide what is right and what is wrong for him and that he should suffer the consequences if he strays beyond the law. But it does not happen overnight.
The Government should now seriously answer this question: when will they take cognisance of the successful Scottish experiment and start us off down the road? I suggest that one of the reasons they have not acted very promptly is because of the important contribution that the sale of alcohol makes to our economy. They are afraid of rocking the boat. I believe that in the league table of income producers in this country alcohol is about fifth. It represents about £5 billion-worth of business to this country. I do not think that will be affected. In Scotland—and this may be a danger—the consumption of alchohol has gone up. Some experts have suggested that this may particularly affect women at home, for women are drinking more
56
at home. This could have dangerous social consequences and could lead to some of the ills of drinking which one sees in other countries and which result in premature death from cirrhosis of the liver and so on. But there are always ills attached to drinking. In this modern age we should seriously consider going down the road of liberalisation. We should take it gradually.
The noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, will think that I am being rather Alliance on this, but we on these Benches are known for being reasonable and using common sense in these matters. I support the noble Viscount absolutely. I do not want him to think that I do not. But the Government need at this stage to come out into the open because their performance has not been good recently—for example, in their attitude to drunkenness in the streets and their reaction to the clogging up of the courts with drunken cases. The police have been instructed to caution rather than to charge people with ordinary drunken offences. This has resulted in the police not wishing to take proceedings against drunks.
The figures which have been produced concerning the reduction of drunkenness on
our streets are false because the police are not doing anything about it. It is not worth their time and trouble to proceed. Detoxification centres which were useful in the past and were not very expensive public facilities have disappeared altogether. If the Government are to go down this road, they need at the same time to realise their responsibilities to protect the public, particularly the young, against the evil effects of drink and the abuses of alchohol where they occur—and indeed they do occur. The Government need to take a more serious approach as they do towards drugs. Where drugs are concerned in this country that is a different problem because we wish to eliminate drugs completely whereas drink is part of our culture and we have to live with it.
I believe that the Government spend about £17 million a year on helping people who suffer from the ill-effects of illicit drugs. But I believe that only £2 million is spent upon the sufferers from abuse of alcohol. I should like to see a reappraisal of this approach. After all it is a well-known fact that in this country in 1984, conservatively, 50,000 people died as a direct effect of alcohol abuse. In that same period only 250-odd died from drug abuse. That is not to say that there is not a serious problem. Drink is a serious problem if it is allowed to get out of hand. There will always be areas where the Government need to control, to educate and to advise, particularly the young. It will take a long period of time before we achieve such a change in our social habits that people use drink sensibly and it is no longer a macho thing for young men to visit a pub and drink for two or three hours to see how many pints they can put down.
My son is a young officer in a Scottish regiment. I was horrified when he told me that it is still in a Scottish regiment a macho thing for young officers to show the sergeants' mess that they can drink and stand up after consuming extraordinary amounts of alcohol. I daresay this is very good for young men but I am distressed to find that it is done in a Scottish regiment, in a country which has been so progressive in reform in this area.

57
I should like to finish on the note that I, and I think the great majority of people in this country, when they understand more about alcohol, more about what happens now and more about what the ill effects are, as well as the good things connected with alcohol, believe that the Government need to take a strong guiding role to help to curb the abuses so that we can move into the next century without this unnecessary nannying of our people and allow them to act responsibly on their own initiative.
6.17 p.m.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I wish to thank my noble friend for initiating this debate this afternoon. He knows well of my interest in the subject. I was owner and licensee of a country pub for some two and a half years until about a year ago, so I know something of the problems of the present licensing laws which I feel act as a straitjacket to a publican when he or she should be expanding the business. Flexible hours would help.
My noble friend's suggestion about the Scottish experiment for pubs to be open between the hours of 10 and midnight or choosing the hours to suit the publican would be a wise idea. This, I hope, would possibly eliminate the ridiculous 10-minute drinking-up rule which invariably is abused. I do not believe that there would be an increase in the consumption of alcohol in pubs, because I saw at first hand on many occasions that people only drank what they could afford and they then ceased to drink. They did not abuse the existing hours.
The biggest sanction on a licensee is the fact that he can lose his licence if there is excessive drinking in his pub. When he loses his licence, he loses his livelihood. Other noble Lords have mentioned leisure. For whatever reasons—unemployment is obviously one—there is increasing leisure. Surely we should change the rules to give those in the pub trade a chance to show what they can do. Noble Lords, I am sure, realise that pubs are now catering for families, sometimes with a separate room for children. Bar meals, which used to be possibly just a sandwich, have improved enormously and people will go miles to a good pub. I can assure your Lordships that people came a long way to our pub because we had very good food.
Why should visitors in the bars having lunch on a Sunday—and it is often a meal; it is not just a bar snack—have to finish drinking at 2 o'clock when in the restaurant (and we had a restaurant licence with only six tables) they can drink until 3 o'clock? It is quite extraordinary and nobody can understand it. I feel that the Government are dragging their feet. We should be benefiting from the tourist boom. The tourist boom will continue if we provide, especially in pubs, the service that both the British and the foreign tourists require—and quite rightly so!
We have been patient for a very long time. We have had many reports and we have had many debates; and we have had Questions over a number of years on this subject. I hope that when my noble friend the Minister comes to reply we shall be told of changes in our antiquated licensing laws in England and Wales to follow the Scots.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, on his persistence in pressing Her Majesty's Government to reform the licensing laws in England and Wales in the light of experience in Scotland. I am sure that he would join in tribute to our late friend Lord Spens, who showed himself well ahead of his time in raising a Motion in almost identical terms three years ago. I have thought very hard about this in the meantime and I can think of only one serious ground for not welcoming an early Bill to permit freer opening of public houses in England and Wales. There cannot any longer be the fear of awful consequences from alcoholic excess which Scotland has now proved to be without foundation. For my money, the worst aspect of early reform would be the prospect of a repetition of all those speeches we heard from the temporal and spiritual opposition when we had the Shops Bill before the House.
If the Government heed the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, and take courage to trust the people with freedom in this matter, I have no doubt that we can expect the right reverend Prelates to wax indignant, if they have any wax or indignation left, about the end of Sunday as we know it—in which case I hope that in large numbers deaf ears will be turned to that argument, as happened with the Shops Bill.
It seems to me that the issue of freedom is the same in both cases as, indeed, would be the likely outcome. If pubs and shops were equally free to open for the convenience of their customers, we know from Scottish experience in both cases that not all the outlets would equally avail themselves of the opportunity. We know that in some areas, on some days, at some times of the year, some shops and some pubs would find it worth opening to cater for their own clientele. We know that the public have differing patterns of working and differing styles of recreation. And we know that for holidays, locals and tourists from home and abroad choose differing patterns of going out, eating out and drinking out. There is enormous scope for expanding the service sector to provide more facilities and employment in serving both drinks and also, as the noble Baroness has said, meals and other refreshments.
There is no longer any objective, logical justification for imposing these restrictive and uniform prohibitions on opening times for pubs, any more than for shops, cinemas, restaurants, hotels or clubs. Why should not willing buyers and willing sellers be permitted the freedom to trade when it suits them? If the law of nuisance is insufficient to prevent damage to third parties, by all means let the law be strengthened on the general principle that the polluter should be made to pay any costs he imposes on others.
The only conscientious ground for hesitation about applying the liberal rule of laissez-faire to the sale of alcoholic refreshment has been that a minority will harm themselves and harm others. There is a danger that this incantation can become the refuge not only of killjoys and paternalists but even of tyrants. All freedom carries costs and dangers: consider motoring, air traffic, point-to-point racing, eating, dieting, smoking and, I would add, even stopping smoking. All

59
are manifestations of free choice and all bring risks of suffering, handicap and possibly premature death.
I personally have no more reason that the next man to be complacent about alcoholic excess. Like others, I have friends or relatives who are or have been in danger from the affliction of alcoholism. But the joyful news is that experience in Scotland confirms the judgment of the Erroll Report that there is no correlation between the misuse of alcohol and the hours at which pubs open and close. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, has said, so long as pubs are licensed, landlords have a very powerful incentive indeed to check drunkenness. And, as the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has said, the worst manifestations of the abuse of alcohol occur well away from pubs, in private homes and elsewhere.
Lest I am thought complacent, I would draw the attention of remaining sceptics to a very thorough assessment of the Scottish evidence in the British Medical Journal of 4th January this year. There were two authors, a Dr. Plant of the Alcohol Research Group and a Mr. Duffy, a statistician with the Medical Research Council. I should like to put on record their summary of the findings in their own words. They said:
"The study showed no appreciable effect on the level of alcohol related morbidity and mortality, though some improvements were noted in relation to the rates of convictions for drunkenness. The changes introduced since 1976 appeared to be popular and there was widespread perception that public drunkenness had become less commonplace".
If your Lordships read the detail of the article in the British Medical Journal, you will see that it shows that although mortality and hospital admissions from alcohol remain higher in Scotland than in England and Wales, the previously rising trend shows a more marked relative improvement in Scotland since longer opening was permitted after 1976. The report also shows that for both public order offences of drunkenness and drink-driving there has been a relative improvement in Scotland, especially compared with the rising trend of convictions for drinking and driving in England and Wales since 1977.
The noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, quoted the report of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. For me, the most impressive single finding appears in table 4.3 on page 13, which shows a marked fall in the average number of drinks consumed per hour. It lends credence to the view quoted from a licensee at the very end of the report, on page 42: "To me, the Scotsman at one time drank against the clock. It's a better way now; no screaming for drinks in the last hour; a much more civilised way of drinking. Scotsmen used to go out to get drunk, but that's changed now—like the English they go out for a drink".
As a mere Sassenach, who spent seven years in those rougher parts in the days of the bogus bona fide traveller who invented journeys to get a wee dram in Scotland, I may say I rejoice in this transformation since I left those parts. The quicker the Government can bring the boon of reform to the English, the sooner we can further civilise our own pattern of drinking.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I too would like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Montgomery on having raised this Question and for having put the point so clearly. I speak, as your Lordships may have guessed, because of the reference in the Question to the Scottish experience. I admit to being the person who must be held responsible for initiating the reform which took place in Scotland. As Secretary of State, I appointed in 1971 the committee under Dr. Clayson to review the law and to make recommendations. The committee, with admirable expedition, reported to me while I was still in that office and I was able to set in train the action which led to the legislation. So I am the instigator or culprit (whichever way you like to look at it) so far as Scotland is concerned. I hope I can make a contribution to this debate as someone who lives in Scotland and who took a leading part in the changes there.
First, I must make the distinction completely clear between this subject and Sunday shopping, because there has been some confusion. The shops and pubs in Scotland were subject to entirely different regimes on Sundays. The Shops Bill on the subject of Sunday trading which is at present before Parliament has no relevance in Scotland because the situation there has been for many years what the Bill now proposes for England and Wales. I cannot overemphasise this point: it is being missed continually in public discussion, in articles and broadcasts, and sometimes it is not even known.
If it is mentioned at all that Scotland is not affected by the Sunday trading Bill, it is mentioned at the end of a broadcast, with Scotland even being put together with Sweden as if Scotland were not a part of this country. The proposals which are in the Shops Bill are already operating in Scotland and have been so operating for many years—for much longer than since 1976 and the licensing law reforms we are discussing this afternoon. The point is that the restrictions in England and Wales concerning shops, with ridiculous anomalies such as being able to buy a newspaper on a Sunday but not a Bible, did not exist in Scotland and so there is no question of reforming them.
In sharp contrast to that, the liquor licensing laws in Scotland in the 1970s prohibited Sunday opening, besides severely limiting weekdays. Drunkenness was a serious problem in Scotland—worse than in England. Some of your Lordships may be surprised to hear me say that something was worse in Scotland than in England and Wales, but I go back to the 1930s because I lived on the outskirts of Glasgow at times, as well as in the Highlands. There were two factors which applied and dominated. The first was an incentive to drink as much as possible before closing time. The second was that many pubs and bars—the equivalent of the "local" in England—were simply dens for hard drinking where the customers were all men, because they did not think of taking their womenfolk to such places.
When I appointed the Clayson Committee it was my hope that rationalising and liberalising the licensing laws in Scotland would not increase drunkenness and that indeed it might reduce it. The recent report of the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys and the statistics for charges of drunkenness in Scotland

61
vindicate that hope and also the Clayson recommendations. Drunkenness is on the decrease in Scotland.
Of course, there were doubts at the time. To illustrate my intentions at that time, when I was invited to address the annual gathering of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in Edinburgh in 1971, I referred to this subject, together with the work then in progress on improving trunk roads, including an important one in Perthshire. I was therefore able to say that, in more than one sense, my aim was to straighten out the devil's elbow!
If I may say so, I was sorry to hear from the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that at least one Scottish regiment continues an ancient custom concerning drink. I also have a son in a Scottish regiment, in which he is a company commander and also president of the mess committee of the battalion. He certainly would disapprove: he is almost teetotal and a fitness fiend, as are some of the other officers. It was therefore no problem when he had to serve for two years in the army of the Sultan of Oman, where there was no alcohol.
In the changes in Scotland there were problems for the licensed trade, and we should be considerate about those matters where England and Wales are concerned. To move from a six-day to a seven-day week and to longer hours meant changing the patterns of employment and it also meant increasing costs. That led to more jobs and the additional costs were more than outweighed by additional custom. Drinking has become more civilised in Scotland, as the report confirms, and more people are drinking in moderation in public places. In particular, the reform has helped the tourist industry in Scotland. Visitors, especially from abroad, expect to be able to get a drink in the late evening and on Sunday, whether it is during the Edinburgh Festival, the Commonwealth Games, or in a country inn. Also, in Scotland visitors do not have to worry about the possibility of the wine being less wholesome than it should be. As for the "wine of the country", that is as good as ever and will continue to be so, however the beneficial ownership of the distilling industry may be changing in the coming months.
I am not suggesting that any reform in England and Wales should follow closely the Scottish example. I modestly submit that what has happened in Scotland is worth looking at, especially because on this subject, like Sunday trading, Scotland is often forgotten or overlooked, much to the irritation of people like me whose homes are in Scotland and who can be in central London within two hours.
I shall end by reminding the House about a farcical element of the Scottish licensing laws up to 1976. Alcoholic liquor could only be sold on Sundays to someone who had travelled for at least three miles. He was known as "the bona fide traveller". As a result, certain hostelries, strategically placed about four miles from the centres of cities and towns, did a thriving business on Sundays, mainly for customers driving from home. They had to keep a book and the book was for the signatures of the travellers, with their addresses, for inspection by the authorities. As they all had to drive on, or in many cases to drive back, at least three miles to their homes, this was a travesty of the
62
requirements for safe driving and a contradiction of the "Don't drink and drive" campaign.
Your Lordships will see why reform was necessary in Scotland, but I believe that we took the opportunity at the same time to bring about a general improvement, which has succeeded.
6.39 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I must apologise for being a late entry this evening. I should like to mention a few words, as I spoke in a similar debate some three years ago when the subject
was raised by my late friend Lord Spens. Like all other noble Lords, I should like to add my support, especially as one of the younger Members of your Lordships' House, for the recommendations and the need for action.
I do not want to mention the rush hour and all the other issues that have been raised, but I should like to refer to one aspect of the British tourist industry. Statistics have shown that, if the Government implemented more flexible drinking laws, an estimated 25,000 new jobs in public houses alone could be created. These would substantially result from increased food services. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, mentioned the anomalous position in Scotland. I would add that in England it is possible to drink in a moving boat, train or plane for 24 hours a day, while one cannot drink in a pub. May I just add my support and hope that the noble Viscount the Minister will give some encouragement to more flexible laws in the future?
6.41 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, I come in to this debate without having my name on the list of speakers, which means that it is my duty to be brief, as indeed he was. I come in because there is one point which I do not think has been made. I support absolutely the main ones, such as the fact that tourism calls for reform, the fact that it would help employment and the fact, as my noble friend Lady Sharpies said, that we ought to be more fair to the licensee who has the obligation of seeing that these laws are carried out. All of those are crying out for some real reform.
But in addition to all those matters, I believe that there is a parliamentary reason which is very much the concern of those of us who are in the Chamber today. The licensing laws are at present a jungle. We all know that and we as legislators ought to see that they no longer remain a jungle. It is possible to cut a path through, which will mean that the laws can be properly applied. So quite apart from the day-to-day reasons which have been very eloquently stated, I believe that we as parliamentarians ought to be concerned and we ought to see to it that the existing confusions are removed.
I say that because I have been a licensing magistrate for 30 years or more and the different views of various licensing benches, and particularly of the chairmen of licensing benches who may have very strong views, result in the application of the law as it now stands being very unfair between one district and another. I believe that from the central pivot of Parliament we ought to bring in some reform which will make the position more clear and more fair.

63
The most significant speech that we heard was from my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. He was the Secretary of State for Scotland who brought about the Scottish experiment. I thought that his evidence was very clear. He said that Scotland led the way in the United Kingdom in seeing whether it was possible to bring about a reform of the law, which would in no way encourage alcoholism or other things that none of us wants, but which would bring about a more civilised approach to the way in which we allow our licensed houses to be run. He has testified as one who had responsibility for bringing in that reform for Scotland, and the experience of a year or two has shown that he moved in the right direction, and England and Wales ought to follow.
His final point was one which we ought to keep in mind. The United Kingdom is England, Wales and Scotland, and I have always felt it quite ludicrous on matters like this, where we are literally talking about the same country, that over a certain boundary line the law and the way in which it is applied is different. Since the experiment in Scotland has shown that the direction in which they have moved seems to be the right one, I believe that the Government have enough evidence to look with favour at a possible reform in the rest of the United Kingdom.
If I may say a final word to my noble friend who will be replying, I hope that he has noted the significance of this debate. Every Bench in this House has shown that noble Lords think that this subject ought to be looked at with sympathy and good sense. Not one noble Lord in any part of the House differed and that is something which the Government ought to take into account when considering the next step that they will need to take. It is because I believe that the case is a sound one, and that, quite apart from the convenience to individuals that comes from it, we as law makers have a duty to clear up what is an anomaly, that I am hoping that my noble friend's reply will show that the Government intend within the reasonably near future to move in the same direction that Scotland pioneered some time ago.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am sure that all speakers and all noble Lords present this afternoon are very grateful to the noble Viscount for having raised this Question, and he should be very gratified that no fewer than two noble Lords found it impossible not to jump up and make their contribution to his debate. It is right that the subject should have been taken very seriously, because after all this is an area which affects many people's lives very closely indeed. The length of time that our public houses and other centres remain open affects those who go to them, affects those wives who, in many cases, stay behind and wait for closing time to come and, as has been said often today, affects those visitors from abroad and our own people on holiday in this country who would like to see a change.
The noble Viscount has today asked us to look at the Scottish experiment, and he made a very good case, as other speakers have done, for emulating this change in England and Wales. Other noble Lords have pointed to the anomalies in our present licensing laws, all of
64
which are only too true. Hours have been spent in this House discussing anomalies in the Bill on Sunday trading. I certainly would not wish to confuse the two issues; but there are very serious anomalies in our present licensing laws.
My noble friend Lord Molloy made a very powerful case for change on the basis that the present law is hopelessly out of date and he was supported from many sides. I was more than delighted to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, suggest something with which I quite agree, from my lesser experience of pubs than many speakers, that there is no doubt that those hastily downed final beers before closing time bring on very much greater intoxication than leisurely drinking over a longer period.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, talked of the record of drinking in neighbouring countries and pointed out the true fact that there is very much more drinking in those countries which do not have licensing laws. But he should remember that many of those are wine-growing countries, and a lot of drink-related illnesses come from a very high consumption of wine. I know that we were all delighted to hear the truly professional voice of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, who talked from the point of view of the publican, with all that he has at stake if he does not keep his public house in order, and who also made the important point that people have a certain amount to spend on drink and once having spent it they do not go further.
I feel that those points have been very well covered, so I should like very briefly to comment on three aspects of the subject. First, I should like to give my own view of the conclusions of the Scottish experiment; and, secondly, I should like to say a word about the other measures, apart from changing the licensing laws, which the Government could take to combat alcohol abuse. After all, there can be action of a social, legal or fiscal nature; but our purpose today is to address certain legal measures to control alcohol consumption. It is very important to remember that the use of tax and other revenues for the purposes of research, health education and such preventive measures aimed against alcohol misuse might be more effective in curbing that misuse than restrictive licensing arrangements.
Lastly, I should like to say a word about the changes, besides making opening hours more flexible, which could be made to enhance public houses and perhaps to adapt them to meet the needs of all members of the family today and the needs of the increasing number of tourists whom we are lucky enough to attract to our shores. From the research that I have carried out I must confess that I find the results of the Scottish experiment to be somewhat equivocal in pure statistics. In the same way as one cannot quite put one's finger on the reality of the Loch Ness monster, I found that I could not quite quantify exactly what came out of the experiment, although I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, who drew some very important conclusions from the figures.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She keeps referring to the Scottish experiment but the Unstarred Question refers to the Scottish experience.

65
It has been 10 years now; and it certainly was not an experiment when I started it—it was a reform. We now have a report and police observations on what has happened during 10 years; but it is not an experiment.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out that I was using the wrong word. It is of course an experience and not an experiment. Nevertheless, I was going to speak more in general terms. I believe that the following advantages are absolutely true. First, the longer drinking hours were welcomed both by the public and by the licensees generally. Secondly, the longer hours were thought to have led to more civilised drinking habits. The evidence of changes in behaviour lends support to this view. Public drunkenness became less commonplace. There was a very great improvement in relation to the rates of conviction for drunkenness; but as I understood it, there were also changed police procedures which could have made some contribution to this.
Thirdly, although there had in fact been an increase in overall alcohol consumption during this period, this increase, I understand, was attributed to women drinking more while the level among men remained the same. Although the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, was saying that he thought that this increased drinking among women was probably carried out at home, I should like to think that there were many younger women who go to pubs now. I was going to say that this more relaxed attitude towards women joining men for a drink was absolutely to be encouraged and to be applauded because it would make a very great difference. I do not believe that anything very dramatic and entirely conclusive can be proved from the statistics coming from this experience; but I believe that the changes made there played an important part in our quest for finding a formula whereby alcohol misuse is discouraged while normal enjoyable sociable drinking is allowed to proceed. This is the important point that has come out over the past 10 years.
Perhaps I may move briefly to my second point which flows from the main conclusion of the Clayson Committee, which was as follows:
"Licensing, a negative and restrictive process, can play only a strictly limited part in the control of alcohol misuse".
So bearing in mind that we all start from the same premise—namely, that unlike tobacco or hard drugs, there is nothing wrong with a normal consumption of alcohol—let us look at government policies which could be strengthened to combat alcohol abuse, other than the crude and doubtful way of restricting its sale in pubs.
Action on Alcohol Abuse has produced some very disturbing figures showing that the level of problem drinkers is very high. It amounts to about 1 million in the United Kingdom. Arising from that, as many as 15 per cent. to 30 per cent. of male acute hospital beds are occupied by patients with alcohol-related disease. It is estimated that between 40 per cent. and 60 per cent. of our prison inmates are in custody for drink-related crimes, although it is very difficult to establish a figure for that. The total cost of alcohol abuse is approximately £1.6 billion per annum, and more than 25,000 deaths, including motor accidents, can be attributed to
66
that cause. I notice that my figures are not quite the same as those of the noble Viscount, Lord Falk land, but I produce them with complete conviction.
Surely when confronted with this tragic human toll the Government should move a little way from the present £1 million per annum which they give to fight alcohol abuse. Voluntary organisations such as Alcohol Concern have been begging for more resources in order to research and monitor the problem and to invest in health education regarding the misuse of drink and in preventive and curative measures, all of which are possible had they the resources to do so. An active government policy on those educative and preventive lines should be implemented in conjunction with any planning regarding the licensing laws that might come about.
My third and last point relates to the arguments used by those parties who, from I suppose a vested interest, wish to see opening hours extended. The Brewers' Society and the National Union of Licensed Victuallers—supported, I understand, by the British Tourism Authority—have proposed that a modest amendment to the law in England and Wales should be made along the following lines:
"Individual on-licensees (or registered clubs) would be entitled to vary their existing permitted hours, within the outer limits of 10.00 a.m. to 12 midnight (subject to a maximum of 12 hours in any day, or more in exceptional circumstances). In each case the variation would be subject to the approval of the licensing justices. It could be made for up to 12 months at a time. Existing procedures for the extension of hours in special cases would remain. There are no current recommendations for change to the existing law on Sunday trading".
That is what they think would be both practical and effective changes that could be made in the present law. They complain with some justification of the injustice of allowing off-sales outlets to increase and argue that people who have a serious alcohol problem are unlikely to obtain their drinks through the controlled environment of the pub and that supermarkets and other off-licences would be a very much more likely source of supplies for them.
However, it is not only those who have a vested interest who support more flexible opening hours. Many ordinary, moderate social drinkers do so too on the grounds that change would be in the interests of the consumer, allowing a greater range of choice; that it would be beneficial to tourism and holidaymakers generally, as has been said so often today; and that foreigners are really astounded by the practices in this country. This is the view not only of people who have an interest in changing the licensing laws but also people who feel that this is a very outmoded habit and that it is time it was changed.
My final point relates to changes which can be made to widen the service and the contribution made to the community by pubs. Surely it is absolutely unbelievable that children should be left outside pubs while their parents go inside to have a harmless beer. I know that there have been changes, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharpies, said. The amount of food available is being increased and there are some leisure activities. However, that is not nearly enough. I feel that the family of today needs a place to which they can go and eat something together and have a drink together. There should be more provision of non-

67
alcoholic drinks and something for children to do in pubs.
I very much feel that the presence of children in a pub would be very beneficial. There is nothing more harrowing than the bell-like note of a child who says, "Dad, you're drunk!" or, "Mum, you're talking too loud!". The presence of a child in a pub, if the service and the environment were changed naturally in order to make it possible for children to be there, would have a highly beneficial effect upon the amount of drinking that would go on.
Again, with regard to the Sunday trading Bill, I feel that the enjoyment of a child going shopping would be much less than the enjoyment of a child going out with his or her parents to have a sandwich and a Coke in a public house during the weekend.
I know that some alcohol concerns have put forward very strong views about how there could be changes in the environment of pubs in order to make them more attractive to foreigners—along the lines of bars on the Continent—and to parents so that they may take their children with them.
I hope that the noble Viscount the Minister will think carefully about all that has been said this evening. There is no doubt that the Scottish experience was a very important one; every speaker has said so today. At the same time I should like to think that the Government will put more money into dealing with the subject of alcohol abuse and into supporting any changes that might be made within our present public houses.
7.2 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein for providing your Lordships with another opportunity for debating the prospects of reforming the licensing laws of England and Wales. I should also like to say how delighted I am that my second reply—not my maiden reply—to an Unstarred Question should be addressed not only to a noble friend but to an old noble friend (or perhaps it should be noble old friend) for, as he said, our friendship dates from those now distant but still memorable days of Cambridge just after the war.
My noble friend mentioned that I used to write verse and now have to speak in prose. When I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, I was reminded of Noel Coward's first composition, which began:
"Every peach out of reach is attractive>
Cos it's just a little bit too high".
However, I will not pursue that point any further.
It is one week short of nine months exactly since my noble friend asked a similar Unstarred Question on this subject, but I am sure he will not expect me to produce a miraculous delivery. Although I was unable to attend that debate, I have naturally studied the Official Report very carefully, and particularly the reply given by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur. Whether my reply tonight will be more positive and encouraging than my noble friend's was on that occasion will be for your Lordships to decide. I am in any case grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, which has shown quite
68
clearly that the subject of licensing reform continues to arouse strong emotions and convictions—which have been well expressed today.
Much has been made in this debate of the findings of the surveys conducted by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys into drinking and attitudes to licensing in Scotland. We have heard that if the law in England and Wales governing permitted opening hours were amended on Scottish lines, the benefits would be widespread. For example, licensees of restaurants and public houses would receive a welcome boost to their trade, as my noble friend Lady Sharpies mentioned; there would be increased job prospects; and, my noble friend Lady Macleod said, tourists would find less cause to complain about our irritating customs: no longer would they be denied the opportunity to enjoy a drink in the afternoon. Other noble Lords, and in particular the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, have advocated caution, and have warned that the social and economic costs associated with the misuse of alcohol will rise if we remove the current restrictions on its availability.
I do not think it necessary or appropriate here to repeat all the points my noble friend Lord Glenarthur made in reply to the Question put by my noble friend Lord Montgomery in July last year. Many of the comments he made on that occasion remain valid, but perhaps I could emphasise one that explains the Government's approach to licensing reform, and it is one that I believe will find support on all sides of your Lordships' House. I hope it will answer the point put so cogently by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. It is this.
The Government have consistently taken the view that any move towards extended or more flexible hours for licensed premises in England and Wales must take fully into account the likely effects on alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems. We cannot pretend that the problems associated with alcohol misuse are insignificant. Nor can we accept the view, which is sometimes put forward, that because it is only a minority of the population who indulge to excess the law should disregard that minority and be tailored to the moderate majority.
It is perhaps significant that the Question put by my noble friend asks not whether but when the Government will consider reform of the licensing laws in the light of the Scottish experience. That rather implies that all the evidence to emerge from Scotland since the introduction there of extended licensing hours points to beneficial results. The picture is not, however, quite as straightforward as that. At this point, I should like to mention my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and to thank him for his instructive and constructive contribution to this debate, and for giving the House the benefit of his enormous experience on this occasion.
The purpose of the recently-published report by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys was to assess the long-term effects of changes in Scottish licensing laws resulting from the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. That Act introduced three fundamental changes. The evening closing hour of licensed premises was extended from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m.; public houses were for the first time allowed to open on Sundays; and

69
there was a new facility enabling licensees to apply for regular or occasional extensions to their opening hours. It is the use of that facility which has led to many public houses in Scotland opening throughout the afternoon and late into the night, beyond 11 p.m. The surveys conducted by the OPCS compare the levels of alcohol consumption and the patterns of drinking before and after the implementation of those three changes and explore the attitudes of the general public and of licensees to the revised licensing laws.
I shall not attempt to describe all the report's findings, but it may be helpful to point to a few that are of particular relevance to this debate. In the period 1976 to 1984, women's consumption of alcohol increased by 36 per cent., due in part to a rise in the number of women drinking but also to an increase in the amount drunk by individual women. In contrast, there was only a very small increase in consumption by men, despite the fact that they were far more likely to have drunk on licensed premises during the afternoons, and they made more use of extended evening hours and Sunday opening of public houses.
What is also interesting is that the time spent drinking, by both men and women, increased by more than an hour a week, but the rate at which alcohol was consumed fell noticeably. Those few findings alone suggest that the longer licensing hours in Scotland have led to more relaxed and leisurely drinking.
There is therefore some encouraging news to emerge from the Scottish report, but to balance the picture perhaps I might draw on the OPCS study a little further. The Health Education Council guidelines suggest that a sensible, healthy level of drinking for men is no more than two or three pints, or the equivalent, two or three times a week, and no more than half that amount for women. The OPCS report found that of the men interviewed, 26 per cent. had drunk more than the maximum recommended, a slight increase over 1976 when the figure was 24 per cent. In the case of women, however, the proportions exceeding the recommended limits rose from 7 per cent. in 1976 to 11 per cent. in 1984. The picture is not therefore entirely one of responsible and relaxed drinking. Over a quarter of men and slightly more than a tenth of women in Scotland are drinking more than the sensible levels suggested by the Health Education Council. It would be wrong to suggest that those increases in the levels of drinking are directly attributable to the changes in Scotland's licensing hours.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Viscount give way? He has made a very important point, but answers have been given to the amount of drinking by women in Scotland. Many of them used to drink at home because they could not go out for the longer hours. Therefore, some of the conclusions are wrong. It is like the three professors: one of them drank a lot of brandy and water and he got drunk; another drank a lot of whisky and water and he got drunk; the third drank a lot of gin and water and he also got drunk. They concluded that water was intoxicating. What I am trying to say is this. Many of the women in the report would have drunk that amount of alcohol at home because the times were awkward for them to go
70
out to drink. They might well have drunk less in the company of their friends than alone at home.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not know whether I can answer that intervention and I think I shall not try to do so, but it is an extremely interesting point.
I repeat what I was saying, because it is an important point. I was saying that it would be wrong to suggest that these increases in the levels of drinking are directly attributable to the changes in Scotland's licensing hours. That is what I said. Equally, we should not pretend that relaxed licensing hours will always bring relaxed drinking; although I am sure that it will in the case of the noble Lord.
It has been mentioned in this debate that a reliable guide to the extent of alcohol misuse is found in the various health-related statistics, including the indicators covering registered deaths from chronic liver disease and cirrhosis. We have heard that the evidence of alcohol-related harm in Scotland suggests that the introduction of extended opening hours has not resulted in increased problems but instead has had a neutral effect. I think that is probably right. Although, when comparing the position in Scotland with that in England and Wales, there are a number of factors which make it difficult to interpret the indicators clearly and to draw firm conclusions, so far as the particular issue of flexible licensing hours is concerned there is no evidence that the Scottish legislation has caused an increase in the incidence of alcohol-related harm.
We have also heard in the course of this debate statistics of drunkenness and drink-driving offences in Scotland used to support the claims that only good will flow from relaxations in the licensing laws. But, to paraphrase Andrew Lang's words of almost a century ago and, perhaps rather appropriately in this debate:
"People often use statistics as a drunken man uses a lamppost—more for support than illumination."
So I have to offer a note of caution: statistics may not always be what they seem. They may be affected by a number of factors, and in particular the amount of effort the police, in this case, devote to catching drink-drivers and their attitude towards drunkenness.
The drunkenness figures for Scotland show little change in the number of offences recorded or charges proved between 1976 and 1980. This was the period when the use of flexible opening hours in Scotland gradually became widespread. If flexible hours had had any marked effect on drunkenness one might have expected to see some change before 1980. As it is, the sharp drop in offences proved occurred from 1980 onwards, and more likely reflects a change in police procedures. Nor can we look to the statistics of drink-driving offences in Scotland to assess the effects of flexible licensing hours. The figures do not reveal any particular trend and are probably greatly influenced by the police perception of priorities and the deployment of police resources. All we can say about these various statistics is that they provide no evidence that extended licensing hours in Scotland have had significant adverse effects.
Up to now I have concentrated my comments on the effects of the longer Scottish licensing hours in

71
terms of the evidence that is available. The recent OPCS report has provided a very detailed analysis of patterns of drinking in Scotland and it is right that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary should want to consider the implications very thoroughly, along with the health and offences data, before contemplating relaxations in the licensing law in England and Wales.
But there is a further aspect which it is important to mention, and that is public reaction to change. It is certainly the case that overall the changes in licensing laws in Scotland have been popular and 73 per cent. of those questioned by the OPCS agreed that they were an improvement. But it is significant that whereas the 11 p.m. closing time and Sunday opening of public houses in Scotland found favour with most people, the extensions, and in particular the late evening extensions, were considerably less popular. Opinion was fairly evenly divided on afternoon extensions but majority opinion was opposed to late night opening after 11 p.m.
In England and Wales various public opinion surveys have been conducted over the years to assess the demand for longer or more flexible opening hours. They do not suggest widespread support for change. The surveys show a fluctuating minority in favour of increasing pub opening hours which reached almost 50 per cent. in 1984. My noble friend Lord Montgomery may, however, take comfort from the results of a 1984 survey which showed that 85 per cent. of those interviewed thought that restaurants should be able to sell alcohol whenever they were open.
There is considerable public concern about the extent of alcohol misuse in this country, which may influence the results of opinion polls. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said that he wants to take into account, as part of his review of the licensing hours, public reaction to the picture to emerge from Scotland. I hope noble Lords will agree that this is a responsible approach.
I cannot pretend that, public opinion apart, the pressure to remove the present retrictions on opening hours of licensed premises has in any way eased in recent months. That would be far from the truth. I certainly do not underestimate the strength of the case for change which is put by the tourism industry. Nor should we disregard the benefits in terms of new job opportunities that may come if we release licensees from some of the restrictions on their ability to trade. Various figures are quoted in relation to the number of new jobs likely to be created if the licensing hours were relaxed. My noble friend Lord Montgomery said on a previous occasion that several thousand new jobs could be expected in the hotel, restaurant and catering industries. A figure of 25,000 new jobs in
public houses was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso. I have no wish to dispute the figures. Suffice it to say that in my view the prospects of any new job opportunities are to be welcomed. Certainly I can assure noble Lords that the Government will not lose sight of the tangible benefits, in terms of tourism and employment prospects, to result from liberalising the licensing laws.
72
The Question asked by my noble friend Lord Montgomery was: when will the Government consider reform of the licensing laws? I hope I have said enough to convince him and other noble Lords who have contributed to this debate in support of change that the issue is under very active consideration. My right honourable friend made it clear in another place recently (Official Report, vol. 94, cols. 397 and 398) that he had a lot of sympathy with the view that the law is out of date, and believes there are strong arguments for considering a change. At the same time we need to be sure that we are on firm ground before embarking on such a course. I cannot anticipate the outcome, but I hope that it will not be too long before the Government's conclusions are announced. Until that time I shall refrain from speculating on the prospects of legislation. I hope, too, that noble Lords who take a cautious approach to reform will have been reassured to learn that we take very seriously the concern that is expressed.
We have had a stimulating and interesting debate and I hope that my reply has covered adequately most of the points raised in it. I conclude by again thanking my noble friend for providing this further opportunity to discuss a subject which, as always, has provoked keen interest.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past seven o'clock.