Lords Sitting of 24 March 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.
Viscount Knutsford—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.
The Earl of Bradford—Took the Oath.

Lord Carter
Denis Victor Carter, Esquire, having been created Baron Carter, of Devizes in the County of Wiltshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and the Lord John-Mackie.

Prison Population Comparisons
2.50 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: 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, in the light of the remarks of the Earl of Caithness on 25th February [HL debates, col. 285) they accept the data given in the latest available table, for 1984, produced by the Council of Europe (Prison Information Bulletin No. 6, December 1985), which shows that per hundred thousand of population, Britain imprisoned more of its citizens than almost any other member of the EC.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the information about prisoners in different countries published by the Council of Europe is not strictly comparable because it reflects different legal and administrative systems. These difficulties apply particularly to the figures of committals to prison per 100,000 inhabitants to which the noble Lord refers, which are often quoted to support the statement that the United Kingdom sends more of its population to prison. My remarks during the debate on 25th February related not to committals to prison but to the figures on the prison population for 1st February 1986 in England and Wales.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Has he seen the most up to date comparisons published today by NACRO which show conclusively that Britain continues to head the European league for imprisoning its citizens? Bearing in mind that the prison department has publicly stated that the certified normal accommodation of 41,000 is expected to reach 50,000 very soon, does the Minister not accept from me that he will receive support from all around the House if he takes positive steps to reduce the prison population by,
110
for instance, ending prison for non-serious offenders, for those convicted of non-payment of fines and for minor theft?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can confirm to the noble Lord that I have seen the latest NACRO news release which is based on figures provided by the Council of Europe. If one takes those at face value, it looks as though the United Kingdom is the worst offender in this instance. But for England and Wales, of course, we are still below West Germany and France. We look at every alternative for reducing the prison population, but, as I am sure the noble Lord will be the first to appreciate, with an independent judiciary in this country it is perhaps not as easy to reduce the prison population as it is in some countries which have political justice.
Lord Elton: My Lords, are not the prison population figures in some sense the product of a snowball process? Is it not the case that the factor most likely to ensure that a person goes to prison is that he has been to prison before? Does not this make it of paramount importance to reinforce the only range of sentences which some courts regard as suitable for those who would otherwise go to prison; namely, intermediate treatment? Will my noble friend tell the House what his right honourable friend is doing to support this valuable initiative?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with his very considerable experience in this matter, my noble friend will, I know, support me when I say that the Government believe that the range of penalties available to courts should be wide and flexible. Indeed, I believe we have among the best in Europe, if not the best. The Government have strengthened the range of non-custodial measures—for example, in the Criminal Justice Act 1982—and we have strengthened the courts' powers to attach conditions to probation orders and enable a compensation order to be used as a penalty in its own right.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, is not one of the more deplorable aspects of the situation the fact that the number of young offenders aged 14 to 21 sentenced to youth custody has doubled between 1983 and 1986, contrary to the intentions of Section 4(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982? Given the negative and often harmful results of imprisonment, should not further steps be taken, or more encouragement given, to persuade magistrates' courts to make less use of custody and more use of the non-custodial alternatives such as intermediate treatment, as referred to by the noble Lord?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are keen to encourage magistrates to use the wide range of options that we have made available to them. I am sure the House will agree that it is up to them, the only ones to see the whole case, to determine exactly what the sentence, if any, should be.
With regard to the first part of the noble Lord's question, I will be producing further and more up to date statistics for last year, but I believe we can divide young offenders into those between 14 and 17 years of age and between 17 and 21 years of age. There are considerable differences between the two.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that with the number of people breaking the law, there are few who think that this is the time to remove from the courts their discretion to decide what sort of punishment that is required and that this certainly ought not to be the responsibility of the government of the day?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we totally agree with my noble friend on that point. It is up to the courts, within the parameters set down by the Government.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, was the noble Earl the Minister being as frank as he normally is in his reply to the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Graham? Did he not, on 25th February, utter these word in this House:
"Let us just pause a moment to consider Europe. There has been that often quoted and very misleading statement that we sentence more of our population to prison than any other country in Western Europe. That is utter rubbish".—[Official Report. 25/2/87; col. 285.]
Is it not a fact that the statistics to which the noble Earl referred include committals and imprisonment after remand or committal? But that is the case with every country including our own. Is it not an unfortunate fact that on those figures, taking 10 million as the status of a country and its population, we top the European list?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the quotation from my speech of 25th February read out by the noble Lord, was, in fact, absolutely correct for the United Kingdom and in particular for England and Wales. I was referring to the Council of Europe booklet of June 1986 which was the up to date information at the time. I would not have wanted to mislead the House in any way. Since then, further information has become available, as I said to the House. The booklet to which I referred did not contain anything about committals. As far as I am aware, the last information on committals to which the noble Lord's noble friend referred was in 1984, but that has been up-dated since the debate.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Earl will forgive me if I return for one moment to this point. I find his reply now extremely refreshing and much more typical of him. Does this not mean that he would not make the statement now that he made on 25th February?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in the middle of a debate, when one is limited, I did not perhaps explain from where I had taken my figures. I would make the same remark now about England and Wales rather than this country.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, does not the noble Earl agree that one-fifth of all those in prison in this country are on remand? They are people who, in the eyes of the law, are innocent and have not been convicted of any offence. Does not the noble Earl agree that this number—one fifth of 40,000—is far in excess of any other European country? Does he not further agree that the situation is an absolute disgrace?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, without checking the figures I cannot answer the noble Lord. As he knows full well, remands are of great concern and I spent much of my speech on 25th February on that point. We take this matter very seriously, but it is up to the judiciary who hear the cases as to whether or not bail is granted.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, considering the performance recently of people on bail, is not the complaint more that the prisons are insufficiently occupied? As to the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that sentencing policy is a matter for the judiciary, do not the figures indicate that the judiciary is making a very bad job of it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the judiciary in this country does an extremely valuable and useful job and all of us have much to be grateful for.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is it not the case that overcrowding in our prisons has now reached not only scandalous but dangerous proportions and is liable to cause grave troubles inside the prisons? Are not prisons still being used for fine-defaulters, mentally disordered persons and others who should not be in prison at all?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord is aware, over half our prisons are not overcrowded. We appreciate that there is a very serious problem in our local prisons and remand centres, and that is where a great deal of government attention is being focused at the moment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, am I to gather from the Minister's remarks about England and Wales that it is the position in Scotland that is the worst in Europe? The situation inside the prisons there is one of extreme danger at present.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, without looking up all the figures I am not sure. It would therefore be wrong of me to give an off-the-cuff answer to the noble Lord.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister now accept that there are many Members of this House and of the other place who wish him well in seeking to reduce and not merely to contain the prison population? Will he advise his right honourable friend that it is a question not only of numbers but also of the conditions inside the prisons, and that it is a very dangerous situation indeed? Unless it is tackled energetically and imaginatively in the next few months there could be an explosion which will dismay the whole nation.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Question. As he knows more than most perhaps, we are doing considerable work, and indeed A Fresh Start is but one of the initiatives that we have in hand at the moment.

Crossbows
3.1 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: 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 any plans to limit the ownership of crossbows by licence and to limit the use of crossbows to target shooting.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have no such plans. However, the Government fully support the Crossbows Bill, introduced in another place by the honourable Member for Leicester, East, which creates offences relating to the sale and letting on hire of crossbows to persons under the age of 17 and the purchase, hiring and possession of crossbows by them. We hope that the Bill will shortly be received into your Lordships' House.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. It is slightly more encouraging than a reply I received about two or three years ago when I asked more or less the same question. Does he realise that such silent and lethal weapons can cause a grievous wound that is more serious than an injury from a high velocity bullet? I understand that a great number of crossbows are obtained through mail order houses. How will a mail order house ascertain whether its prospective customer is under 17 years old? I know that this is a very long and involved question and perhaps not quite fair, so if my noble friend prefers he can write to me.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with regard to the mail order business, I can tell my noble friend that we are at present consulting the crossbow manufacturers and sporting organisations that use crossbows about the text of a guidance note for distribution to traders and a safety code for issue with all new sales of crossbows. I hope that answer will assist him. It seems to me that his Question is an excellent one to bring forward when the Bill comes before your Lordships' House.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that there are many shops that sell crossbows over the counter without taking into consideration the points that he raised? I have put this question before and I shall continue to put it. Will Her Majesty's Government look at the ease with which people can purchase offensive and potentially offensive weapons?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are looking at this question at the moment particularly because of the very serious concerns about which the noble Baroness, among others, has told us.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in dealing with crossbows, will my noble friend bear in mind that if ever we were to have a Government headed by Mr. Kinnock, these would be the most formidable weapons left to us?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I note with interest what my noble friend says.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, following the very witty intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. would the Minister care to ask his noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard whether he intends to be a militant propagandist for designating his area crossbow-free?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I expect that my noble friend will talk to me later about this matter but I am sure that there are certain people who will take up the noble Lord's suggestion.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, has the Minister seen a programme on television which went out in the middle of last week and which I think was called "London Report"? It showed the immense cruelty that is now involved in large-scale deer poaching, particularly in the South-East of England, and the use of crossbows for such poaching which is causing immense pain and suffering to many animals. When he has seen that programme, will it be possible for him to consider circularising magistrates and inviting them to use more readily their powers of confiscation in respect of such weapons when poachers are caught and also to use their power to confiscate lurcher dogs which, as shown in the programme, are also causing immense suffering?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have not seen the programme to which the noble Lord refers and I shall make a point of watching it. I hope that it has been videoed; that might be my best opportunity to see it. Of course, as I said in answer to the last Question, we draw to the attention of magistrates their full powers under the Acts of Parliament.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Bill which is passing through the Parliament in another place and which it is expected will have its Third Reading on Friday is widely supported both inside and outside Parliament? Is he also aware that the only criticism of the Bill is the sentencing power under Clause 6, which does not go quite wide enough? Will Her Majesty's Government see what they can do to extend it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is something for my noble friend to take up at a later stage if he is concerned.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the crossbow is not merely an amusing and archaic weapon, as exhibited in your Lordships' House, but is a very real weapon that is capable of dealing tremendous and horrific wounds to people and animals? Is he further aware that some of my best friends are lurcher dogs?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we consider that the crossbow can be an extremely lethal weapon in the wrong hands. That is why we are giving support to the Bill that is in another place.

Crime Prevention: Government Publicity
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Sharples: 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 action they are taking to expand their crime prevention publicity campaign.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the third phase of the "Magpies" publicity campaign was launched on 23rd February. The campaign, using television advertisements, door-to-door distribution of leaflets and advertising in national and local newspapers and magazines will encourage householders to improve the physical security of their homes. The campaign will cost £1·7 million. The crime prevention publicity budget for 1987–88 has been increased from £2.6 million to £4.8 million and the greater part of the additional funds will be spent on a new national advertising campaign.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he tell us how many neighbourhood watch schemes are now in existence? I asked the original Question in November 1983. Does he agree with the police view that people who are within these neighbourhood watch schemes feel much more secure in their areas?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that supplementary question. As the House will appreciate, neighbourhood watch schemes can be of tremendous importance and give greater security to individuals who live in the areas. There are now somewhere in the region of 20,000 schemes operating throughout the country, which is an increase of 100 per cent. during the last 12 months.
Lord Somers: My Lords, does the Minister agree that crime is at least as serious a disease as AIDS and therefore deserves the same publicity?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not think I heard the noble Lord correctly, but if I did, my answer is that that is why we are spending so much and have increased the budget so substantially for next year.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, while I in no way wish to belittle the essential programme which, as the noble Lord has said, costs the country some £4.8 million, I should like to ask this question. In view of the terrific number of offences connected with cars, would it not also be worthwhile to see that implements or gadgets are compulsorily fitted to cars to safeguard them? Secondly, is it not sensible to see that there are more police on beats so that crime may be prevented practically rather than merely by advertising?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, as always, puts his finger on two important points. The first point related to car thefts. They have increased astonishingly and at an alarming rate. Statistics show that in 25 per cent. of all burglaries force is not involved in entry. There is a message there for
116
everyone in this country. We should help reduce those statistics. With regard to the police, the total police strength in England and Wales now stands at 122,100. That is the highest figure ever achieved. Since May, 1978, there has been an increase of 16,381, and spending in real terms has increased by 50 per cent. We have made a major contribution to improving the police force, and I hope that we shall receive everyone's full support.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, will my noble friend extend that campaign in the direction of the banking system and draw its attention to the need for watchfulness as to the use to which that system can be put for the laundering of the proceeds of large-scale crime?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hear what my noble friend says, and will draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, as one who is engaged in crime prevention all the time, may I once again ask the Minister whether we can have some discussion on crime prevention in this House? We discuss prisons and prisoners. We do not discuss crime prevention sufficiently.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is of course a matter for the usual channels and not for me. I should like to take the opportunity to thank the noble Baroness for her work in this field and for the recent pamphlets to which she made a major contribution regarding shops.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is not the incidence of crime at its highest in the most deprived communities? Should not urgent steps now be taken to make neighbourhoods safer, particularly in inner city areas?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, of course the inner city areas face enormous problems. That is where local authorities can help. Instead of some of the more outrageous schemes which are proposed, it would be helpful if some local authorities followed the example of Hammersmith and Fulham which have produced a useful booklet, giving sound practical crime prevention advice, which they have distributed free to some 64,000 residents in their boroughs, and the example of Droitwich and Deptford where increased lighting has substantially reduced burglary figures.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, with regard to car thefts, will my noble friend consider having it made compulsory for the licence numbers of motor cars to be etched on their windows? That is one of the most effective ways of identifying motor cars after theft and would be an effective way of deterring the huge numbers of thefts.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hear my noble friend's strong conviction on this point with interest. Perhaps I could also discuss that point with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that crime is not necessarily the

117
result of poverty? The 18th century philosophers Jean Jacques Rousseau and Voltaire claimed that crime was only caused by poverty; but in this country the richer the majority of the population becomes—I agree that there are some people who are perhaps unlucky—the worse crime becomes.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hear what my noble friend says. In view of what my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft said earlier with regard to other matters, crime in this country is committed across a fairly wide spectrum.

Current Account Figures
3.15 p.m.
Lord Diamond: 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 why the 1986 current account deficit which was stated to be £360 million, is now stated to be £1,100 million.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, estimates of the current account are the responsibility of the Central Statistical Office. Its figures are frequently revised.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I note that Ministers of this Government have now taken the unusual step of not being responsible for what they say. Is it not serious that the current account, which was shown to have a £3 billion surplus only the year before last, should now been seen to have a £1 million deficit?
Noble Lords: Billion.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is that not a serious matter? Is it not equally serious that the gap in the trade balance should have increased in the same year from £2 billion to £8 billion? Irrespective of any minor variation in the figures, what do the Government propose to do about that? Do they propose to ask the CSO to have another look at its figures?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the CSO is responsible for producing the figures. The noble Lord's Question refers to the change in the invisible figures which were the only ones which were altered. They are based on the best information that it can assemble on each occasion. The first estimate for any month is a projection only, based on little firm evidence. That is gradually improved over time as the many different pieces of information come in. Some do not come in for months or even years. The noble Lord referred to future predictions and the trade deficit. I confirm that the Red Book figure is £2.5 billion for this year. However, I point out that between 1974 and 1979 the current account deficit averaged 1.2 per cent. of GDP. The projection is for a £2.5 billion deficit for the coming year, which is about 0.5 per cent. only of GDP.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that when Labour won the general election in
118
1964, its main plank was a balance of payments deficit of £860 million, which on present prices is nearer £8 billion? The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, went to the Treasury as Chief Secretary and started to take remedial action on those figures only to discover that they were inaccurate and that the actions were unnecessary, because the amount was less than half that which had been so widely publicised. Does not that show that the CSO is at least getting rather better at calculating the true figures than it was 23 years ago?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend is right. As I said in my second answer, the CSO figures on invisibles are difficult to collect. Much of the information takes a long time to come in—sometimes months or even years.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, will the Minister say on what authority he said that the noble Lord was right? Is the Minister aware that the first thing that happened on the first day on which I took up my responsibility as Chief Secretary was that I was presented with a piece of paper by the senior adviser to the Treasury showing that there was that deficit, which has been widely publicised since? Is it not monstrous that at this stage anyone, especially a supporter of a government who are in all these difficulties, should challenge that figure?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not accept the latter part of the accusation made by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that the Government are in difficulties. They certainly are not. That is proved by the CBI forecasts which came out this morning and which are the best forecasts for 10 years. As for what happened in 1964, 1 was still at school and I do not know.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that whatever difficulties were found when the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, went to the Treasury, they were absolutely nothing compared with when he left it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I think I am becoming somewhat surplus to this debate across the Floor of the House.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, reverting to the Question on the Order Paper, does the noble Lord not agree that towards the end of last year, when the CSO introduced revised estimates for the invisible trade of this country, it confused the situation and would have been much better advised to wait until the real figures were available? Will this practice of replacing estimates with estimates be discontinued in the future?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall certainly draw the remarks of the noble Lord to the attention of my right honourable friend. However, as I have said on an earlier occasion, it is difficult to produce these estimates as the figures take a considerable length of time to come in.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, the House has heard some extraordinary comments from people who have no knowledge of the circumstances but who are

119
already engaged in the next general election. As the Minister has said he has no knowledge of these matters, can I ask whether there is some other Minister available who had left school by this stage and who could therefore give us some information? Will he confirm whether my recollection is correct and that I am right in suggesting that at the time I ceased to be Chief Secretary to the Treasury not only was public expenditure under total control but the public sector borrowing requirement was a negative figure? That is to say, we did not borrow a penny, but repaid, in that final year. Is that not the state of affairs? Is it not correct that unemployment at that time was below half a million? And is it not correct that inflation was of the order of 4 per cent?
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, however all that may be—and I cannot say that I was not alive at the time because I was in Parliament—I still do not think that I would wish to enter into the debate except to say this. I am in the hands of the House, but I have to say that we have strayed a very long way from what we have agreed ourselves in the Select Committee on Procedures with regard to Questions. Possibly the best way we can get back to doing what we all agreed we would do is to give up this particular Question Time now.

European Air Fares (Competition) Bill [H.L.]
3.22 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to designate the Director General of Fair Trading as the competent authority in the United Kingdom for the purposes of Article 88 of the treaty establishing the European Economic Community. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Bethell))
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Petroleum Bill
3.23 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Davidson, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): The Question is that Clauses 1 to 10 stand part of the Bill?
Baroness White: I wish to speak on Clause 5 stand part.
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness White: I should like to draw attention to Clause 5. It seems to me that the Government are giving the Secretary of State power that if certain companies have not produced schemes that are satisfactory to the Secretary of State—and I read from Clause 5(1)—
"the Secretary of State may himself prepare an abandonment programme for the installation or pipe-line concerned".
One has a charming picture of the Secretary of State sitting at his desk working out his plan for the abandonment programme. However, this seems to me to touch upon a matter that was mentioned at Second Reading. Unfortunately, I was not able myself to be in the House for Second Reading. I have of course read the Hansard of the debate. The question of research was raised by several noble Lords, in particular by my noble friend on the Front Bench. One must assume that if the Secretary of State—whether in person or by delegation—decides that he is to produce a plan which is either an alternative plan to one already submitted, of which he did not approve, or a plan to be complied with because no plans at all had been submitted, that must surely rely upon the results of adequate research. Otherwise his plan is not likely to be satisfactory.
When the matter of research was raised, not very much attention was paid to it by the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, who was replying for the Government. But he made clear in his reply at col. 1004 that there is at least one programme researching into wells shut down, debris removal, environmental and fisheries implications, explosives technologies including safety aspects, metal and cutting technology and removal of gravity structures. One might suppose that to be a fairly good programme. He went on to reveal that towards this comprehensive programme the Department of Energy was contributing the munificent sum of £70,000. This was to be towards a programme supported by the Science and Engineering Research Council. The total cost was given by the noble Viscount as £570,000.
As I have some concern with university research programmes, and as we are very much dependent in certain areas upon the Science and Engineering Research Council, I took some pains to find out who paid the remainder of this sum. It appeared to me that for a programme of this importance and magnitude, on a subject covered by the Petroleum Bill, a contribution from the Department of Energy of £70,000 should not even be counted in peanuts. Grains of sand would be more appropriate for such a minuscule amount. However, I find the breakdown of the figures for what I take to be the programme referred to, which is being carried out by the recently hived off Marine Technology Limited, a subsidiary of some kind of the Science and Engineering Research Council, to be as follows. The Department of Energy indeed is contributing £70,000, and 11 industrial firms are contributing £15,000 each; that is, £165,000 in all. All the rest of the money is coming from the very much restricted resources of the Science and Engineering Research Council.
Anyone conversant with what is happening to university research at the present time, and more especially the SERC sector of it, will appreciate that within the last week or two, the SERC has indicated that simply to update the equipment of the research

121
centres for which it has some responsibility would in its estimation require £40 million over the next three years—just to replace obsolescent equipment. I ask noble Lords to consider the comparative orders of magnitude.
Further to that claim on funds for replacing outdated equipment, the five research councils among them have to find £13 million per annum in order to meet the recent university salary settlement. They have been told by the Government that no additional money is to be made available for that claim upon their resources. In consequence of that, the Science and Engineering Research Council has issued a warning to the university research departments for which it takes some responsibility that it will be unable to fund any new research for the next grant period and may even have to slow down on some of the existing programmes on which it has already embarked.
I am raising the matter at this point because it appears to me that the research situation in relation to the Bill which is before us in Committee is such that it should be looked at with the greatest possible care. After all, we are dealing with arrangements for one of the richest industries in the world, the offshore oil industry. The Government are taking responsibility for much of the expenditure which is involved in this Bill, but they have already creamed off substantial sums under the various headings which were discussed on Second Reading.
It seems to me that for this kind of research, which is vital—in fact not just for this one programme to which I think reference was made on Second Reading but for other programmes which are also essential—there should be reconsideration of how one obtains adequate funds, of what the responsibilities should be and of why the Science and Engineering Research Council should be expected to carry such a large proportion of a programme which, I understand, is drawing to a close in October of this year.
The programme is expected to be renewed. It would therefore be entirely appropriate for a proper investigation to be made between now and next October into how such matters should be funded, by whom and whether industry is making an adequate contribution. (I have mentioned the derisory sum of £15,000 from each of the 11 industrial firms), as well as whether under this Bill some other arrangement might not be made for this extremely important programme of research in an area where technology is changing with almost frightening rapidity.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Perhaps I may reinforce the point made by my noble friend Lady White. I am grateful to her for having raised this on clause stand part. As she said, at Second Reading, together with other noble Lords, I raised the question of research. We are talking about 6,000 rigs all over the world which will need to come down at some point. We are talking about a cost of something like £6 billion for our own offshore rig dismantling.
When I spoke on this and the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, replied (which is to be found at col. 1004 of the Official Report for 10th March), I know that he was somewhat shamefaced when he mentioned the figure
122
of £70,000. We are talking of a broad scope and the possibility of this being a major industry—the dismantling of rigs all over the world. There is sufficient time; there will be a gradual build-up, particularly for those overseas.
Although there will be a great deal of basic science involved, there is also much applied science, into which the Government are particularly concerned to direct research. I hope they will recognise that the dismantling of rigs all over the world provides an opportunity to build up a totally new sector and what could be a very lucrative industry. I hope that they have some plans, that the £70,000 which was mentioned in the Second Reading debate is only the beginning and that they will be much more imaginative about this matter which will pay great dividends to the nation in the future.
Lord Glenarthur: I am grateful to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for their comments about research and development. I am acutely aware from some personal experience of the North Sea of what is involved both in the establishing of rigs and in the work which will be necessary before they are finally dismantled.
Perhaps I may confirm what my noble friend Lord Davidson said at Second Reading; that is, that the Department of Energy is contributing £70,000 to the SERC programme, which, as we have heard, represents a total of £570,000 on the abandonment of offshore structures. I can also confirm the list which the noble Baroness, Lady White, mentioned and the topics it covers.
The overall aim of the programme is to identify those activities in the decommissioning, abandonment and dismantling of structures where technological development is a prerequisite or where such development leads to major cost savings and to identify where safe, efficient and cost-effective removal strategies can be established.
Perhaps I may say to both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that the first two-year phase of the programme will be completed this summer, but also that a further two-year programme is under consideration. The objectives, the content and particularly the funding of any such further programme will depend on the results of the initial programme.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that both applied and basic science will inevitably be required. So far as the more general funding of the Science and Engineering Research Council goes, I do not think that I can do more than take note of the remarks of the noble Baroness and refer them to my right honourable friend in another place.
Because this is going to be something for which it takes time to develop a sound science—it has not yet arisen and will require a great deal of work—probably the figures which are being talked about, coupled with the amount of money which is coming from oil companies and contractors, will be enough certainly to cover the first phase. As I said, further work will need to be done to assess the programme before the second phase is complete. But I note the reservations which both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have.
The Earl of Lauderdale: Perhaps I may pursue that point with my noble friend. I understood from what he said that the £70,000, or the total £570,000 investment, is simply the cost of a pilot research programme, or it might even be called a pre-pilot research programme, to discover what will be needed when the whole movement gets under way. Perhaps that might put it more in perspective.
Lord Glenarthur: I believe that to be the case. I cannot conceive that it would be practicable on that budget to do the engineering that would be required. That is why I mentioned the second phase; so piloting is perhaps a way of describing it.
Baroness White: Would the noble Lord not agree that because the second phase is now under consideration this is the very moment at which he should speak not only to one but to at least two of his right honourable friends? In a recent debate on civil research and development in this Chamber, we drew attention to the fact that there is too little coordination among different government departments on civil research. This is an excellent example of where a department with major responsibility—that is, the Department of Energy—is contributing an absolutely minuscule amount, whereas the Department of Education and Science under the research budget has to contribute a much larger amount for an industry which ought itself to be able to pay for it.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Baroness has raised an important point. Perhaps I can do as she suggests and ask both my right honourable friends in another place whether they can take a further look at it. I do not think I can go further than that at this stage.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 10 agreed to.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 7, line 26, at end insert ("taking account of such international standards and guidelines as may have been adopted by the International Maritime Organisation and other relevant organisations").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together. They do not have the same effect and they do not apply in precisely the same part of the Bill, but their general intention is so similar that it will be easiest to put forward the argument for them both together, unless Members of the Committee object.
In the briefest recapitulation of the general background, the Bill as it stands appears to be in conflict with the Government's obligations under the 1958 convention on the continental shelf. That convention says that when oil rigs, platforms, pipelines and installations have come to the end of their economic life, they shall be completely removed. On the other hand, the Bill provides for all the steps that the Secretary of State may and must take when devising plans for the partial removal of such objects at the end of their life. The Government have said, rightly, that since 1958 the technology of sub-sea oil exploitation has greatly changed, and there are now objects so vast that to require complete removal would be unrealistic and unnecessary.
Our submission is that if there is a law which lays a duty on an individual or government, and which used to be sensible and generally agreed but by the march of technology is no longer sensible and no longer generally agreed, it is wrong simply to pretend that the law says something different and to go ahead. The right course of action is to admit that the law says what it does and seek to change it as soon as possible.
The Government are in difficulties in this respect because they have chosen not to adhere to the new all-embracing United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and therefore they cannot work within that for the reform of international law. The Government's arguments to the effect that they are not bound by the 1958 convention have not met with widespread acceptance, and I believe that they will not.
When one is faced with a Bill that is in conflict with international law, and when it would clearly be insufficient to stand and shout, "Obey the law, obey the law!", because we know that the Government will not, it is the duty of Parliament to take any minor steps that it can to make it easier for the Government to keep close to the law, and if necessary even to oblige the Government to keep as close to the law as they can. That means keeping them in touch with international opinion and with generation after generation of international regulations and guidelines which will be coming.
The first amendment provides that the Secretary of State may take account of:
"such international standards and guidelines as may have been adopted by the International Maritime Organisation and other relevant organisations".
As a matter of detail, I made a mistake on Second Reading which was courteously pointed out to me in a letter from the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson. To cut a longish story short, he pointed out that subsection (5) as drafted makes it mandatory for the Secretary of State to consult with UK organisations and does not preclude consultation with appropriate organisations outside the UK. That is right, and I stand corrected. I would have answered the noble Viscount, but I was ill last week.
The purpose of my amendment is to make sure that the same degree of obligation falls upon the Secretary of State to consult in respect of overseas organisations as in respect of domestic organisations. If it is mandatory for him to consult UK organisations, I submit that it should be mandatory for him to consult the relevant international organisations. I believe that that is the effect of the amendment as I have tabled it.
The second amendment leaves out the words "in the United Kingdom". The Bill as drafted reads:
"Before making regulations under this Section"—
that is, regulations about the abandonment of rigs, pipelines and so on—
"the Secretary of State shall consult organisations in the United Kingdom appearing to him to be representative of those persons who will be affected by the regulations".
The amendment reads:
"leave out in the United Kingdom'".
Therefore he will be obliged to consult organisations both inside and outside this country whose members will be affected by the content of such orders or regulations that he may make.

125
In dealing with this matter, I should like to ask the Government a number of questions of which I have given them notice. I am sorry that I was able to give notice only this morning, but I was sick last week. I urge the House to listen carefully to the answers and to proceed on the amendment in the light of the judgment that each noble Lord may make on their validity.
First, do the Government stand by their earlier claim, made in the House of Commons in respect of the Bill, that they may interpret the 1958 Geneva convention on the continental shelf? Is that still government policy? Secondly, is there not a conflict between the Government's intention to breach unambiguous international law, with regard to the phrase "entirely removed", and their stated intention to observe international guidelines later? How much faith can we place in their intention to observe international guidelines if they are now breaking international law as it is clearly written down? Why are the Government now proposing to British fishermen reductions to the depth of 55 metres or 75 metres in the installations being demolished before this Bill is in place or the international guidelines are agreed? How can they justify reaching those figures without an Act of Parliament behind them to give them the authority or, more important, without the IMO guidelines yet agreed and in place?
Thirdly, is it the Government's intention to reach binding agreements with the oil companies on what should be done before the international guidelines to which I have referred, and which are being negotiated, come into effect? They are guidelines under Article 60.3 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Fourthly, do the Government continue to claim that the IMO is concerned exclusively with navigation? They have been making that claim. Is it a considered claim? If so, why? I put the same question in another form: do the Government argue, with full consciousness of the implications, that the IMO has no legal or environmental competence? Have they ever argued that way before? What about the IMO's marine environment protection sub-committee on which Her Majesty's Government have a representative who does sterling work? What about the legal committee on which the Government are also represented?
Next, do the Government argue that only the coastal state has competence in relation to fisheries? That argument has been made. Do the Government argue that only the coastal state has competence in relation to environmental and pollution matters? That argument has been advanced, although this Government have been tireless in their argument against the general inflation of coastal state rights. There appears to be some incompatibility in relation to that matter.
What is the great hurry about the Bill? I say "great hurry" because the Opposition parties have been under some pressure to agree to a shortening of the standard procedures on the stages of the Bill. The Government did not properly discuss, as they should have done, the Bill's provisions in advance with the British fishing industry. The British fishing industry is completely at variance with the Bill and very heavily at
126
odds with the Government. There is a wide gap which remains to be bridged somehow or other.
The Government did not discuss the Bill, the measures or the approach with the European Commission in view of the common fisheries policy. They did not discuss it with the European Commission in view of its transport competence, by which I mean shipping and navigation. They did not discuss it with the European Commission in view of the European Commission's environment competence. I understand that nor have they discussed it anywhere near adequately with the International Maritime Organisation in view of the IMO's competence under Article 60.3, of the UNCLOS text, to which I referred just now, which the Government approve, refer to and endorse. Although they are not a signatory of UNCLOS, the Government like Article 60.3. Bearing all that in mind the same question arises. I see that the noble Lord is shaking his head, but I took the trouble to give these questions to his officials. I see that he is indicating that he did not shake his head. I am sorry to misrepresent his gesture. I gave the questions twice over to two different officials, as I was asked to do. I know that they are complicated.
Article 60.3 of the UNCLOS text is one which the British Government laboured manfully over decades to bring to its present satisfactory condition, but then they threw away all the fruits of their labours by going along with President Reagan in boycotting the convention as a whole when it was completed.
In short, and to sum up all the questions, are the Government today arguing that Article 60.3 of the UNCLOS text places all maritime interests, save navigation alone, under the exclusive jurisdiction and control of the coastal state throughout the exclusive economic zone and throughout the water column above the continental shelf? If they are not arguing that—and I do not believe that they can seriously be arguing that—what possible objection can there be to the amendments which simply bind them to consult foreigners on matters which concern foreigners? I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has done the Committee a service by raising these two points in the amendments and by taking them together, because there is a relationship between the two. As regards his first amendment, he is seeking to be told how the Bill relates to the present state of international law. As regards his second amendment, he suggests that consultations in respect of that part of the clause to which the second amendment refers should be wider than just with bodies in the United Kingdom.
When the 1958 convention was concluded there was only a prospect of gas and perhaps oil being discovered off the shores of Britain and elsewhere in comparatively shallow water. The gas platforms that were in place or in prospect at that time were very small structures compared with what has been built since. As far as the United Kingdom was concerned, the platforms were being built and put in place in the southern basin of the North Sea where the gas had been discovered off East Anglia and Lincolnshire. It was later in the early 1970s that oil was discovered in the northern basin of the North Sea in very much

127
deeper water requiring entirely different platforms—in many cases enormous platforms. Clearly, had the convention been agreed in the late 1970s it would have been of a different kind.
The question which we now face is whether the world should get together in amending and bringing up to date the 1958 convention, or whether that can be done while individual countries, such as ours, grapple with the problems that face us today.
The International Maritime Organisation working group produced a draft report after its meetings in January this year. It is perfectly clear from the draft recommendations that the majority of nations concerned—indeed, it looks as though it is all of them—accept that all of the structures do not have to be removed. The first paragraph of the draft guidelines says:
"Abandoned or disused offshore installations or structures are required to be removed, except where non-removal or partial removal is consistent with the following guidelines and standards".
There then follow a number of' considerations and standards which, on the whole, are in line with the principles of the Bill.
Therefore, one enquires: who is demanding that all structures should be removed from all parts of the seas and oceans, however deep? As far as I know, at present no maritime nation in the world is requiring that, although that is what the 1958 convention still stipulates. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, knows of any nation making such a request we should be interested to know about it.
If one reads the details of the IMO working group's report—I shall not read out the details now—one sees that individual countries are reported as expressing views, but all their views accept that parts of some of these structures will either have to be left in certain cases on the floor of the ocean or not completely dismantled in other ways. The working group recommends that each case should be considered individually on its merits. I gladly give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Kennet: I should like to answer the noble Lord's question. No, I do not know of any nation that is demanding complete removal. The question of whether any nation demands it is totally irrelevant to the effect of my amendment, which, as the noble Lord will observe, merely writes into the Bill the very guidelines which he is praising.
Lord Campbell of Croy: That is a point. It seems to me that the noble Lord has rightly pointed out that at present there is an inconsistency between international law as it stands and what is being proposed in this country, in the discussions in the International Maritime Organisation (one of the world organisations concerned with this matter) and in other countries. Some may say that it is an academic matter. However, I recognise that it is not an academic matter.
Some of the problems have been dealt with in the past—especially when the law of the sea has been concerned—by introducing customary law. In 1976 and 1977 a Bill went through this House to extend fishery limits to 200 miles. The same action was being
128
taken in other countries at the same time, if they felt like taking it. In that way customary law was introduced, which has had the general effect of extending the fishery limits throughout the world to 200 miles, even though the 1982 convention had not been signed then. It was happening at the same time. That is quite a good precedent. It was eventually enshrined in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention. I suggest that there were the same kinds of problem as we have now.
Everyone has accepted that these very large structures must be considered on a case by case basis and, provided they are not causing any damage to fisheries or other interests and are not and could not be an obstruction to vessels using the sea, there should not be a blanket requirement that they should all be completely removed. The question is how we can carry forward this accepted principle in the world and at the same time bring up to date international law on the subject so that it is legal.
4 p.m.
Baroness White: I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in supporting these two amendments. One can do so, it appears to me, with perfect good sense and rationality without necessarily taking a view as to how, or if and when, one amends the 1958 Geneva Convention, because I do not profess to be an international lawyer and I would have no personal opinion on that matter.
The reason why I am concerned that the Committee should accept both these amendments is that neither of them puts any undue burden on Her Majesty's Government. They are not asking the Government to do more than to take,
"account of such international standards and guidelines as may have been adopted",
in particular, of course, by the International Maritime Organisation, which is the recognised international body for matters concerned with traffic on the sea. One has to put in,
"and other relevant organisations",
because, for example, the IMO has no competence over fisheries, and there are other appropriate international organisations for fisheries, including the Food and Agriculture Organisation on a global basis, and also of course we have obligations under the European Community arrangements for fishery management.
It makes us look quite unnecessarily insular. We are indeed an island, but there is no need to be insular about it.
A noble Lord: Oh, I do not know.
Baroness White: Come, come. I cannot believe that the noble Lord really wants to confine himself and take no notice at all of the rest of the world in such an international enterprise as shipping.
Both these amendments are directed to indicate that we are aware that there are international matters and that they concern nations other than ourselves and their shipping enterprises and so on. In particular, the International Maritime Organisation—which incidentally, is the only United Nations organisation

129
whose headquarters is in the United Kingdom; it is just across the road over Lambeth Bridge—is a highly respected organisation. It does thorough research work and has wide membership for its discussions.
It is at the present time, as has already been said, concerning itself in particular with the subject of the Bill before the Committee. It has its own working arrangements and maritime safety committee, but also. as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned, it has its own legal sub-committee, its marine environment protection sub-committee, and so on. It will he meeting again on 27th April in order to work further on the matters referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy.
I have had discussions with the International Chamber of Shipping which is very much concerned with the substance of the Bill. It is extremely anxious that both these amendments should be accepted by the Government because, as it rightly point out, shipping is international, and we should be concerned and knowledgeable about what is going on in other parts of the world in shipping and other marine resources which enter into this. It tells me in no uncertain terms that it very much hopes that both these amendments will find favour.
It felt that this was broadening the intentions of the Bill without binding the Government—I repeat—in any way to an obligation beyond taking account of, and possibly even condescending to consult with, other bodies outwith the United Kingdom itself, including of course the European Community and the members of the Oslo Convention which also take part in the IMO discussions. I cannot see that so far as the amendments as printed are concerned there could be any reason at all why any Member of the Committee should feel uncomfortable about accepting them.
This does not mean that one necessarily goes in for all the legal arguments about a Law of the Sea Convention to which we are not a party or a Geneva Convention which is now technologically out of date. I do not think that those two aspects, interesting and important as they are in their own right, in any way impinge upon the desirability of indicating that we recognise not only that we have certain international obligations but that we have certain international interests.
For example, the International Chamber of Shipping pointed out that on the technological side we simply do not know how shipping enterprises are going to develop during the next few years. We already have certain types of submersible; subsurface marine machines of one sort or another. That is a technology which is developing quite rapidly. It may develop more rapidly in the future. Again it is important that we should know of, and take some part in, the international discussions as to how one deals with changing circumstances.
Such vessels—I do not know whether that is the right term for a submersible—could be much affected by the way in which the provisions of this Bill are implemented, including in the future of course the much deeper waters which at the moment are not greatly exploited by submersibles or other vessels but which may be so exploited in the not too distant future.
130
It is for such reasons that I feel that it would be highly desirable that this Committee should accept the two amendments on the Marshalled List, which simply indicate that we recognise that there is in particular the IMO which is the universally recognised body for discussions of this kind and that we are concerned here with standards and guidelines which we should take into account. Surely this is something that we ought to be able to contemplate with reasonable equanimity.
If we decide that they are not suitable for us, neither of these two amendments makes it incumbent upon the Government to follow in every detail what may be suggested, either their standards or guidelines. But it means that the Government must indicate that they can take account of what is going on in the rest of the maritime world, and not give the impression that all wisdom is to be found exclusively by consultations within the United Kingdom. I hope very seriously that Members of the Committee and the Government in particular will feel that they are doing themselves no harm if they accept these two amendments.
The Earl of Lauderdale: I want to say only a few words. First of all, I am sorry to learn that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has been ill between the Second Reading, when he spoke with great vigour, and the Committee stage that we are now starting. and so ill that he could not put in his questions until this morning. I am glad that he is better, but it is rather hard lines on the Government to have had a string of questions like this at the last moment, although he did on Second Reading give us an idea of the drift of the amendments he proposed to put down.
I have sympathy with these amendments, but I have less sympathy with their purpose than with their effect. I feel that the purpose is rather to try to fossilise international law as it stands, or the existing conventions as they are, when we all know that they are outdated by technological developments. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy made this clear, and I support him in that. Therefore. I think that the intention to try to fossilise IMO guidelines on the one hand and outdated international conventions on the other is mistaken.
We have been told—I was quite shaken to hear this—that the shipping world desperately wants these two amendments. It may want them desperately. However, I do not know whether other Members of your Lordships' Committee have received any information from the shipping world about it, but I have not had a single bit of paper. Considering the piles of paper that descend upon us now, thanks to the television cameras really—that is why the world notices us—and considering the shoals and sheaves of paper that descend upon us by every post, I am amazed that I have had nothing whatever from the shipping world about its support of these amendments. I do not say that it does not support them, but I am rather surprised that in the past fortnight we have had no indication.
I should like to ask one question. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, can explain this. When he spoke on Second Reading, he said that he wanted the Government "to have regard to" such international standards and guidelines. He has now chosen the term

131
"taking account of". There may be some inwardness, some subtlety, about that difference of which I know nothing. However, if, as I sense, the term "taking account of" is less mandatory than "to have regard to", I should approve of that.
The second amendment, to leave out "in the United Kingdom", is a very gentle amendment. It still leaves the matter permissive to the Government. This is, in any case, an enabling Bill rather than anything else. With those comments, I express my sympathy with the wording of the amendments, although less sympathy with their purpose.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: I have listened with care to the points made by all those who have spoken about the amendments and to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy who has expressed something of a different point of view. In relation to Amendment No. 1, the Government are aware of, and accept that they are bound by, all their obligations under international law, and abandonment is no exception whatever. The provisions of the Bill will be applied in accordance with those obligations. Quite honestly, it is inconceivable that otherwise could be the case. We could not approve a programme whose proposals did not allow us to satisfy our international obligations, whatever they might be at the time.
Similarly, any regulations that the Secretary of State came to draw up under Clause 11 would be made in the light of the United Kingdom's obligations under international law. That is why we propose to take powers to make regulations about abandonment in Clause 11 rather than attempt to put into the Bill detailed technical provisions and specification.
International standards have not yet evolved. We need to be flexible to respond to them in the way that I think the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, would wish. If we had planned to ignore international standards, we could have invented our own and set them in stone in the Bill. That, of course, is precisely what we do not want to do. I have to say to the noble Lord and indeed to the noble Baroness, Lady White, that the United Kingdom Government respect their international obligations.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked me a number of questions. I am grateful for his giving notice that he proposed to ask them. First, he asked whether the Government intended to stand by their claim that the 1958 Geneva Convention can be reinterpreted, indicating that in his eyes it was as though we were reinterpreting it. The Government stand by their view that the 1958 convention has to be interpreted in accordance with its purpose, namely, to prevent unjustifiable interference with other users of the sea and recognising that in 1958 all existing platforms, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said, were in shallow water and relatively easy to remove. The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea reflects international consensus that the purpose of the 1958 convention can be achieved without the need for the entire removal of all installations.
It is not a question of Her Majesty's Government reinterpreting the 1958 convention, but of interpreting
132
it in the light of its purpose and in accordance with subsequent developments in international law. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy that the 1958 convention must be interpreted in accordance with the object of the convention and of customary international law. Many of the answers on this point were given by my noble friend Lord Davidson to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in his Written Answer of 23rd February. It is certainly not the case that the Government have stated that the convention of 1958 can be ignored. Far from it. What we have said is that it has to be interpreted.
I could elaborate a little further, but I think that I would be going over old ground. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will accept from me that what I have said is in fact the case. He might be interested to know that there are a number of recent cases of international tribunals, including the International Court of Justice, interpreting the terms of the four 1958 conventions in the light of customary international law.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, went on to ask about the proposed removals to 55 metres and 75 metres which the department is discussing with fishermen. These are the United Kingdom's proposed clearance depths which have been used during discussions with the oil and fishing industries. These clearance depths, I must stress, are still under discussion and are in any case subject to anything decided by the International Maritime Organisation.
The noble Lord went on to ask why the Government are coming to binding agreements with the oil companies before international standards are in place. The Government are not coming to any such agreements. We have of course discussed with the industry the sort of clearance depths that we should prefer to see established in international standards. There is awareness of the work going on in the International Maritime Organisation. When international standards are agreed, these will of course be reflected in the regulations that it is proposed to make under Clause 11 of the Bill.
As to the suggestion that the Government are arguing that the IMO has no competence in anything except navigation, and on the point about the work that the IMO has already done on environmental and fishery matters, I can say this. It is clearly the case that the IMO is the recognised international authority on issues concerning the safety of navigation. However, on other matters, such as fishing and environmental aspects, there are other international organisations which have a major interest, such as the Oslo commission and the parties to the London dumping convention. Preliminary discussion have already taken place in these bodies on abandonment issues in which the UK Government have been involved. The Government's concern is that discussions in the IMO should take account of the position of these important other organisations.
The noble Lord asked why the Government argue in the context of the Bill that Article 63 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea places everything accept navigational interests under the exclusive jurisdiction of the coastal state. The Government accept that where international organisations of which they are a member set

133
standards in relation to abandonment, the Government will, in exercising their jurisdiction, act in accordance with any treaty or other obligations under international law. For example, the Government comply and will continue to comply with their environmental obligations under the two conventions mentioned, the Oslo convention and the London dumping convention.
As to the suggestion that the Government are in a very great hurry to progress the Bill, may I say this. It is important to set in place now a proper framework of legislation to control the preparation of abandonment operations, the carrying out of the operations themselves and the regulations that will govern such obligations.
Although the bulk of abandonments will not take place for a number of years, oil companies are anxious to know what their obligations will be. The Bill sets out the procedural hoops through which companies will have to jump, although as far as standards are concerned essentially it is, as has been mentioned, an enabling provision. But the framework will be in place for giving rapid legislative effect to any standards recommended by the IMO and the passage of the Bill will not preclude further consultation on standards with fisherman and the oil industry in concert with discussion on standards in the IMO.
The noble Lord went to to ask about consultations with fishermen. There have been numerous meetings with British fishermen over the past 18 months. My right honourable and honourable friends and officials have put a lot of effort into those consultations. Nothing in the Bill precludes international consultation. We have already made clear our intentions to act in accordance with international law. There has been considerable consultation within government on transport, environmental and other matters and we have agreed to consult the. Nature Conservancy Council when regulations on oil pollution are being drawn up.
Having answered what I hope to be the questions which the noble Lord asked, perhaps I may turn to the second amendment because it is one on which I had hoped my noble friend Lord Davidson had set at rest the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. As the noble Lord rightly says, consultation is vital. We accept that, and a number of interests are involved both within the United Kingdom and beyond. This Bill is itself the product of over a year of consultation between the Government and interested groups. Clauses 1 and 11 both contain provision for further consultation.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady White, are concerned that consultation with interested groups outside the United Kingdom is specifically excluded by Clause 11(5). I hope I can assure them that this is simply not the case. As my noble friend Lord Davidson has indicated, the effect of Clause 11(5) is to make it mandatory for the Secretary of State to consult United Kingdom organisations representative of persons likely to be affected by the regulations. It does not preclude consultation with appropriate organisations outside the United Kingdom. As he said at Second Reading, we shall continue to participate in discussions on abandonment in the International Maritime Organisation and in other appropriate international fora.
134
That seems to meet the noble Lord's point. He suggested that it would not add a burden to do what is suggested in this amendment (which was a point also stressed by my noble friend Lord Lauderdale), but that is far from being the case. It would compel the Secretary of State to consult any interested party anywhere. This would be a most colossal administrative and practical nonsense to have to deal with.
I hope the noble Lord will agree that the Government's commitment to consultation and their clearly stated assurance that they intend to act in accordance with international law and standards are the sensible way to go. That consultation can go ahead. There is nothing whatsoever to preclude it. I believe that I have given about as full an assurance as it would be possible to give to the noble Lord and to the noble Baroness that there is nothing intended here which would undermine the need for the sort of consultation that he seems to think we would not conduct. I hope that with those assurances and the answers to the questions he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness White: Before the noble Lord decides what to do, can the Minister indicate why he thinks the reference to the International Maritime Organisation in the first amendment would be out of place? It is the major international organisation for these matters; we are party to it. The other organisations that he mentioned, the Oslo Convention and the London Dumping Convention, all take part in the discussions in the IMO, as does the Food and Agriculture Organisation. They have a status there although they also have their own jurisdiction.
I can see the point about the United Kingdom, although I do not think that is necessarily a final interpretation of that clause. Is there any reason why the Government cannot accept the words—which is all they are asked to do—
"taking account of such international standards and guidelines"?
International law is not necessarily all-embracing. At the moment it is in a state of flux. With great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, it is not a question of fossilising it; otherwise there would be no need for some of the discussions that are taking place in IMO at present. We are trying to see how a changing situation can best be met. All we are asking is that we should indicate that we recognise that there are international bodies working, as it happens, in London and that we make some bow in their direction, if I may put it that way.
It is important that we should recognise that these international organisations to which we are party are working very hard on guidelines, for example, which are not legally binding in the sense that international law is. To say that we are observing our legal obligations does not mean that we are necessarily being adequate internationalists in this sphere. I cannot see why the noble Lord cannot accept at least this first amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: I am sorry if I have not made myself clear to the noble Baroness. I hope that she will accept from me that we understand what our obligations are and that we could not, as I said, approve a programme whose proposals did not allow us to satisfy them. It seems to me that if the

135
amendment were made we should end up with a number of different items in Clause 11(2) being included which would not be matters upon which it may be appropriate necessarily to consult internationally.
For example, if the noble Baroness looks at subsection (2) she will see that it reads:
"Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), regulations under this section may",
and paragraph (d)reads:
"make provision for inspection, including provision as to the payment of the costs of inspection".
It seems to me that, as we are talking about structures which will be in a particular part of, let us say, the North Sea—which will mostly be concerned with the United Kingdom where they do not cross the median line—it would be appropriate for that work to be conducted by the United Kingdom, and there would not necesarily be a need to take if further in the way that the noble Baroness suggests.
I go further and say that it probably could be taken to include other items in paragaphs (b)to (e)as well. As far as paragraph (a)is concerned I understand the argument, but for the others I am afraid I do not. That is to go hand in hand with the fact that it would be inconceivable for us not to consult our international conventions. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Kennet: If I may for convenience take up the last point first, it seems to me that the noble Lord has advanced a point which does not speak against the amendment at all. If the department looks at the international regulations which are in force and finds they have nothing whatever to say about the matter, then they will have taken them into account and that is that, and then they go on under subparagraph (d)or whatever it is to do exactly what they wanted to do in the first place. There is no obligation on anybody to take account of anything which does not exist, like an international obligation, to do something which is entirely your own national affair. I hope that I make myself clear.
We have had a good and worthwhile debate about the matter. We have progressed a long way forward in general understanding. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, devoted most of his speech to the undesirability of carrying anything into the Bill which would cause unthinking and literal obedience to the terms of the 1958 convention. I quite see his point, as I am sure all your Lordships do; but that would not be the effect of either of the amendments before the Committee and so I have to conclude that his excellent speech was a bit of an Aunt Sally.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, who suggested that the purpose of these amendments was to fossilise international law as it stands now, that the purpose is rather to the contrary. It is to encourage the Government to take account of international law as it changes under successive generations of regulations which do not yet exist. The noble Earl also told us that the IMO guidelines were outdated; but they are still being discussed. They have
136
not even been agreed yet and if they are outdated before that happens it is a pity; but I have not heard this particular allegation before.
As for the difference between the two phrases, "have regard to" and "take account of", the noble Earl is quite right. In our minds, too, the words "take account or are a little less draconian than "have regard to", although perhaps neither phrase is extremely fierce in the choice of words. I was very glad to hear the noble Earl say that he was in agreement with the purpose of the amendments and supported them, as I understand it.
I come now to the speech of the noble Lord who replied for the Government. I was delighted to hear his forthright statement that the Government regard themselves as bound by international law on the abandonment of installations. After that he took off into a fairly lengthy argument about the interpretation of treaties. He did not mention the convention on the interpretation of treaties; because there is international law about the interpretation of international law, as of course he knows. The rather complicated things that he was saying deserve to be read with care and compared against former government statements upon this Bill. However, delighted and surprised I was that the general thrust of his remarks seems to have been more positive than has appeared hitherto in this context.
It was also reassuring to know that the proposals for dismantling down to 55 metres in parts of the North Sea and to 75 metres in other parts were only proposals. However, the noble Lord knows as well as I do—indeed, probably a good deal better—that there are those in the shipping industry, not only of this country but of others, including the Soviet Union and, I think, Norway, who are worried about depth down to 1,000 metres. That is a different matter, and while for the moment 55–75 metres may sound quite sensible, it would be important to make sure that we keep up with reality because the march of technology has not stopped in the year 1987. The fact that there are no binding agreements with industry is good news although not entirely unexpected. I imagine that discussions with industry have opened and I was just raising a faint question mark over that matter.
Another complicated legal point made by the noble Lord concerned the difference in the degree of competence which may be claimed by an international organisation which stands alone in dealing with a given subject matter, as compared to the degree which may be claimed by one which stands alongside others in dealing with a given subject matter. That is interesting and needs studying. I should not like to try to say anything more about it without further study and briefing, but I take the point at the provisional level.
On the question of hurry, of course people are anxious to know their obligations, and any Government is naturally anxious to take legislation through with all due dispatch. We on this side share the anxiety of the Government to get Bills through with all due dispatch; but there has been in the air what I would describe as a departure from the procedures of normal dispatch. There has been a certain element of special urgency. I was very glad to hear that the noble Lord did not have anything to say about that today

137
and I take it that we shall be able to have the normal gaps between the stages of this Bill.
On the question of consultation on environment and transport, as opposed to navigation, my point was that the Government had not consulted the European Commission, who have competence on environment and shipping matters. It was therefore of little comfort to us on this side of the Committee to hear that the Government had consulted very fully within their own corridors. However, we were glad to hear the noble Lord say that consultations are of vital importance.
The noble Lord said he thought that my noble friends and I were worried about Clause 11(5)—that is the one addressed by Amendment No. 1—precluding consultation outside the United Kingdom. As I explained earlier this afternoon, we are not worried about that. As I explained then, we are worried about the different degree of obligation falling upon the Secretary of State to consult within the United Kingdom from that which falls upon him to consult outside the United Kingdom. We remain worried about that. I believe it is also wrong to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said, that Amendment No. 1 would compel the Secretary of State to consult any interested party anywhere. The wording of the Bill does not quite say that: the wording of the Bill as drafted is,
"shall consult organisations … appearing to him to be representative of those persons".
For myself, if I were Secretary of State it would appear to me that I need only consult, for instance, the European Commission and/or the IMO and not every little environmental body, and so on, throughout the world, but that the consultation would be with the prime international organisations, up towards whom those concerned will have delegated their interest in the countries, for instance, round the North Sea. It is as simple as that. No very onerous obligation is being laid upon him.
Regarding the objection that he advanced to the amendment that it is all going to be a bit of a bore for the officials, yes or course it is; but living in an increasingly international world is a bit of a bore. It implies a bit more work and I am glad to say that there are a few more officials to do it, in most departments if not all, and so I do not take that objection too seriously. The noble Lord invited me to withdraw these amendments, and subject to anything my friends might—
Lord Campbell of Croy: I wonder whether the noble Lord would give way as we are in Committee and he has referred to me. I should like to explain that in my contribution I was commenting on the emphasis which he put in his opening speech on the 1958 Geneva convention. I recognise that he spoke at some length on that and I understood the reasons for his doing so, although it is not in the first amendment. As regards the first amendment, which mentions the International Maritime Organisation and which would therefore be included in this part of the Bill, I think it is relevant that the United Kingdom is one of 10 countries which form the working group that has produced the first draft.
My noble friend the Minister may not feel that the words are necessary. However, in this case perhaps
138
actions are speaking louder than words, because our country has been involved in the working group producing the first draft of guidelines and standards. I very much hope that the United Kingdom will continue as the proposals go forward within the IMO, since it has made a considerable start in helping on that international organisation. Therefore, I hope that it may not be necessary to include the words in the Bill.
I hope that my noble friend can assure us that the United Kingdom will continue working as it has within the group, because it may well be that the customary law which results from the work of that group will eventually become international law. As the noble Baroness, Lady White, said earlier on, international law is at present in flux. In this field, it will be the results of the working group and the IMO's final recommendations which will help towards the fomulation of customary law on the subject.
Lord Kennet: It is quite a familiar situation for a Committee in either House of Parliament when somebody argues that the Government are doing the right thing and that the Government are even taking the lead in doing the right thing. What need is there to lay an obligation on the Government to do the right thing? The answer is always the same. This Government, like all governments, are mortal and may be succeeded by another government who will be less likely to do the right thing—or perhaps I should say even less likely to do the right thing. This is the reason one wishes to spell things out in legislation. I therefore believe that it would be good to carry these words into the Bill.
With regard to procedure, we have had weighty and complicated arguments from the Government Benches which deserve study. I should like in those circumstances to do the normal thing. The Minister has already stated that he will inform and consult with his right honourable friends on several points in the Bill—
Lord Glenarthur: With respect, I did not say that I would inform and consult. I said that I would draw my right honourable friends' attention to the specific point which the noble Baroness, Lady White, raised with regard to funding. I did not say that I would be consulting; I said that I would bring it to the attention of my right honourable friends.
Lord Kennet: We see how important it is to be crystal clear about consultation and about who is prepared to consult whom and when. I note that and the Committee can forget about it. On the assumption that the Bill will follow the normal pattern and that there will be a Report stage about two weeks from now, I suggest that the amendments be withdrawn. Before formally asking the leave of the House to withdraw them, I should like confirmation from the noble Lord that that will be the case.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord seeks to withdraw his amendment, as I understand it, in the way in which I suggested might be prudent. He then goes on to discuss other matters which are not, as I understand it, before the Committee.
Lord Kennet: I am willing to withdraw the amendment if there is no question of departing from

139
the normal and standard procedure in the Red Book concerning intervals between stages on a Bill. It may be that after further discussion and briefing we on this side of the Committee will conclude that something like these amendments should be put to the vote. There were discussions through the usual channels yesterday and, as I understand it, the last word from the Government was that there would be no unreasonable refusal of a separate Report stage and no unreasonable departure from the standard intervals. I believe that something of that sort was agreed.
Lord Glenarthur: I think that we have had a particularly thorough examination of the proposals which the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have brought forward. The timetable and progress of legislation are largely for the usual channels. As I understand it, it is the normal practice to receive the Report immediately when there are no amendments to a Bill. I have heard what the noble Lord has said. However, in this case I feel that the Bill has had a most thorough scrutiny and that all the points raised have been answered. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has, on this occasion, supported the Government. I also believe that my noble friend Lord Lauderdale understands the point which has been made. It is therefore for the noble Lord to consider whether what he proposes is correct. I shall say no more.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Perhaps I may intervene briefly at this point. I can understand that the noble Lord would like to have a full two weeks before Report stage. On the other hand, having listened to the Minister, it seems that he wishes to have the Report stage immediately. We have had an exhaustive debate on the two amendments. However, the Minister surely accepts that the answers were full and extremely complicated. I should like to have at least some time to look at them, although perhaps not a full fortnight. Our debate has so far lasted 66 minutes and we have had intricate discussions concerning international law and the law of the sea. It is asking a great deal to move straight to Report stage, if that is what the Minister suggests.
Lord Denham: May I tell the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that it is unusual and exceptional, when there has been no amendment passed to a Bill at Committee stage and when there has been a very short Committee stage, to have the Report stage separately? That is only done with good reason, either because something has been raised during the course of debate and there has been no time for consideration of the point or because something is not clear.
If noble Lords feel very strongly about this matter, we shall of course allow a separate Report stage. I think that perhaps a good compromise would be to have that stage some time during the course of next week. I do not think that it needs to be a very long stage. However, 1 should not like that compromise to be a precedent. It must be right that in this House we only actually come back on Report stage when it is obvious that it is right so to do. Therefore, without any commitment for any other Bill, we shall do as the House wishes because the House is master of its own business.
Lord Kennet: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I think that the course of action which he has proposed is right. Many new things were brought up during the 66 minutes of debate which we have had. Many complicated new legal points appeared for the first time and the one thing which did not happen was an amendment. Therefore, I think the Chief Whip is to be congratulated on the liberality and wisdom with which he has interpreted the text. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Parliamentary and Health Service Commissioners Bill
4.49 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The main aim of the Bill is to extend the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—or the ombudsman, if I may so refer to him—to allow him to investigate the actions of non-departmental public bodies, or quangos. Experience over the past 20 years has shown the value of the commissioner's work in investigating complaints against government departments. It seems appropriate that his jurisdiction should now be extended to include non-departmental public bodies, some of which have functions whose impact on individuals can be as significant as those of government departments.
Recommendations to this effect were made in 1984 by the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in its report on non-departmental public bodies. In their response, the Government noted that there was no evidence of significant maladministration by these bodies but accepted the case in principle for the proposed change, subject to further observations on the criteria for scheduling and on the bodies to be listed.
The main purpose of the Bill is provided for in Clause 1 and its associated schedule, which replace Section 4 and Schedule 2 to the 1967 Act. Clause 1 lays down the criteria that non-departmental public bodies will have to satisfy in order to be added to the schedule. These criteria in essence reflect the concept that these bodies must be subject to some ultimate ministerial accountability to Parliament, in that they are dependent for their financing and existence on government policy. Clause 1 also defines certain broad classes of body which the Government feel it would not be appropriate to schedule. These provisions take account of the views expressed by the Select Committee and in the Government's response.
Rather more than 50 bodies are listed in the schedule to be brought into jurisdiction together with the government departments already scheduled under the 1967 Act. Most of these were recommended for

141
inclusion by the Select Committee. There is a broad range of quangos which fall within the Bill's scope—from the Red Deer Commission to the Trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, or the Data Protection Registrar to the Sports Councils. The remaining clauses of the Bill embody a series of minor but useful amendments to the existing legislation.
Clauses 2 and 4 are designed for the smooth functioning of the commissioner's office during an interregnum. Clause 2 allows the removal of the commissioner if he is unable for medical reasons to carry out his duties and is too ill to resign. Clause 4 allows for the appointment of an acting commissioner pending a permanent appointment, should any of the offices become vacant unexpectedly.
I should stress that the opportunity has been taken in this Bill to introduce these new provisions purely as a precautionary measure. They seek to guard against an unlikely event, but one which could create considerable difficulties for the continuation of the ombudsman's work.
Under existing legislation the health service commissioner has not felt able to send copies of his reports to Members of Parliament who have been associated with a complaint. Clause 3 ensures that he can do this without fear of challenge. Clauses 5 and 6 relate to provisions in the health service legislation on the time limits with which health authorities themselves can submit complaints to the health service commissions. The main effects are to extend the time limit in England and Wales from three months to 12 months and to clarify the application of the existing 12-month limit in Scotland. Experience has shown that these small amendments are needed to ensure that these provisions work smoothly. In addition the Government intend to bring forward at Committee stage a new clause to allow for exchange of information between the parliamentary and health service commissioners, if these offices were no longer, as at present, held by the same person.
The Bill thus provides, in addition to its main purpose, an opportunity to introduce a number of useful improvements to existing legislation. I commend the Bill to the House and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Belstead))
4.55 p.m.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, it is now some 20 years since the Labour Government of 1964 implemented their promise to provide the citizen with a right of redress for injustice suffered in consequence of governmental maladministration. At the Second Reading of the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill on 18th October 1966, my right honourable friend the Lord President, as he then was, made this remark:
"The investigations of our Parliamentary Commissioner will in no way replace Question Time or the Adjournment debate. On the contrary, they will provide the back bench Member, once he knows how to use it aright, with a new and powerful weapon which, up till now, neither he individually nor we collectively as a House has ever possessed—the possibility of impartial investigation into alleged maladministration".—[0fficial Report, Commons, 18/10/66; col.43.)
142
At that time the ombudsman system had been successfully operated in Scandinavia and New Zealand and was strongly advocated by such all-party bodies as Justice, the British section of the International Commission of Jurists. It had the enthusiastic support in particular of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, to whose pioneering work the House will wish to pay tribute and whose absence from our debates we greatly regret.
The Bill did not, however, have an untroubled passage. As one who took part in the debates in another place, I recall that it suffered a douche of cold water from the Conservative Opposition and in particular from the distinguished speakers on the Opposition Front Bench, a future Lord Chancellor and a former Attorney-General. Despite that, however, the Bill became law and I believe it has been an unqualified success. I doubt if anyone now would argue the contrary. That success can be measured not only by the considerable use to which the original legislation has been put as a safeguard for the citizen through a Member of Parliament in dealing with the Executive, but also by the fact that virtually the only changes made in two decades have been in the direction of widening the ombudsman concept by applying it in local government and in the National Health Service.
I believe that one of the chief reasons for the success of the legislation has been that the parliamentary commissioner, like the Comptroller and Auditor General, has been essentially a servant of Parliament rather than of the Executive, both of them reporting to the Select Committees of the other House and so providing an opportunity for Parliament to express an informed view on the actions of government.
This Bill is a modest measure of improvement which, as the noble Lord has said, derives from a report of the Select Committee. The principal purpose is to extend the jurisdiction of the parliamentary commissioner so that he can investigate complaints against a limited number of non-departmental public bodies which are listed in Schedule 1. We welcome the extension. It must, however, be emphasised that control over government departments can be exercised through parliamentary action directed to Ministers, whereas there is normally no corresponding means of control over non-departmental public bodies. It could well be argued therefore that there is a greater need for supervision by the parliamentary commissioner or an equivalent personal body in the case of non-departmental public bodies than in the case of government departments.
It is interesting to observe that, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill in 1966, the Lord President, referring to the Scandinavian system, said:
"In a country where Ministers are not responsible for the administration of their Departments, and where civil servants, therefore, are not answerable to them, it was obvious that the citizen was in desperate need of protection against the bureaucracy".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/10/66; col. 42.]
However, the criteria which the Bill seeks to establish look at this question from the opposite point of view. According to those criteria, public bodies would not be subject to supervision by the parliamentary commissioner unless they are—I quote from the

143
Minister of State introducing the Bill in the other place—
"subject to some degree of ultimate ministerial accountability to Parliament. in that they are dependent for their financing and continuing existence on Government policy."—[Official Report, Commons, 4/2/87: col. 10571
There is something of a dilemma here. It is in those very cases which cannot be the subject of parliamentary scrutiny, question or debate, that the Bill excludes the scrutiny of the parliamentary commissioner and so leaves the citizen without the valuable protection which the parliamentary commissioner can provide.
I appreciate the point that if the parliamentary commissioner's protection were available in those cases, there would still be no direct ministerial responsibility. The citizen would be relying rather more on the inherent respect for the parliamentary commissioner's office than, in the case of a complaint about a government department, recourse to Ministers and to Parliament. My own view, borne out by experience, is that that respect should and would normally be sufficient. But whether that be right or wrong, I do not follow why the citizen should not have some protection even if it cannot be complete. The criteria in the Bill would make the best the enemy of the good.
That is probably the most important point which was debated in the other place and it may be that noble Lords will wish to debate it here. However, judging by past experience, it may be some years before we have another opportunity of looking at the ombudsman system. In those circumstances I hope that the House will forgive me if I take a little longer than did the noble Lord and raise, as briefly as possible, two other points of principle even though they do not directly arise from this Bill.
The first is the question whether it is still desirable that Members of Parliament should act as a filter for citizens' complaints to the parliamentary commissioner. The original reason for that restriction was the fear, at the inception of what was then an experiment, that the parliamentary commissioner's office might become overloaded and so be unable to perform its functions efficiently and without undue delay. I very much doubt whether that is today an adequate reason for the restriction. I doubt very much whether today many complaints would be brought direct if the compulsory filter of a Member of Parliament were removed. A Member of Parliament will always remain a valuable channel for a citizen's complaint, whether to the Minister or to the parliamentary commissioner; or, indeed, to the parliamentary commissioner in default of adequate satisfaction from the Minister.
What concerns me, even more so with the extension of jurisdiction embodied in this Bill, is the principle that the citizen should be wholly debarred from resort to the parliamentary commissioner if no Member of Parliament will take up his case. I ask whether that is just and whether that is desirable.
My second point of principle arises from the very success of the ombudsman concept from which has sprung the local commissioners, the National Health
144
Service commissioner and the analogous, if not identical, machinery of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Race Relations Board. The question which arises is whether it is more helpful to have separate bodies for each of those various functions or whether the time might now have come to consolidate them through the establishment of a single citizens' protection umbrella to cover all aspects of protection against abuse of authority, including breach of human rights. For myself, I have long believed that a commission of human rights, operating broadly as a parliamentary commissioner operates, would be a better instrument than the courts for dealing with complaints of breach of those rights. I believe that at least one former parliamentary commissioner, Sir Alan Marre, expressed a similar view. I accept, of course, that this Bill would not be an appropriate vehicle for so far-reaching a change, but looking to the future and bearing in mind the very few opportunities we have for discussing this particular type of subject, I very much hope that at least the idea will not be lightly dismissed but will be considered in our debates and in the future.
I believe this is a sound Bill. I welcome it on behalf of these Benches and I wish it as speedy a passage into law as is consistent with the proper use of this rare opportunity to review the protection which Parliament provides for the citizen and which is a very important part of the parliamentary function. In doing so I express what I believe is the sense of the whole House that Parliament has been well served by those who have been appointed to the offices which we are considering and those who have served on their staffs.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I apologise for the fact that my name does not appear on the list of speakers, although I did notify the noble Lord the Minister and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, that I would seek to say a few words at this point on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches.
Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, we regard the whole business of the ombudsman as being desperately important. When the system was first established way back in the 1960s I think everyone expected that, once we had an ombudsman, it would suddenly be the end of injustice. However, it has not exactly turned out that way. There may be noble Lords old enough to remember that when the Bill first came before your Lordships' House my noble friend Lord Wade, sitting on his Bench, said that perhaps we had not so much an ombudsman as an ombudsmouse. Perhaps that is unfair to successive ombudsmen.
I served on the Select Committee for the Parliamentary Commissioner in another place. For four years I spent every Wednesday with Sir Edmund Compton, who was the first ombudsman, discussing matters with the Select Committee. His first action on being appointed was to set up what he called his administrative screen of 10 jurisdictional tests through which every complaint had to pass before he could even look at it. Therefore, it seemed that it would not be possible for the ombudsman to deal with absolutely everything.

145
I said I have a personal interest in the matter of the ombudsman and it would be right to say that my noble friend Lady Serota has a deep interest in this field. She has, of course, a great knowledge of it and would have spoken in this debate had she not been detained in one of your Lordships' Select Committees. In general, we on these Benches welcome this Bill but we say that, like so many Bills dealing with the ombudsman, it does not go far enough. We would have liked many other changes. What the Bill does about quangos is, of course, to be welcomed. However, I suspect that the present Government, who were dedicated to abolishing quangos, have since 1979 set up more new quangos than they have abolished. I have a Question on the Order Paper which might provide me with the exact numbers, but I merely make that point in passing. If it is possible for the ombudsmen to look at that activity and to seek maladministration, and if there is maladministration from which injustice has resulted to recommend a remedy, then that obviously is worthwhile.
I am reinforced in that belief by the message I received this morning from British Telecom and from Oftel to say that now British Telecom will insist on an annual or quarterly rental before it will carry out repairs to telephones for subscribers. It will be an additional payment which will have to be made before carrying out repairs to a subscriber's telephone, despite the fact that the subscriber will continue to pay rent for a service which he is not, in fact, enjoying because his phone is faulty. Apparently, Oftel have approved of that. Whether that approval amounts to maladministration depends, of course, on the manner in which it came to that decision. That will have to be looked at, but in general terms I merely say that I welcome the extension of the ombudsman's powers to look at certain other bodies such as quangos.
I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, that it is time that we looked again at the provision which requires all complaints to be put to the parliamentary commissioner via a Member of Parliament; that is, a Member of another place. Several times in recent years in your Lordships' House I have raised the question of why complaints from citizens cannot be put to the ombudsman by a Member of your Lordships' House. That seems to me to be quite reasonable. Very often we deal with matters of injustice and are frequently approached about the grievances of ordinary citizens, and yet we are not allowed to pass on these complaints to the ombudsman if we think that they are matters at which he should look. That is something to which we rightly object. I should like to think that it may be possible to make some slight change in the Bill in order to bring about a more desirable situation. However, looking at its precise wording, I doubt it.
Another matter about which I am particularly concerned concerns the Parliamentary and Health Service Commissioner and not the local commissioner. Many people in many parts of the country—and indeed, many of the local commissioners both the present ones and those who have served in the past—rather regret that they have no powers with which to back up their recommendations. Over and over again there have been debates in your Lordships' House about cases in which the
146
local commissioner has made an adverse report on a local authority which the authority has ignored. The only step that the local commissioner can take is to issue another report and in some cases that also has been ignored.
The same applies in parallel to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. There are no cases of departments of government not having accepted his recommendations but there are several cases—and I could quote a number of them—in which matters have had to be ventilated in another place before action has been taken. Noble Lords will recollect that some years ago there was one case that concerned the Foreign Office and the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. The then Foreign Secretary, Mr. George Brown, finally rose to his feet in the other place and said that he did not accept the ombudsman's report; he thought that it was all wrong and he did not accept that there had been maladministration; however, he would pay the damages that had been recommended. That seems to me to be a very strange procedure. However, those are matters which perhaps go a little wide of this Bill.
We welcome the Bill so far as it goes but we wish that it went a little further. If it is possible during its later stages to take it a little further, we shall seek to do SO.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin of Dulwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for their reception of the Second Reading of this Bill. We have had a useful, if short, debate and in particular I am grateful to both noble Lords for welcoming the main purpose of the Bill, although they have discussed the question rather more widely and probably will want to discuss it further.
First of all, I can give the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, an assurance that since 1979 the net reduction of non-departmental public bodies is some 500, which I think shows a good reduction in such bodies where they are no longer needed.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, thought it was necessary for bodies which are not government departments but which fall within the scope of being non-departmental public bodies to have greater supervision because there is no absolutely direct ministerial responsibility to the department. If I may say so, it is precisely for the reasons that the noble and learned Lord had in mind that we have taken the broad approach that bodies to be listed should have administrative functions of the kind that would fall within the jurisdiction if they were carried out by government departments, and that they have to be subject to some degree of ministerial accountability in that their financing, and indeed their continuing existence, are dependent upon government policy.
The noble and learned Lord also made the point that in his view, because one is talking about including non-departmental public bodies within the jurisdiction of the commissioner, arguably there should be stricter and greater enforcement than there is at present under the 1967 Act. As regards enforcement we feel that there is no reason to expect that non-departmental public bodies will be less scrupulous than are departments in accepting the commissioners'

147
recommendations. Experience with health service complaints has suggested that direct sanctions are not needed to ensure compliance by non-departmental public bodies any more than by government departments.
The noble Lord said that he wondered whether perhaps the time had now come when we ought to look again at the requirement in the 1967 Act that the channel of communication must be a Member of another place. The present procedures for complaining to a Member of Parliament are reasonably well known. It is unlikely that members of the public would draw a distinction between departments and non-departmental public bodies if they wanted to complain. They recognise that a Member of another place is the channel of communication. The Select Committee took the view, which the Government fully accept, that Members of Parliament should be directly involved in the submission of complaints to the commissioner.
To suggest that the commissioner should pursue an individual complaint without either a Member of Parliament or even the complainant seeking his involvement seems unnecessary and unwise, although, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, would probably be the first to tell me, there is an ad hoc provision to ensure that it is within the vires or the powers of the commissioner to approach the complainant and to take up the case through an MP if he feels that it is necessary. I think that this is something that we might like to look at again when we debate this Bill in Committee.
Those are the points that were raised in this brief debate on Second Reading. Once again I thank noble Lords for accepting the main purpose of the Bill, which is to extend the jurisdiction of the parliamentary commissioner very considerably by adding a whole list of non-departmental public bodies to the schedule which is to be found in this Bill.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
The Bill was brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.

Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1987
5.18 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne)The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved.—[12th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order be approved.
The order is before your Lordships today because one part of it—that covering site employees in the mechanical and electrical engineering construction industry sector—involves a levy exceeding 1 per cent. of emoluments.
Your Lordships will need no reminding of the importance of the engineering industry, which is the largest manufacturing sector in terms of employment. Engineering output has risen during the last five years by 10 per cent. The increase is most marked in the electrical and instrument engineering sector. Mechanical engineering has continued its growth. Protecting the skill base of the industry is clearly vital. That is why it is essential that this order should be approved so that money is available to the Engineering Industry Training Board to enable it to encourage firms to train in the industry.
Before looking at the detail of this levy it may be helpful if I were to set the scene by explaining briefly what the Engineering Industry Training Board is doing about training in the sector. We very much welcome the board's efforts to meet engineering skill needs. It is putting an increased emphasis on high technology needs by providing an advanced technology training team. It also offers grants to help alleviate high technology skill shortages—for instance, by encouraging companies to carry out more training for the conversion of suitable people to work in high technology areas. Accelerated management training and the development of promising engineers is offered through the board's fellowship schemes.
These measures clearly demonstrate the board's commitment to stimulating employers to invest in training, and the levy order before us now will enable that work to continue.
The board of course recognises that there is room for improvement: that employers must be encouraged to improve the volume of training if the engineering sector is to grow and not be hampered by skill shortages. To this end, the board issued at the end of last year an information paper setting out its view that the levy and exemption system now in operation was not bringing about the necessary quantity of training. The paper offered three options to improve the situation. First, more rigorous exemption rules; secondly, a levy/grant system and lastly, a system where the board is funded entirely through a non-returnable levy of up to 0.2 per cent. of payroll.
I understand that the board has agreed that, before making its final decision, it should develop criteria for a revised levy exemption scheme to deliver an adequate quantity as well as quality of training. The board will meet again in June to consider these criteria.
Technological advance has clearly had a significant impact on the employment patterns of engineers. They are now widely employed in sectors not traditionally associated with the engineering industry. The board is beginning to address this problem by instigating a survey to identify where engineering skills are used and the flows of engineers in and out of the various sectors. This survey will go a long way towards identifying engineering skill needs across the whole of industry and again it has our support—indeed, we are contributing to its cost.
Turning to the levy proposals before us now, they are in the same format as those approved by both Houses last year and are expected to raise just over £19 million. The levy will apply to those firms which are employers in the industry between the date when the order comes into force and 31st August 1987. The actual amount of levy due is calculated on the basis of the total emoluments paid by those employers in the 12-month period starting on 6th April 1986.
The levy is made up of two main parts. The first part applies to mainstream engineering, and the second to the mechanical and electrical engineering construction industry. For mainstream engineering establishments, the board has agreed unanimously to propose certain small increases in the non-exemptable portion of the levy. For establishments in the mechanical and electrical engineering construction industry sector, the levy arrangements proposed remain the same as those approved by your Lordships last year. I recommend the order to the House.
Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved. [12th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, my party of course welcomes these proposals although they underwrite some existing proposals and alter them slightly. We welcome these training proposals because they are fundamental and necessary to our survival as a manufacturing nation. As the Minister said, engineering is by far the largest section of our manufacturing industry. The sad fact of course is that over the past decade the number of people employed in the industry has reduced from 3 million to 2 million. There is no sign of that employment picking up.
I think that a figure of 25,000 was quoted as being the number of people involved in training schemes. To put that into context, we must realise that less than a decade ago 90,000 to 100,000 apprentices were taken into the engineering industry annually to be trained on site or in factories. That shows the scale of the deterioration that has taken place in what was once one of the world's biggest manufacturing bases.
The Minister referred to the fact that patterns are changing. Of course they are changing rapidly. It would be silly to say that that is not so. I am a trained engineer. I left the tools of my trade some 14 or 15 years ago. I should require some retraining because time has passed me by. They are doing different things in engineering factories now. We welcome the proposals and what they seek to do.
Your Lordships will recall that last week there were banner headlines in the press and on the media about the Government's success in reducing the monthly unemployment figures by 71,000. I was surprised because I have a government document from the Department of Employment. It contains figures that give cause for serious alarm. It states:
"Later estimates show that the number of employees in manufacturing industry decreased by 22,000 in January".
That is double the number in any one month last year. I do not claim that all those 22,000 jobs were lost in engineering, but, it still being our biggest manufacturing industry, there is no question but that
150
a considerable number of those jobs will have been lost in the engineering industry.
Within the past couple of weeks we had a debate in your Lordships' House on this country's manufacturing industries. Many fears were expressed on all sides of the House about what is happening to us as a manufacturing nation and what that means to our survival, our standard of living and the conditions we have come to expect in education and the health service. Your Lordships asked what we could do as a manufacturing nation.
I do not decry the service sector. During that debate one of your Lordships gave a graphic description of how the service sector was parcelled out. Some of it consists of banking and financial institutions which play a prominent part in our overseas trade. Financial deals bring large sums of money to the Treasury. I do not decry the day-to-day service industries. They are necessary and do an excellent job. But our finite North Sea oil reserves are running out and our manufacturing base is still haemorrhaging severely. I bring all that to the notice of your Lordships' House because I am surprised that it was not made more of in another place by people who are critical of government policies.
The loss of 22,000 jobs in one month from our manufacturing base is an immense tragedy. It cannot quickly be put right. I recall the Secretary of State telling us in this House last year that he hoped that by last Christmas the loss of jobs in manufacturing would level out and start to pick up. I am not trying to score a political point, but the loss of those 22,000 jobs in January should have made the banner headlines. They show the serious position we are in. To make the case that the figures had been reduced by 71,000 was meaningless in the terms of the country's economic well-being.
My last point is this. As I have said before in your Lordships' House, it is excellent to train young people to take their place in the new sunrise industries. We know that the smoke stack industries' numbers have depleted and they will never return to previous levels. Nothing could be more cruel if, after training these youngsters to the skills of engineering, there are no jobs at the end of the road. It would be a cruel deception inflicted on them. Sadly, on the figures that were quoted in this report by the Department of Employment last week I suspect that that will be the case.
However, having said those few words, I hope that in the not too distant future we shall see concrete evidence that the manufacturing base is starting to expand once again. Noble Lords may watch the graph shown on ITV on Friday nights. It indicates quite clearly that even where there are gains in the week's figures, they are always in the non-manufacturing industries.
I do not say this with disrespect to those who work in the service industries and in distribution but we are in danger of thinking that we can survive by becoming a nation of warehousemen and shopkeepers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Was it not the right honourable gentleman, Edward Heath, who commented some time ago that we cannot survive as a nation by just taking in other people's clothes as

151
washing; we have to survive by manufacturing the clothes before washing them? That comment by the former Prime Minister encapsulates what we are talking about.
I have no desire to oppose this order. However, I hope that those few remarks put the subject into context. Training is desirable but if it means a dole queue at the end of the period it is a cruel deception and one that is not worthy of us.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for the clear way in which he has explained the order and for telling us why it is necessary to seek parliamentary approval for it. It is good to know that both employer and employee members of the mechanical and electrical engineering construction industry sector committee have unanimously agreed to the levy which is applicable in that sector and that the proposals were subsequently approved by the engineering training board without dissent.
Having said that, it is plain that all is far from well with regard both to the quantity and quality of training in the engineering field. The best evidence for this is that the board has said that the levy and exemption system now in operation is not producing the necessary amount of training. They have offered—and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, gave some indication of this—a number of options as to how the situation might be improved. In particular, they have agreed that before reaching a decision criteria should be developed for a revised levy exemption scheme to provide training that is adequate in both quality and quantity.
I believe that the problem goes very much deeper than that. Half the people qualified to work in engineering are not employed in the engineering sector itself but in other sectors of industry. The engineering board has no responsibility for training in those other sectors which, since 1982, have in many cases not been covered by any training board since most boards were then abolished altogether by the Government. The result is that many employers in the engineering industry are training only for their own immediate needs. Some of them are all too ready to poach our qualified people from the larger more far-seeing firms which are exercising more responsibility in the matter.
I hold no brief for the old-fashioned apprenticeship system under current conditions which relied on time serving rather than on achievement. I further recognise what the Government have done under the aegis of the youth training schemes and what they no doubt aim to do under the new job training scheme. However, I do not think it is enough. Nor, to judge from their recent evidence to a Select Committee in another place, does the engineering training board.
I am also troubled by the fact that in a recent survey by the engineering board 60 per cent. of the firms involved said that they were experiencing difficulty in recruiting specialist graduates in areas such as electronics. That reminds me that only last Wednesday the Science and Engineering Research Council were obliged to cancel the funding of further research in universities because the Government were
152
unwilling to reimburse to the council the amount—I believe that it was £8 million—representing the cost of the most recent pay rise. I suggest that in the light of such factors it is surely wrong that 90 per cent. of companies in the engineering industry are now altogether exempt from paying a levy, and that the total amount currently being raised by levy is only £3 million compared with a potential maximum of £160 million. In my view there is need—and I think I speak for my noble friends on this—both for the Government to give a stronger lead and for engineering employers as a whole to recognise that training should be regarded not as a cost to be borne reluctantly, if at all, but as a worthwhile investment for the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, made some reference to the situation in the manufacturing industry. That is now generally so serious that there surely is a strong case for introducing some form of national training levy with remission to employers being made conditional on their providing training which conforms to certain specified criteria. I do not suppose for one moment that when the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, comes to reply he will give the slightest encouragement to that idea. But I hope that he will at least say something which shows that the Government recognise there is need for more than an exhortation in this field and that he will indicate what action he thinks should be taken, and by whom, to improve the situation.
Subject to those very considerable reservations, we on these Benches are prepared to approve this order.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their contribution to this debate, and indeed for their welcome, if qualified, to the order that I have proposed to bring before your Lordships. Perhaps I may answer one point by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, about the possible scope of the board being too limited. The noble Lord may be interested and reassured to know that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment discussed this matter with the EITB chairman as recently as 4th March. As a result, I understand that MSC funds will be made available to help EITB to commission an independent survey into the use of engineering skills in other sectors. Indeed, I referred to this during my earlier remarks. To be frank, we are a little short of information in this area. I very much hope that with the information provided by the survey to hand, it will be possible to move forward in a way that the noble Lord would approve.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, was complaining about employment opportunities in the service sector rather than in the manufacturing sector. He saw that as an unfortunate trend. I do not think that he was complaining about the increase in the service sector so much as the decrease in the manufacturing sector. It is perhaps worth noting that despite the decrease to which the noble Lord has referred (which has not been as great as the noble Lord said, but I do not dispute the fact that there has been a decrease) there has been an increase in the level of production of the manufacturing sector and an increase, too, in productivity, as I understand it. Therefore, it follows that the manufacturing sector is

153
becoming steadily more efficient and more successful not only in the domestic market but in world markets as well. So I think we have nothing to apologise for.
The fact of the matter is that industry is moving into a new era where production methods involve the employment of many fewer people than they did in the past. That has been necessary to ensure that products remain competitively priced, particularly in world markets. The result has been an increase in the level of production but, sadly, a reduction in some areas in the number of persons employed in this activity. To a considerable extent this has been offset by an increase in employment opportunities in other sectors. I do not disagree with the noble Lord that there has nonetheless been a decrease in the manufacturing sector overall, but that has been offset and to some extent mitigated by the effects—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. Would he not agree however that he cannot be entirely happy about the conclusions he has drawn from the statement he has made about the increase in productivity despite the decrease in the number of persons employed, which is no doubt true, unless he also takes into account the extent of capital investment and the return on the capital invested? You may be getting the results you say, but unless you take that other item into account you do not know whether you are doing well or not.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that I totally follow the point which the noble Baroness has made about the amount of money, but I shall be happy to be instructed by the noble Baroness on some other occasion.
I take no comfort from the fact that the level of employment in any particular sector is less, because I recognise that in some cases at least it means that there are people unemployed; and nobody deplores that situation more than I do. On the other hand, there are new employment opportunities arising both in the service sector and in the new sunrise industries, as they are called, in the manufacturing sector. But I agree that there are some older industries the products of which are no longer competitive and clearly employment opportunities in those industries are on the decline.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Whooping Cough Vaccine
5.45 p.m.
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they are making with the development and introduction of a safer whooping cough vaccine.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. As noble Lords will see, this Question is short, direct and to the point. Perhaps there are those who might say it is short to the point of being almost terse. It merely asks Her Majesty's Government what progress they are making with the development and introduction of a safer whooping cough vaccine. It is surely clear that other important questions underlie
154
that question. Those other questions are matters of grave public importance in relation to public policy.
Since my Question refers to a safer vaccine, that necessarily appears to imply that the present vaccine is either unsafe or not safe enough. Therefore, the first additional question which I wish to put to the noble Baroness, which I am quite sure she will answer when we get to the end of the debate, is as follows. What is the Government's present estimate of the risk of vaccine-related brain damage from the use of the whooping cough vaccine which is at present used?
I have a number of figures, and I think the figure which the Government have been using recently is one in 100,000. Perhaps noble Lords might be interested in the origin of that figure. There has been an interesting series of articles in the New Scientist. In the article of 6th February headed "Whooping Cough: A Safer Vaccine?" one reads that doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London reported what seemed to be a direct link in several children between brain damage and whooping cough vaccine. The article goes on to say:
"The Department of Health and Social Security, alarmed at this trend"—
that was the trend of parents being inclined to opt not to have the whooping cough vaccine—
"commissioned the National Childhood Encephalopathy Study in 1976 …The DHSS was so keen to publicise the conclusions that it announced the results before the authors, Euan Ross at Charing Cross Hospital in London, and David Miller at St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington, had completed their research. It was also made clear to Ross and Miller that it they did not include an assessment of attributable risk, then one would be put in over their heads. They agreed to provide an estimate of the risk, but only in the form of a heavily qualified appendix".
Lord Ennals: My Lords, if I may intervene—
Lord Winstanley: Perhaps I may just finish the quotation.
"Ross and Miller concluded that there was indeed an association between vaccination and irreparable brain damage among infants. They estimated that the chances of a vaccinated child suffering brain damage were about 1 in 100,000. The Government took this figure to mean that the vaccine against whooping cough was acceptably safe".
Now I give way to the noble Lord with pleasure.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I just wanted to say, since I was Secretary of State at that time, that neither of the two statements that were quoted in the New Scientist on 26th February was correct. One was that the results would be published in any case, and if no figures were given, some bogus figures would be given.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, the noble Lord was in a position to know, and, of course, noble Lords accept what he has said. I do not think it invalidates the fact that at that time the risk was put at one in 100,000.
That was not the only figure that was given. The noble Baroness will know that a report of an inquiry, commissioned and paid for by her own department and carried out by Professor Gordon Stuart, of Glasgow, came to the conclusion that the risk of brain damage was 1 in 20,000. I do not say whether that is true of whether it is untrue. But if it is true that it is 1 in 20,000, that is not a risk which can be regarded as

155
acceptable and one should not accept it as being so. It is interesting that not much has been said about that report by Professor Gordon Stuart, which was paid for by the Department of Health but not published, I understand.
It is interesting that the February issue of Health Trends, a magazine published by the department which the noble Baroness represents, also gives a figure, though a somewhat different figure. It estimates severe irreversible damaging reactions to be 1 in 300,000. I am not entirely sure from where it gets that figure. In the bibliography at the end of that article are a series of references, and the publications indexed there are all reports which wholly agree with what the Government are now saying. But other reports by distinguished and reputable medical scientists and epidemiologists are not referred to at all in Health Trends. I would merely say in passing that it seems that the article headed "A Training Procedure for Immunisation" in the department's publication Health Trends seems to be seriously flawed from a scientific point of view. I am bound to say that were those like the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, here to examine it, I think they would come to the same conclusion. But we are not here to discuss the merits or otherwise of the Government's publication Health Trends, so perhaps I may continue. However, at the end of the debate I should like to hear from the noble Baroness the figure which the Government accept.
It is clearly accepted that the whooping cough vaccine now in use can cause irreversible brain damage. The passing of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act is evidence of that. It was said at the time that that was a temporary measure to give some compensation to hard-hit families until the matter was looked at in depth. However, publication after publication is issued by the department which makes it clear that it accepts that brain damage sometimes occurs. At the end of the debate I should like the noble Baroness to give us the figure which the Government now adopt with regard to this vaccine.
In assessing the risk, we must weigh the risk in respect of vaccination against whooping cough against the risks in respect of the disease. That comparison must be made before we can draw any valid conclusions. What is the Government's present estimate of the risks of pertussis among the non-vaccinated and the vaccinated? That figure will give an indication of the efficacy of the vaccine at present in use.
Referring again to the publication Health Trends, regarding the training procedure for immunisation it states:
"Loss of confidence in the safety of pertussis vaccine has caused whooping cough epidemics to return with at least 59 deaths from pertussis in recent years.".
That is not the whole story. We all know, and we in medicine have known for many years, that very young children and particularly babies are vulnerable to pertussis and are in need of protection. We know that very young children who contract whooping cough are in jeopardy. Looking at the series of articles in New Scientist of 26th February which I have already quoted, there is clear evidence that the greater majority of the deaths that have occurred from
156
whooping cough were among the badly housed and underprivileged members of society.
The Black Report shows clearly that people living in conditions of bad housing, overcrowding and poverty in inner-city areas are underprivileged as far as concerns health. It is a tragedy that people should be living in such conditions. I hasten to say that governments of all parties are at fault. We have fallen badly behind in housing and that is a crucial factor in relation to health and infectious diseases in particular. We have fallen badly behind in housing since the 1930s when there was a major attack on the problem, and therefore governments of all complexions are involved. I hope that it will give Mr. Tebbit a little joy when I say that the Lib/Lab Pact bears a tiny proportion of the blame. We are all to blame for the fact that housing conditions are in such a state.
It is clear from the articles that of the children who died from whooping cough, the majority were living in overcrowded conditions, in bad housing and in an underprivileged environment. It seems that we could have done more for those children by improving the environment in which they lived than by giving a vaccine which could—I say only "could"—be regarded as dangerous.
I turn to the third of the specific questions which I should like to put to the noble Baroness. Could we have a safer vaccine? I refer again to the articles in New Scientist of 26th February:
"In Britain vaccination against whooping cough involves an injection of small doses of dead cells of the bacterium Bordetella pertussis to provoke immunity to the disease. For this reason, the vaccine is called the 'whole-cell vaccine"'.
There are many influential scientists and epidemiologists who believe that the whole-cell vaccine is dangerous. The manufacturers, Wellcome, say that it is not, but they would, would they not?
What is the alternative? For at least 30 years scientists have believed that it is possible to make purer and safer vaccines against whooping cough. The way to do that is by separating from the bacterial cells those components which stimulate the immune response and so prevent the disease. Such vaccines are called acellular vaccines. They do not contain the harmful components of the whole-cell vaccines that may cause unwelcome side effects.
Britain lags behind in producing an acellular vaccine against whooping cough. However, I am informed that the Medical Research Council begins a small-scale trial with a few acellular vaccines this year. I am also told that the Wellcome Foundation, which manufactures the present whole-cell vaccine, did not have an acellular vaccine ready to take part. The Swedes have stopped using the whole-cell vaccine; the Japanese have largely stopped using them and use the acellular vaccine; and in the United States there is an increasing tendency to use the acellular vaccine rather than the whole-cell vaccine. Surely it seems reasonable that we should begin to move in that direction.
I should like the noble Baroness to accept that I am a firm believer in the principle of immunisation. As a doctor practising medicine for many years, I am aware of what happened in relation to diphtheria. The year before general immunisation against diphtheria was introduced in this country there were 72,000 cases. In

157
the year following the introduction of immunisation the number of cases was reduced to single figures: it was as dramatic as that. I have also not forgotten that smallpox has now virtually disappeared from the world as a result of vaccination. I am therefore wholly committed to immunisation.
However, if the confidence of parents of young children is undermined in relation to one vaccine, it tends to be undermined for all. There is a danger that in hearing rumours (if they are rumours) or of the facts of the detailed figures in relation to brain damage caused by the pertussis vaccine, there are parents who will decide that a vaccine is a vaccine and that they will not have their children protected at all. That situation is very dangerous and damaging and could lead us into a perilous position. I am sure that the noble Lord. Lord Ennals, will confirm that matter because he has been wrestling with the problem for many years.
I should like to warn the noble Baroness of one matter. She will recollect that there was a time when smallpox vaccination was compulsory in Britain by Act of Parliament. One could avoid immunisation only by pleading conscientious objection. Having done that, parents could then avoid having their children vaccinated against smallpox either by their own general practitioner or by the public vaccinator. The warning to the noble Baroness is that the percentage of people vaccinated against smallpox was never as high when it was compulsory as it became once it was voluntary. There is an important lesson to he learned from that and I hope that when the Government see the figures of falling immunisation they will avoid the trap of introducing compulsion. I do not say that they will introduce it, but I say that that is a lesson which should be learned.
I am grateful to other noble Lords who will speak in respect of this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who has dealt with this matter in your Lordships' house on many occasions, has gone abroad. He has asked me to say that had he not had to go abroad, he would have spoken in this debate and supported what I have said. In addition, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who has also been deeply involved in the subject, has asked me to say that because of a serious family medical problem he cannot be here. Had the noble Lord been present, he also would have supported what I have said.
We need clear answers. If we cannot be satisfied that the present vaccine is sufficiently safe, then let us get a move on with getting a safer vaccine, which we have demonstrated is possible. If it is sufficiently safe, then let us he given the clear facts and the truth. I do not dream of suggesting that the noble Baroness would speak untruths to your Lordships' House. Indeed, I am sure that she would never speak an untruth to anyone. However, before I sit down I should like to ask her to hear in mind very carefully some of the words which are put into her mouth by some of the department's scientific advisers.
Lord Rea: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to express as a fellow professional how much I agree with all that he has said and how much I admire the way in which he has said it. The whole profession will be behind him on this issue.
6 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for giving me the opportunity to say something about the whooping cough vaccine. He told me earlier that I would agree with every word of his speech and I concur with that thought because I do. I only saw his Unstarred Question in the Minutes this morning and I am sorry that more eminent medical Peers are not present and able to speak. However, as my youngest daughter suffered very badly after her vaccination—I hope not permanently—I felt it important to make some comments this evening. Your Lordships will also be aware of my interest in complementary medicine and the way it has affected my own professional life and my attitude to my patients.
I am grateful to Simon Mills, the herbalist, for access to an article which he wrote on the subject, but I must say that the moderate words that you will hear this evening hide some much stronger feelings on the subject which I should be reluctant to air in your Lordships' House in view of the possible resultant publicity.
From the theoretical standpoint, there can be little doubt that vaccinations are a valid prophylactic against infectious diseases. The active stimulation of the body's immunological mechanisms so that the immune response is specifically primed to counteract any subsequent infection is so well investigated in each case that the matter is largely beyond argument.
The same holds, for different reasons, for public immunisation campaigns. While it is possible to argue that many infectious diseases were declining rapidly before immunisation and antibiotics were able to affect their incidence, there can be little doubt that conditions like smallpox, poliomyelitis, measles, tetanus and whooping cough have been dramatically influenced by vaccination. It is easier to argue against the use of vaccines like whooping cough—blamed for brain damage (from DHSS figures) in almost 500 cases—when the effects of its use are compared with what happens without it, but even here the prophylactic value of the vaccination is clear.
The adverse publicity led to a fall in the uptake of the vaccine of 60 per cent. and within a year the incidence of the disease had increased nine-fold to 50,000 cases—with nine deaths in England. However, whooping cough apart, anyone who publicly supported the folly of vaccinations would have to be prepared to shoulder some of the responsibility for the increased casualties that would inevitably follow. But some real questions remain.
The problem is that blind reliance on an exogenous stimulation of the immune system for protection against infectious diseases leads attention away from those factors predisposing or precipitating the disease in the first place. It complies with the current mythology that germs are like bullets, striking down their victims in a random fashion—malevolent agents that merely need to be eliminated for disease to be eradicated.
A wider ecological perspective would support the opposite view: that germs are organisms or factors co-existing in a system of checks and balances with every other living entity; that they have to struggle for life

159
like every other creature; that they similarly need food and shelter from adverse conditions. The body has an impressive array of defensive devices that can normally be relied on to refuse haven to the pathogenic organisms constantly around us. A close look at the incidence of each infectious disease will provide clues to the normal vital protections against it and ways in which they may be enhanced.
Most enteric innoculations including, for example, cholera, typhoid, dysentery and bacterial food poisoning are unlikely to survive exposure to the normal gastric environment. Common experience of the common cold and 'flu susceptibility suggests that many individuals can maintain resistance to a broad spectrum of rhinoviruses and other respiratory pathogens.
It is the experience of herbal practitioners, that adopting remedial strategies for improving known predisposing conditions can be very effective in treating infections and improving general resistance. Emphasis must be placed on how resistant the healthy body is to almost all infectious agents—a resistance that should be supported or enhanced rather than ignored because a vaccination has been given.
On the issue of public health, it may be asserted that concentration on immunisation campaigns can be a lucrative exercise for some, distracting from the much more important concerns of improving nutritional and social conditions widely agreed to be by far the most significant factors in the aetiology of infectious diseases.
On an individual note, we would agree that every person is a unique individual demanding unique treatment, and most of us would wish to correct individual failures of vital resistance as we encountered them, rather than relying on an arbitrary intervention. For that reason, while welcoming Lord Winstanley's plea for the development of a safer vaccine, I must caution the Government to try to avoid the acquired features of a political campaign that the whooping cough vaccine debate reached last time. If I remember correctly, the department maintained that the vaccine was good for you—so we must all have it.
The risks vary from minor reactions to brain damage and death. Most of us involved with alternative medical treatments—particularly the homeopaths —would claim that long-lasting side effects of different kinds are common following vaccination and that they go unrecognised and therefore unrecorded. I have with me figures from a study done in 1979 in the United States, under FDA sponsorship, which I think would be irresponsible of me to repeat in this House. But there seems to be a possibility that many of the children described as suffering from a learning disability or congenitally mentally retarded could have some connection with whooping cough vaccination.
The facts remain that vaccination involves an intrusion into the vital domain, a challenge to the immune system and the wider integrity of the body, whose full impact cannot be assessed. It may well be that vaccination is included in the strategy of choice, especially if environmental or other factors lead to fears for the strength of the inborn resistance, or if the
160
patient or family is not committed to the demands of the positive approach. However, for those genuinely concerned to promote health, there are other valid strategies to choose from in any individual case.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for opening this short debate and for giving the opportunity to the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, to make his speech and for me to make a few remarks. Unlike both noble Lords, I am no professional. While I agreed with most of what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said—except the part where I stated my disagreement—I find myself much opposed to the general approach of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, in the sense that it seemed to me that he was really saying that the general policy of vaccination against diseases is an intrusion into the natural immune system and that is something with which I must profoundly disagree.
If one looks at the situation not just of smallpox, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, but of diphtheria, tetanus and polio, one would find that the incidence of those conditions in this country would be dramatically higher if we did not have a high level of vaccination in respect of them. Let that be, but I should like to see outside the House—and I respect the fact that the noble Lord did not reveal what he said might be frightening—the evidence on which he bases his conclusions.
I am not a professional, but pertussis vaccine and the need to find a more effective vaccine against whooping cough were crucial issues during the period when I was Secretary of State 10 or 11 years ago. There were a number of cases of vaccine damage over the years which suddenly gained a great deal of publicity, and led in particular to the formation of the Association of Vaccine Damaged Children. The media coverage of some of the sad cases—and clearly Lord Colwyn's own daughter was one of those, though I hope that whatever she suffered was not lasting—who suffered lasting damage led to great publicity. This led to an almost dramatic switch-off so far as vaccination for whooping cough was concerned.
We had to look at whether it was better or safer to have vaccination, or not to have vaccination and face the consequences of the disease. I was involved in the large national study to which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, referred. It was a study that started in 1976, but to achieve an outcome takes some time. You cannot just ask questions; you have to look at conclusions. The Committee on the Safety of Medicines, which advised the Secretary of State, took some time to come up with a clear statement which put the very small number of children adversely affected in the context of the serious consequences of those who suffered from the disease itself.
The study in 1976 was set up to find out whether the immunisation was really safe. The study found that most children had no ill-effects at all. The study also found that a child's chance of brain damage after a course of three whooping cough injections was very low. It was put at one in 100,000, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said. Professor Gordon Stuart, who also conducted a study, was frankly the odd man out. He was a member of the Committee on the Safety of

161
Medicines but he was in a minority of one in the conclusions he reached, and it was an all-expert committee.
By then, however, the damage was done, in the sense that the switch-off rate among parents had been large. The proportion of children vaccinated fell alarmingly. It has taken not only the statement from the Committee on the Safety of Medicines based on the study started in 1976 to which I have referred, but also a major campaign by the department itself, carried out also with the assistance of most general practitioners, to bring the take up to what I understand is its present level of 65 per cent.
Even 65 per cent. is not very high compared with tetanus, which, in 1984—and these are the last figures I have—was 86 per cent.; poliomyelitis was 85 per cent.; diphtheria was 86 per cent.; and at that stage whooping cough was 60 per cent. That was 1984, and I think that the latest figures for whooping cough show it at 65 per cent.
The disease itself is a very serious disease. It causes long and distressing bouts of coughing and choking. They can go on for so long that the child finds it difficult to breath and becomes exhausted. The coughing often ends with the child being sick, and because food is not being kept down the child may lose weight. These fits can happen as often as 50 times a day. As the coughing goes on night and day, the parents lose sleep and the whole family suffers.
The illness itself usually lasts about three to four weeks and the coughing may go on for even longer. Severe cases of whooping cough can last for up to 12 weeks. Whooping cough can also cause convulsions, hernias, ear infections, pneumonia, bronchitis and collapsed lungs. In some cases it can cause brain damage. It was this that hit the headlines in the late 1970s. In the 10 years up to 1984, 82 children died from whooping cough in the United Kingdom.
What was quite clearly needed then was not just a statement of reassurance about a vaccine that clearly had its dangers. You weighed them up and clearly it was better to be vaccinated than not, though it has its dangers. What was needed was a vaccine so effective that all fears would be avoided as with polio, tetanus, smallpox, etc.
I have four points to put to the noble Baroness in my contribution to this brief debate. First, why is it that progress appears to be so slow? Like the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, I was much taken by the article in New Scientist on 26th February. I have faulted part of it but there is much else that seems to have a factual basis to it.
The article said that the,
"American drug companies knew how to make acellular vaccines years ago".
Obviously this is the difference between a whole-cell vaccine and a part-cell vaccine. I am no expert, but that is the difference. The American drug companies knew how to make acellular vaccines. The article goes on:
"Japanese companies have been making acellular vaccines successfully for several years now. Swedish health authorities will probably soon be using them. Pharmaceuticals companies in the US are now developing acellular vaccines on their own. In addition, scientists at Stanford University and in Sweden",
162
are trying to manufacture these vaccines using genetic engineering.
are trying to manufacture these vaccines using genetic engineering.
I want to quote one paragraph from this particular article.
"By comparison, Britain lags far behind in producing an acellular vaccine against whooping cough. The Medical Research Council begins a very small-scale trial"—
the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, referred to this—
"with a few vaccines this year".
I wonder why that is. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give some assurances that Britain is not lagging behind.
If there is evidence that there are better types of vaccine, why are we not promoting research and eventual development in precisely those fields? These are problems which worried me 10 years ago. There have been a number of years in which the Government could have been active in this field. If the statement that I have just quoted is true, then I want to know why it is. If it is untrue, then I should like the noble Baroness to tell me.
Thirdly, why are we still using the whole-cell vaccine as opposed to the acellular vaccine, which seems so much more effective? Has the department considered moving over—whether it is produced in Britain or not—to a vaccine that might have, and appears to have, fewer dangers?
The last point that I want to raise in the form of a question is that I recently read a report in one of the medical journals—and I have to say that I cannot trace it at the moment—which suggested that tests on a new vaccine had recently been postponed. It did not imply that the department had postponed them, but that they had been postponed. If the noble Baroness knows about this perhaps she can explain the circumstances.
If we have now a 65 per cent. take-up rate, that is too low. I do not think that it is the job of any of us to argue what I believe is abundantly clear—that it is safer for children to be vaccinated in their early months than not to be vaccinated—but it would be safer still if we could have a vaccine which leads to no significant side effects at all. Therefore, we all anxiously await the statement that the noble Baroness will make about such progress as the Government have made.
6.19 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the noble Lord's Question is timely. I welcome the opportunity of explaining the present position on the introduction of new whooping cough vaccines. I also find myself in the happy, but rather rare, position of agreeing with practically everything that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said. Indeed, from the depth of his experience when he was Secretary of State he kindly answered some of the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, asked me.
I must first express my concern. It is that fears about the safety and efficacy of the present vaccine might be

163
needlessly resurrected in the minds of parents. Immunisation against whooping cough is unquestionably a success story. The present vaccine used in this country is not old fashioned; it is highly effective in the vast majority of cases in conferring protection against the disease.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, quoted various facts and figures. I think that it is he who has them wrong. Scientific research by the National Childhood Encephalopathy study has estimated that the risk of serious brain damage or death following whooping cough vaccine is about one in 300,000 injections. This equates to one in 100,000 for the complete course of three injections.
The committee on safety of medicines and the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation have examined carefully the evidence concerning the risk of brain damage following whooping cough vaccine, including the report by Professor Gordon Stewart. Incidentally, the allegations made of one in 20 were carefully examined by our expert advisory committees but were not endorsed. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, agreed with that point. They reaffirmed their advice that the benefits of whooping cough immunisation far outweigh the very small risk of serious neurological reactions.
The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, referred to the allegations made in the United States, that its whole-cell vaccine has given rise to adverse reaction such as delayed learning. I have checked, and I have been assured that UK experience lends no credence to such allegations, despite the very careful attention given to adverse reaction to the vaccine. If evidence is produced, we will of course ask our expert advisers to examine it. However, I repeat that our present advice is that our vaccine is not prone to the reactions quoted.
Recent history speaks for itself. After the no doubt sincere but singularly ill-advised scaremongering of the 1970s, confidence in the vaccine fell, and in 1978 about 30 per cent. only of babies were immunised compared with 77 per cent. in 1974. The consequences are there to be seen in the incidence of the disease in the epidemic of 1977 to 1979. It was four times as large as that in 1974. Four years later it was again larger than any since the mid-1950s. By 1985, with confidence returning, the uptake rate had risen to about 65 per cent. I am glad to say that today's children have benefited. The epidemic from which we are now emerging has shown a reduction in cases of about 25 per cent. compared with the last one.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords; the noble Baroness referred understandably to scaremongering in past years. Will she make it absolutely clear that she does not for one moment regard attempts by families to obtain suitable compensation for what they believe to be brain damage in their children as a result of a vaccine as scaremongering?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it was never compensation in the first place. It was a payment to help meet extra costs, costs over and above those that
164
social service and other payments provided anyway. It was not compensation.
I repeat on purpose, I am glad to say that today's children have benefited. The epidemic from which we are now emerging has shown a reduction in cases of about 25 per cent. compared with the last one. Typically, a whooping cough epidemic shows two peaks of infection about 12 to 15 months apart. The good news this time is that the second peak appears largely to have been avoided.
The uptake rate of 65 per cent. is not good enough. It fails to confer the "crowd immunity" which would virtualy eradicate the disease in this country. It still leaves too many children at risk. We must therefore maintain our efforts to persuade more parents to have their babies protected.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for his graphic description of the ill-effects of the disease. I repeat, with present tried and tested vaccines, the benefits to the children far outweigh the risks of adverse reactions. The risks to life and health from contracting the disease are infinitely greater.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, spoke about the incidence of whooping cough among children living in poor housing. I would bring to the noble Lord's attention the fact that the incidence of whooping cough rose in Sweden when it ceased its vaccination programme, despite the very high standards of housing maintained in that country. The matter is not that simple. However, if there is a chance of improving the vaccine, obviously we would grasp it.
Your Lordships are far more scientifically educated than I am and can say the terrible words far more easily than I can, but the technical information that I have been given is as follows. The current vaccine is manufactured from the whole cell of the bacteria. Advances in vaccine technology over recent years have enabled scientists to identify the parts of the cell that have the antigenic properties—in lay terms, the parts that will trigger the immune system to mount its defences and to develop and manufacture vaccines based on those parts. Where this can be successfully achieved, the vaccine is in theory purer, more effective and less likely to produce unwanted side-effects.
Some years ago a committee of the Medical Research Council with wide representations of interests in vaccination advised that the UK should take this path towards developing an improved whooping cough vaccine. Our research scientists both within the pharmaceutical industry and in the public sector have a record of success in the discovery and development of new medicines which is envied throughout the world. It is therefore right that we should seek to develop a UK vaccine. This work has been based mainly at the Centre for Applied Microbiological Research at Porton Down, which I was happy to visit last week. I was most impressed by the dedication and brilliance of the scientists whom I met during a fascinating day. The Porton vaccine is now ready for testing in children as soon as the regulatory requirements on safety have been met. We have high hopes of it.
Not surprisingly, other countries have been following the same path. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that it so happens that on this occasion we

165
have not been the first past the winning post, but no delay, which I think was the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals—
Lord Ennals: Does the noble Baroness know—if she does not, I do not wish to embarrass her—whether the new vaccine is a single cell vaccine or an acellular vaccine?
Baroness Trumpington: May I continue for the moment?
Lord Ennals: Indeed.
Baroness Trumpington: This means that we shall have the benefit of comparing the UK vaccine with others in clinical trials. The trials are certainly necessary. Much has been made of the fact that the Japanese are already using an acellular vaccine for their children. So they are. I have now answered the noble Lord's point, I think: we are talking of an acellular vaccine.
But I must point out to the noble Lord—this is extremely important when talking about the Japanese use of this vaccine—that they are starting at two years old, by which age the worst risks from the disease are past. Their vaccine still has to be fully evaluated for use at the earlier ages which we—I believe we start at three months—and others believe is a better approach.
In Sweden, France and the United States trials are already in progress and we shall watch the results with great interest. I am advised that it is too early to draw conclusions from them and certainly neither these, nor any other trials, should persuade us to rush into adopting new vaccines until they have been properly assessed. In their turn, other countries will be watching the results of our trials with great interest in order to learn from them. Safety is of course paramount, but I am advised that there is also still much to be learned from a careful comparison of the efficacy of the vaccines, which are similar in concept but differ in detail. Such learning will help us to review the pattern of vaccination, and possibly to reduce the number of injections from three to two.
Clinical trials of medicines and vaccines in this country are regulated under the Medicines Act 1968, introduced following the thalidomide tragedy. For most trials, generally involving substances of which a good deal is already known, there is now a procedure for enabling trials to start without a full dossier being submitted to our medicines division—the clinical trial exemption scheme. It was for some time assumed that the whooping cough vaccine trials might qualify for this expedited procedure. However, on studying the applications for exemptions our medicines division advised that the full clinical trial certificate procedure should be followed so that the licensing authority could first obtain the advice of the Committe on Safety of Medicines. The manufacturers were so advised.
I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is better to be safe than sorry.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Hear, hear, my Lords.
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, my Lords. I was terribly sorry to hear of the reaction which the
166
daughter of my noble friend Lord Colwyn suffered from the vaccine. I too very much hope that she is now well again. I should like to say that most adverse reactions reported to the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, which were 223 in all in 1986, are transitory.
All concerned with the production and the whole involvement with this vaccination process are fretful at the time needed to compile the full dossiers and refer them to the expert advisory committee. But I am equally sure that all concerned accept the need to strike that proper balance between speed and safety. When the applications are received, they will be assessed with all possible speed.
We are all hopeful that the trials will be successful and that before too long the new vaccines can be made available. I end by repeating that in the meantime there is absolutely no cause for gloom or despair. The current vaccine has a good track record and is serving our children well. Compulsory vaccination is suggested from time to time and I understand that a number of countries make school entry dependent upon immunisation against some childhood diseases. Any question of making immunisation compulsory would need very careful consideration. I am sure that my colleagues and people in my department will have listened with interest to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley.
I urge parents and others not to refuse or defer vaccinations in the hope that replacement vaccines will soon be available. There simply is no need for this and delay can be dangerous. As a mother myself, I can hardly imagine the grief of parents who lose a child, or whose child is left severely disabled, as a result of a disease which is avoidable.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before seven o'clock.