Lords Sitting of 14 February 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.
Lord Swaythling—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Crèche Facilities for Employees
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to encourage the establishment of crèche facilities for employees.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Government take every opportunity to encourage employers to adopt family friendly recruitment and retention policies including, where appropriate, assistance with child care. A number of practical initiatives to improve the range and quality of child care provisions available to working parents have been taken through the ministerial group on women's issues.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, although I shall have to read it in Hansard tomorrow to find out what it means. What proposals have the Government in mind, in view of their policy to encourage married women back to work, to bring about the provision of a more comprehensive nursery facility for the children of working mothers? Does he not agree that while the initiative of some employers —very few, but some —to make provisions available is welcome, that in itself is not enough? Does he not further agree that if we are to make comprehensive provision for all children who need the services, it will be necessary for the Government to make available facilities and finance to encourage both employers and local authorities to provide those services?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness did not understand my original Answer. I said that we hope that more employers will have family friendly policies towards their employees. More specifically, the Government are aware of the great concern of many women on this issue. The ministerial group on women's issues has issued a five point initiative. All government training programmes and business initiatives are open to women and we are also supporting the nationwide Back to the Future series of conferences for women returners which are being held in conjunction with the BBC and the Industrial Society.
We do not believe that the future is bleak. As the noble Baroness said, many employers have good practices, and we are encouraging them to continue those and to be an example to other employers.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, in view of the Minister's reply, will he say whether the Government will reconsider their attitude to the European directive on parental leave?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we have not yet been convinced of the need to have a European directive on that issue.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, can I call the Minister's attention to the text of the Question which says nothing at all about working mothers but talks about crèche facilities for employees? Are we to understand that the child labour laws are being abolished?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful comment. I think he knows as well as I what the Question is trying to get at.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in those instances where employees provide crèche facilities for their female employees, the Inland Revenue nevertheless assesses those employees on a benefit which they receive in that way? Does the noble Lord agree that if there is to be a further incentive for the provision and taking advantage of crèche facilities, the tax imposition should be removed?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord must know perfectly well that at this time of the year, when we are approaching the Budget, it would be quite wrong of me to speculate on anything which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have in mind.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us where the family friendly crèches are for employees of Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government as an employer have a very good record on that sort of provision. They provide flexible working practices to allow women to be able to organise how they wish to work. Some Government departments have schemes for the holidays. Indeed, there is one in central London which is based at the Treasury. Generally speaking, the Civil Service is seen as a good leader and a good example to other employers. However, we shall obviously seek to do more.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that the Question was correct in saying "employees" in that there are a few fathers who have to look after children? In addition, the noble Lord says that the Government are encouraging employers to provide crèches. Therefore, will he bear in mind —he must always bear it in mind because the Government are so enthusiastic about the small employer —that the small employer is in no position to provide a crèche and it would be quite ridiculous for him to do so? It might be used only once every four years. What does he propose to do about that?
While I am on my feet, what does the noble Lord propose to do about the provision of facilities —which in many ways is much more important from the angle of getting women into

1375
employement —over the school holidays, which go on until the youngsters are 16?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the point the noble Baroness makes about small firms is absolutely valid. What we are doing is encouraging small employers in specific areas to club together to provide the kinds of facilities that single large firms can supply themselves. The same basic principle applies for school holidays. One of the initiatives we have taken is to write to school governors to remind them that they have the powers to provide school premises out of school hours precisely for that sort of care.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, perhaps I may come back on the noble Lord's reply to my European directive question. If the Government do not believe in European directives, do they believe in parental leave? What are they doing to encourage employers to adopt parental leave systems themselves?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we encourage many flexible working practices and we encourage maternal leave. I think the record in this country is not at all bad.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister constantly uses the word "encouragement". Does he mean that the Government will actively assist with cash?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is a great deal of good practice at the moment so there is no need to assist with cash. However, the Department of Health is making available £2 million for pilot studies on how existing government resources can be more clearly focused.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in noting the noble Lord's reference to not anticipating his right honourable friend's Budget Statement, may we have an undertaking from him that he will convey to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the manifest injustice and indeed hardship endured by women who desire to take advantage of the crèche facilities, by being taxed in respect of them?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot agree with the words of the noble Lord. I am not sure that his Back-Benchers agree with him either.
Baroness David: My Lords, will the Minister ask the Government to encourage the DES to be family friendly and produce some finance so that LEA employees can use crèche facilities in schools?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it must be up to the individual LEAs to decide exactly how they will provide for their employees.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, the Minister said that he cannot anticipate what the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be saying shortly. However, I wonder whether he saw the report concerning one of his former colleagues, Edwina Currie, who was speaking on this matter some weeks ago. She is reported to
1376
have said, with reference to the National Health Service, that it employs half a million nurses and there are hardly any crèches. Can the Minister tell the House what the Government propose to do in order to provide crèche facilities for their own employees?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness refers to the employees of the National Health Service. It must be up to the National Health Service to decide how best to deal with the needs of its own employees.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what provision will be made for the children of civil servants?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have already answered that question.

City Technology Colleges Programme
2.47 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made with the city technology colleges programme.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the city technology colleges programme continues to make excellent progress. Kingshurst CTC opened in 1988 and two more CTCs at Teesside and Nottingham opened in 1989. At least a further 10 colleges will open in 1990 and 1991.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does the Minister recall that when the scheme was launched the then Secretary of State said that 20 CTCs would be in operation by the end of 1989? Does not the failure to achieve anything like that target relate to the second failure; that is, the inability to attract more than 20 per cent. of private money into what was to be a 100 per cent. private money scheme? The whole business is little short of a scandal. Should not the 80 per cent. of public money which is being poured into these unnecessary schemes be used to repair our crumbling schools?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I think there is a philosophical divide between the noble Lord and the Government on this question. First, the money that is being spent on CTCs is new money and not money which would otherwise have been spent on educational establishments. It has also generated a maximum amount —in fact, an unprecedented amount —of money from commerce and industry to support a most interesting educational innovation. The signs so far are that this innovation is most effective.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, what on earth does the Minister mean in this context by new money?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, by new money I mean that money was extracted from the Treasury to

1377
finance a most interesting educational innovation. If it had not been extracted one cannot assume that it would have been spent on other things in education.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that since this idea was launched about two years ago it has become evident to people wherever they may sit in this House or in another place that the shortage of technologists is very important and that this imaginative arrangement will be welcomed by everyone who tries to recruit people into the technology industries?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes a most valid point. It is true that this programme is proving exceptionally opportune at this time when we need more technologists and scientists. The scheme builds on the arrangements of TVEI which is operating in our schools. However, I believe that it is quite wrong to deny this facility to some of our children if we cannot apply this innovation to all our children at this moment.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that according to the Government's expenditure plan for 1988–89, the total capital spending on schools was £283 million and the expenditure for city technology colleges was £14 million? However, is she aware that there are 24,000 schools which are receiving £12,000 each whereas the sum of £14 million is spread among at most six colleges? Will she say whether that is fair and whether she believes that situation encourages teachers in most schools? We have had a very bad report from the HMI on the state of school buildings. Can the Minister say whether the financial provision I have described encourages the morale of teachers and students in every other kind of school?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Question Time allows us to be rather simplistic about our statements on these affairs. It is important to remember that the government allocation for schools is only one part of the process. Local authorities themselves can supplement the sums that are spent on their schools. Another key feature is the way in which local authorities actually manage both repairs and capital spending on their schools.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a number of these new city technology colleges are being established in areas where there is already a great number of surplus places in the secondary schools? Does she not agree that to build new secondary schools in areas where there are already spare places is a ridiculous waste of public money? Does the Minister not further agree that it is particularly strange that the Government should be following this route when for many years they have exhorted local authorities to run their secondary school provision on a more value for money and rational basis?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my right honourable friend and the Government set out to establish these
1378
schools in the areas of greatest need; that is, in the most urban areas of our country. Where there are surplus places in some of those schools, it would help enormously if local authorities were more co-operative in working alongside and joining in the strategy of working a CTC with their own local schools in the area. There has been particular hostility from the teaching profession and the teaching unions in many of our areas. I believe that if they worked more closely with this innovation that would not only benefit those areas where school rolls are declining but also make better use of surplus places in some of our school buildings.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there are many local authorities which have a grave problem; namely, that many of our schools are in danger of falling down? That is their state. Can the Minister say whether local authorities have asked for special consideration from Her Majesty's Government to save the schools from crumbling?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord overstates his case. It is important to say two things. First, I do not believe that there has ever been more money spent on education. The record compares most favourably with that of the party of the noble Lord opposite. Secondly, it is a question of effective management of resources on the part of local education authorities in making the most of the allocation that is given by central government.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that it is terribly difficult for teachers to teach in schools which are falling down?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I accept that it is difficult for teachers to teach in schools which are falling down. I said that there was scope for managing resources rather better in many of our schools.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we have spent 20 minutes—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I suggest that my noble friend puts his question, the noble Lord, Lord Oram, puts his question, and we then pass on to the next Question.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, I was just going to say that we have spent 20 minutes on two Questions.
Lord Oram: My Lords, I shall be one more minute. Is the Minister aware that my noble friend Lord Molloy was not overstating the case as illustrated by the highly unsatisfactory situation in Brighton? There the Government are providing £7.2 million for the building of just one city technology college, whereas there is a great shortage of money for dealing with a backlog of repairs and capital programmes. Does the Minister not agree that that money could be spent to much better educational effect?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, two issues are ignored by that comment. The first is that the benefits that will be brought to Brighton by the existence of a CTC need to be measured once that college is up and running and its contribution to commerce and industry in the area can be assessed. Secondly, the point made by the noble Lord also ignores the enormous contribution that is to be made by commerce and industry to the capital project.

Mr. Colin Wallace: Inquiry
2.56 p.m.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider widening the terms of reference of the inquiry to be conducted by Mr. David Calcutt QC into the case of Mr. Colin Wallace.
Lord Reay: My Lords, an inquiry is being undertaken by Mr. Calcutt to consider whether any injustice may have been done to Mr. Wallace in respect of his appeal to the Civil Service Appeal Board. An internal Ministry of Defence inquiry is also being conducted into the reasons why relevant departmental papers came to light only last year. The Government see no need for a wider inquiry.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, given that Mr. Wallace has made further statements since the Government's last very unsatisfactory statement on this matter, and that some of his former colleagues in the army information service have offered to give testimony, can the Minister explain further why the Government do not establish a wider judicial inquiry to establish the truth once and for all in this matter and to finally kill off the disturbing rumours that former Ministers, some of whom are noble Lords in this House, were the victims of a smear campaign? In particular, will the Minister give an assurance that present and former officers and servants of the Crown will not be deterred from giving evidence either by departmental pressure or by threats of prosecution under the Official Secrets Act?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the errors recently discovered in ministerial statements primarily concern Mr. Wallace's involvement in the use of disinformation against the Provisional IRA. No evidence was found of the use in headquarters Northern Ireland of disinformation designed to denigrate Members of Parliament or Ministers. If anyone has substantive evidence of illegal or improper activities by Crown servants in Northern Ireland they should submit it to the proper authorities.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the allegations about a campaign to discredit members of the Wilson Government will not go away, as I told the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, some time ago? In my own case, the documentary evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it. If this Government will not set up an inquiry, the Labour Government who will most certainly come
1380
in in 1992 will do so. We would rather that this Government set up an inquiry now.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Prime Minister reported in another place in 1987 the very full assurances that she had received from the director general of the security services that he could find no basis for the allegations that there had been a plot to destabilise the government of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, as he now is. Nothing that has recently come to light in departmental papers concerning the Wallace case casts any doubt on that statement.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is it really too late to kill off the terrible word "disinformation"? What is wrong with the good old English word "lies"?
Lord Reay: My Lords, there are proper uses for disinformation.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister really saying to this noble House that there was no attempt to destabilise a democractically elected British Government? We want to know whether the Government intend to investigate what many of us believe was a real attempt to destabilise a democractically elected British Government. Will he answer quite clearly that there will be an investigation, or do the Government intend to dodge it?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have already answered that question. If there is any further evidence, it should be submitted to the proper authorities.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, when the Prime Minister has spoken on this matter she has referred to incorrect statements made by herself and other Ministers which misled Parliament, but she has refused to tell us what those misleading statements were. Can the Minister help us where the Prime Minister has refused to do so? Cannot the noble Lord recognise that, now that the Defence Select Committee of another place has taken the decision to widen the inquiry from its narrow terms of reference, it will be doing the job that the Government ought to be doing?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the manner in which incorrect advice came to be tendered to Ministers is the subject of an internal inquiry. The outcome will be reported to your Lordships' House.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, will the Minister clear up the point about the lack of evidence? The Government rest their case on the contention that there is no evidence. What appears to be evidence has already been printed, for instance, in the back of Mr. Paul Foot's book. Is it the Government's contention that that is forged —it may be inconclusive but it appears to be evidence —or is there some other explanation as to why it does not count as evidence?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I cannot comment on Paul Foot's book. I understand that the Ministry of Defence has not received any papers containing new material of significance.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that the Government would consider evidence. May I ask specifically whether they have considered the evidence in my case which they already have? Have they asked Scotland Yard for the results of its inquiries into my case, if they can obtain them, which I cannot?
Lord Reay: My Lords, if the noble Lord feels that he has evidence which has not been properly considered, then he should submit it to the proper authorities.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I asked the noble Lord whether the Government had considered the evidence in my case; and secondly, whether they had considered the results of Scotland Yard's inquiries in my case. Specifically, have the Government considered that evidence, or not?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I have replied on several occasions, the Government see no reason for a further wider inquiry. If the noble Lord feels that he has evidence which has not been properly considered, he should submit it to the proper authorities.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that my noble friend has raised this matter before on more than one occasion? He has repeated a very serious statement that he has made on previous occasions. Will the noble Lord be good enough to convey this to his right honourable friend? The noble Lord said during Question Time in answer to a question from me last week that he would ask his right honourable friend to consider an inquiry when, and if necessary after, the Calcutt inquiry has been completed. Did he do that, and what response did he receive from his right honourable freind? Furthermore, can he say a word about the disappearance of the 200-page document which Mr. Wallace sent to No. 10 Downing Street in 1984? Is there an inquiry into that disappearance? Is he aware that there is grave and increasing disquiet not only in Parliament but in the country generally about the way in which the Government are handling this case? The fact that they are not responding is causing people to think that the Government have something to hide.
Lord Reay: My Lords, in the first place I am quite happy to give an assurance that I shall draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the protest of the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. If the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition was referring to Mr. Wallace's handwritten notes, all I can say is that there is nothing to indicate that they were part of his official duties or that he was authorised to compile them.
On the wider point raised by the noble Lord, there is an opinion different from his and it is not only held by members of the Government or by noble Lords on this side of the House. Another distinguished and powerful member of the Downing Street staff of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, at the same time as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, Mr. Joe Haines, takes a different view.
1382
Writing in his column in the Daily Mirror on 9th February he has this to say:
"The hysteria about M15 and dirty tricks is getting out of hand. What we are seeing is rumour masquerading as fact, gossip pretending to be truth. This dirty tricks hare won't run. The sooner it is derailed the better".
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, would that not happen sooner if the Government agreed to an inquiry?
Lord Reay: No, my Lords. As I have said, the Government do not see any need for a wider inquiry.

Nuclear Submarines: Fault Inspections
3.6 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many nuclear-powered hunter-killer and Polaris submarines have been withdrawn from duties or recalled as a result of the discovery of faults.
Lord Reay: My Lords, none of the Royal Navy's nuclear powered submarines has been recalled from operational tasks. Following the recent discovery of a technical defect in one of them, however, all these vessels are being inspected as a precautionary measure when they come alongside.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it the case that nine Royal Navy nuclear powered submarines, probably including Polaris, have been found to have cracks in their nuclear reactor cooling circuits? Is the noble Lord aware that there is considerable public concern both for the safety of the crews of these submarines and for the safety of the local populations when the submarines put into port?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the defect was discovered during a refit of one submarine. There has been no accident or injury to anyone. The inspection of other boats is simply a prudent precaution since the defect has potential safety implications.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, given the difficulty in identifying faults, does the noble Lord agree that it is a matter of grave concern that the submarines remain at sea when their safety cannot be guaranteed? Will he take on board what my noble friend has said regarding the concern not only for the crews and maintenance staff, but also for the people who live in and around the naval dock areas? Surely as a matter of urgency the ships ought not to await their normal call but should be recalled so that everyone concerned, including the civilian population, is assured about safety?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I can assure noble Lords that the Government attach the highest priority to nuclear safety. The inspections are part of that policy and the ministry is acting in close consultation with its independent technical and safety advisers.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that these submarines, and in particular the Polaris fleet, have a marvellous record of reliability? Does he agree that in the present circumstances there is plainly a case for maintaining our nuclear capability?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, has the Minister read the book Submarine versus Submarine by Commander Richard Compton Hall, MBE, RN? The relevance of my question is contained in this passage:
"A total coolant failure in any nuclear plant is disastrous and inevitably leads to the melt down of the core. Western submariners are absolutely certain that these safety devices and back-up systems will never allow this to happen. The Russians said the same until Chernobyl".
Lord Reay: My Lords, I can only repeat that this is a precautionary measure. There has been no accident or injury to anyone. The boats are being called in to be inspected alongside.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we are concerned not about whether there has been an accident, but whether in the future the faults which the noble Lord has admitted have been discovered could cause an accident, resulting in injury and danger both to the crews and to the populations around the ports where they are to be investigated?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I can only repeat that the action taken is simply a prudent precaution.

Business
3.10 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I should like to say a word about the arrangements for this afternoon's two short debates standing in the names of my noble friends Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Rippon of Hexham. On the principle that the mover is allowed 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the short debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy the number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to propose a formal time limit. However, I know that noble Lords will keep their speeches within limits compatible with the spirit of these short debates. In the case of the short debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham, it means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 12 minutes.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene here to inform the House that I shall be unable to take part in the second debate. That may give some Members a minute more in which to speak.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am afraid that my powers of instant mathematics are not capable of saying whether my noble friend is absolutely right
1384
in his calculation about giving each speaker a minute extra in the debate. However, perhaps I may take a little time outside the Chamber to consider the calculation and thereafter advise speakers on the matter.

Port of Tyne Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Midland Metro (Penalty Fares) Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.

Broadcasting: Select Committee Report
3.12 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we had the television cameras in this House, but when they were not yet installed in the House of Commons, the broadcasters were not allowed to televise Commons Statements repeated in this House. That seemed a sensible arrangement. However, now that the television experiment is taking place in another place there seems no logical reason to continue the ban. Therefore, the committee recommends that it should be lifted. That is the point of this report.
Moved, That the first report from the Select Committee [H.L. Paper 18] be agreed to. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report:

ORDERED TO REPORT:—
Ministerial Statements
1. At present the broadcasting authorities are prohibited from televising ministerial statements which are repeated in the House of Lords, and subsequent exchanges.
2. This prohibition was originally recommended by the Select Commitee on Sound Broadcasting and repeated by the Select Committee on Televising the Proceedings of the House. It was thought inappropriate that only the repetition of a statement could be televised, at a time when the House of Commons did not admit television cameras. On both occasions the recommendation was agreed to by the House.
3. While abiding by the restriction, the broadcasting authorities did not welcome it. When proceedings in the House are interrupted by a statement television recording must cease and, in the case of a live broadcast, transmission is interrupted. Moreover the broadcasters are prevented from recording the exchanges following a statement which, especially when Lords speak from positions of particular authority or experience, can be of great interest. The broadcasting authorities have on two previous occasions requested the Committee to reconsider the restriction, but the Committee decided that no change in circumstances occasioned reconsideration.
4. The broadcasting authorities have recently again raised the matter with the Committee. Since the House of Commons is now

1385
televised, and ministerial statements made there can now be shown, the original reason for the restriction has been removed. No similar restriction has ever been imposed in respect of sound broadcasting.
5. The Committee therefore recommend that the broadcasting authorities should in future be permitted to televise ministerial statements repeated in the Lords, and subsequent exchanges.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am sure that we are all extremely grateful to the noble Lord and to members of the committee for the work that they have carried out over the years on our behalf. We very much appreciate in fact that Statements repeated in this House, and the discussion which follows, are now to be televised. I would not expect the noble Lord to be able to comment upon the question of lighting in this Chamber. However, he may be aware —as, indeed, are noble Lords on all sides of the House —that the lighting has deteriorated over the past few weeks while proceedings were being televised, whereas the lighting in another place, strangely enough, has improved. I only ask the noble Lord, and his noble friends, to consider the matter.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will pay great attention to the remarks made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. It is plain to the naked eye that the lighting is not as good as it was. Moreover, I have received several complaints from people who watch the broadcasts of our proceedings who say that we are at any rate marginally less visible than we were. Perhaps my noble friend will take up the matter.
As regards Statements, I support what the noble Lord opposite said. I very much welcome this announcement, not least because the comments of noble Lords on government Statements are often, if I may put it correctly, no less wise and helpful than those made in another place.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what effect the fact that there is a picture being taken of everyone will have on the merit or demerit of any Statement?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, on the question of lighting, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is quite right. There was a reduction in the lighting in this House due to the fact that the idea of economising on electrical costs resulted in bulbs of rather less power being installed. However, that situation has now been put right. Therefore I can assure my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that to the naked eye the bulbs are now back at their previous strength. That means that we should be achieving at least the same kind of pictures as we previously enjoyed.
However, as regards the question asked by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, I am afraid that it is one which he will have to answer for himself. I really cannot help him in the matter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

North Sea Pollution
3.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyrose to call attention to the state of the North Sea and the need to continue to prevent further pollution; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a happy chance that success in the ballot should have steered this debate to mid-February, because the third in the series of ministerial North Sea conferences is due to take place at the Hague next month. That gives us a timely opportunity to discuss the subject and offer suggestions. The last conference took place in London a little over two years go. The participants are Ministers from the eight countries with coasts on the North Sea.
In the past, poets would have described the coasts as those washed by the North Sea. However, not now. On some of those shores, rubbish and sewage make a mockery of such a description. In addition, other forms of pollution threaten marine life, sea birds, tourism and recreation —and the amenity of what would otherwise be coastlines of natural beauty.
The fact that the eight governments started to hold these conferences a few years ago is to be applauded. I understand that much work is carried out by the officials' meetings between the conferences. I hope that fruitful preparations will have been made by them for the forthcoming conference at the Hague.
In considering these special arrangements for the North Sea, one must take into account the wider international agreements and meetings which have been taking place for much longer and which also apply to other seas. They have led by stages to agreements, embodied in conventions, to be observed by the participating parties. That process continues, with protocols and annexes being added to put into effect further agreements on related subjects. Examples are the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, and its protocol known as MARPOL, achieved in the mid-1970s, and the London Dumping Convention, which entered into effect in 1975. In both those conventions the International Maritime Organisation (the IMO) has a central role to play. Within the terms of those wider international conventions, the North Sea countries must address themselves to the particular causes of pollution on, and near, their own coasts.
The North Sea has its own characteristics. It also presents special problems. It does not suffer from being almost enclosed, like the Mediterranean and the Baltic, or from the shallowness of the Baltic. It has the advantages of open sea and considerable depth, although mostly it is continental shelf. It also has the boon of swift currents which can disperse and dilute unwanted substances. I suggest that those advantages have tempted many to take liberties with the North Sea which should no longer be permitted.
With those characteristics, it may be asked: why are there special problems? They arise mainly from the proximity of centres of industry and population which have been discarding unwanted material into the rivers and estuaries from the east, the west and

1387
the south, and from sewage outfalls along the coasts. Moreover, busy shipping routes pass through the North Sea and there are the large oil ports of Rotterdam and Sullom Voe in Shetland. In addition, during the past 25 years a large new industry —namely, offshore oil and gas production —has developed, with many installations being constructed and continuously manned in the middle of the North Sea.
The international conventions which I mentioned, especially MARPOL, should control pollution from vessels; dealing especially with oil, chemicals and garbage. They have led to a steady improvement in the situation. However, what the eight North Sea countries have to do is to build upon this by reaching agreement on reductions of polluting substances originating from land.
Progress was made at the second conference in London in November 1987. The principal decisions were: to reduce specified dangerous substances —and those were defined as persistent, toxic or likely to accumulate —going into rivers and estuaries by 50 per cent. by 1995. Another was to bring the dumping of industrial waste to an end, with exceptions being made for authorised dumping where there is no alternative which is not worse and where it can be shown that harm will not be done. That was to finish at the end of last year. Thirdly, there was the decision to phase out incineration at sea by the end of 1994. I understand that the United Kingdom is no longer doing this and I hope that my noble friend will confirm that.
In the debate on my Motion on worldwide pollution on 20th December 1989, I asked my noble friend Lord Hesketh what it was hoped would be gained from the third conference in March. He replied that further progress was intended, with special attention being given on this occasion to wildlife and shipping. My noble friend is not replying today because he is in California on an official visit. I look forward to the reply today from my noble friend Lord Reay in his place.
Someone else who is many miles away is my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. He told me last week that he would have taken part today but he is in Borneo. No one can say that Members of this House are not prepared to travel long distances to inquire and consult on environmental matters. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook has been greatly concerned with the state of the North Sea. He is chairman of the Marine Forum, which has just printed a collection of up-to-date comments from various bodies on pollution and its effects in the North Sea.
I believe that this will be the first time that wildlife has been an individual item on the agenda, so I offer a few comments. There are certain species which need protection from pollution as well as other threats. For example, some of the marine mammals, which include whales, porpoises and dolphins, are to be found in the North Sea. Dolphins are a friendly and endearing form of life to the human race. I put in a plea because they are rare round our coasts —and I hope that the plea will be considered by the governments concerned —for the small school of dolphins which takes refuge in the Moray Firth, an
1388
inlet from the North Sea. There is anxiety, shared by experts, that plans to increase emissions of sewage and other pollution will harm or kill these creatures.
Another species for which I have a warm regard and which still swims near our shores is the basking shark. The Marine Conservation Society is concerned about its future and its survival. I should point out in its favour that although it looks fierce, the basking shark is completely harmless. If your Lordships will forgive me saying this, it should be remembered about this shark that its bask is worse than its bite!
Birds are of course especially vulnerable to pollution —sea birds, waders and wildfowl. The plight of stricken birds washed up on beaches has attracted the attention of the press and engaged the concern of the public. The Government can be sure of full support in this country for measures to prevent such distressing incidents. Where sea fish are considered, one must be aware that fishermen's livelihoods are also at risk. Shellfish and oyster beds in particular can be wiped out by coastal pollution. In general, too, even the suspicion or rumour that fish are being polluted in a certain area can kill the market for them.
The other subject which my noble friend Lord Hesketh said in my debate on 20th December would be on the agenda at The Hague was shipping. Despite the general success of MARPOL, particularly over oil pollution, practice and discipline need to be tightened up on the throwing overboard of debris, rubbish and unwanted equipment, much of which ends up on beaches. For example, old fishing nets can be lethal for birds, both at sea and on the shore. The United Kingdom has issued regulations —the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Garbage) Order 1988. I ask the Government two questions: first, have other North Sea countries acted similarly? Secondly, how difficult is it to enforce such regulations? It cannot be easy to monitor the discarding of rubbish in the open sea.
Improvement is also necessary in the use of facilities at ports for receiving oily ballast and other polluting substances. Otherwise, these are likely to be released into the sea. Above all, everything should be done to avoid collisions and accidents at sea, the cause of the worst pollution incidents in recent years. There have been serious incidents in the last two years, not only in Europe, caused by bad navigation and seamanship. This should not be allowed to occur, given the technology and training now available.
I have touched on the two subjects volunteered by my noble friend to be discussed at The Hague. I urge as the most important of all that the Government should strive to improve targets for the quality of rivers and estuaries and to build upon the agreement reached on this in 1987. My information is that rivers are the main cause of North Sea pollution. A very large part of that pollution is caused by industrial effluents emitted into rivers and estuaries. We must be severe, if necessary, regarding our own British rivers.
It is important also that rivers flowing from the east in continental Europe should be carefully

1389
considered. It is estimated that less than a quarter of the pollution from rivers now comes from Britain, from the west. The rest comes from elsewhere. Can we hope for further progress in the cleaning of effluents before discharge into rivers and estuaries on both sides of the North Sea?
The British Government clearly take pollution from British rivers seriously. They will receive strong support in all future progress. In England and Wales this is becoming the responsibility of the new National Rivers Authority, which does not apply to Scotland. The word "national" has unfortunately misled the media. Since I raised that point before Christmas there has been a further example on the BBC, among other media, of a radio programme which entirely concentrated on the fact that the new authority would be in charge of all the rivers in Britain. Of course, that is not so; the facts are different. The Secretary of State for the Environment does not have functions in Scotland. Everything he does in England and Wales is carried out in Scotland by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has his own team of officials and a pollution inspectorate in the Scottish Office. It is therefore essential that the two government departments should work together to ensure that the rivers flowing into the North Sea from Britain are kept clean and improved where necessary.
I wish to make clear at this point that I accept that the best way of disposing of some waste matter is to release it into the sea, in the right conditions. The sea can break down and transform safely, bringing about a sea change. Safe disposal can be achieved of suitable substances with knowledge, within assessed quantities and in the right places. To take a simple example on land, the normal and correct disposal of a dead and decomposing cat is burial in the earth in a suitable, well-chosen place. Friends of the Earth would not object to that. The sea similarly plays a part in the natural cycle of decomposition and change. Mankind, when substantially adding to it, should do so, however, with knowledge and discrimination.
I now come to the subject of dumping. While pollution from rivers is largely invisible, dumping is visible and more obvious. The North Sea in this respect is covered not only by the London Dumping Convention but also by the Oslo Convention. The latter was concluded later in the 1970s. I hope that progress can be made to reduce dumping, although I recognise the difficulties. In North-East England there are industries —for example, the coal industry —which have problems in disposing of waste material. The United Kingdom has had to make use of the exceptions allowing authorised dumping if a substance is regarded as harmless —for example, stone from mining operations —or if it cannot be dealt with more safely on land.
I have two questions on this matter for my noble friend who is to reply to the debate. First, is further agreement on dumping necessary and likely at the Hague? Secondly, can he explain the licences granted after 31st December last for dumping industrial waste so as to dispel the apprehensions and doubts of some observers, including those from the other North Sea countries? I understand that soon it will
1390
for the first time be an offence for any vessel, whether it is UK registered or not, to dump without a licence in any part of the British continental shelf. If that is so, that will be a great advance.
The press yesterday suggested that one of the items at the Hague conference would be PCBs. I shall not spell out the long title of those substances as I believe noble Lords know what they are from previous debates. PCBs are not being manufactured or introduced but they are still widely in use in refrigeration and cooling liquids. However, this is a world-wide topic and is not confined to seas or to the North Sea. I was surprised to note that that topic was to be discussed at the conference. Is that expected on the part of the United Kingdom delegation? Certainly more needs to be agreed between the nations on that matter, but it is not necessarily an item for the North Sea agenda.
This debate would not be complete without some comment on the offshore oil industry. with which I am familiar. I again declare an interest. For the past 14 years I have worked in a non-executive capacity for an international oil company 'which is the operator of one of the largest fields in the North Sea, Ninian, which has been producing oil for 11 years. The worst oil pollution is likely to arise from accidents. These may be accidents on platforms such as a blowout or they may result from breaches in pipelines. Prevention is best secured by safety measures and by the highest standards in use and maintenance of plant and equipment. It is good news that leading oil companies are now installing at considerable expense on the sea bed below platforms additional valves which will cut of oil in emergencies. This will prevent oil from continuing to flow into a fire or into the sea. It is a significant measure affecting both safety and pollution and is being carried out before the report of the Piper Alpha inquiry makes recommendations.
In the United Kingdom sector of the North Sea, the Department of Energy monitors and controls spills and pollution from oil installations. It rightly brings charges against alleged offenders and goes to court if necessary. There are allowable amounts of oil drippings, the cuttings from drilling and "produced water" as it is called, which can go into the sea as part of operations. However, I ask the Government whether they can ensure that the other national sectors, for example the Norwegian and Danish sectors, have equivalent standards which are required and enforced. The offshore industry has found and applied technology to improve the removal of oil traces from waste. I should mention the hydrocyclone, which has been invented and recently brought into use to separate oil from water on platforms at sea. Research is now being done to reduce oil contamination of cuttings and other discarded material in order to lower the percentage now allowed.
In the United Kingdom the Marine Pollution Control Unit has been in existence for only the past 10 years. In that time it has collected great expertise and has gained the confidence of the British coastal local authorities. We are much better placed now to deal with major incidents. I wish to pay a tribute to its leader for the first eight years, Admiral Michael

1391
Stacey, who has helped to create a key element in prevention and remedy. I ask my noble friend whether other North Sea countries have the equivalent of that unit.
During this opening speech I have naturally probed and asked questions. Other noble Lords who will follow me in the debate will no doubt do the same. I conclude by stating that my good wishes will be with the United Kingdom representatives at the conference in the Hague next month in their joint endeavour to improve conditions in the North Sea. I beg to move for Papers.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, we must all be appreciative of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has raised in a short debate a subject matter which is of pressing interest and of continuing difficulty. The noble Lord in a wide-ranging speech touched upon the questions of sewage disposal, chemical dumping, long sea outfalls, effluent disposal and other such matters. I myself want to concentrate rather more on the continuing war which exists between the offshore oil industry and the fishing industry. It is a mini-war but it could almost be described as a war.
I state the obvious in mentioning that there are currently substantial numbers of oil and gas field developments in British waters together with their associated platforms, subsea installations, pipelines and suspended wellheads. Inevitably an unacceptable level of debris is thereby generated. Moreover, we are now faced with the fact that as and when those installations come to the end of their working lives and have to be abandoned the Government seem clearly resolved to pursue a policy of either partial or non-removal of platforms, subsea installations and pipelines with the consequences that disruption, inconvenience, loss of access and risk to safety at sea are likely to be with us forever and a day.
While it is not my primary function this afternoon in such a debate as this to review in any great detail the level of activity, both current and prospective, in the North Sea entered into by offshore oil companies, it might be helpful if I refer to a few facts from the report of the Department of Energy, known as the Brown Book, which was published in April 1989. It is entitled The Development of Oil and Gas Resources in the United Kingdom. The report records among other things that there have been 11 licensing rounds since 1964 involving the award of some 689 licences covering approximately 1,368 blocks. It also records that there were 36 offshore oil and 24 offshore gas fields in production at the end of 1988, and that those were served by no fewer than 75 trunk and interfield offshore pipelines with a total length in excess of 3,000 miles.
The Brown Book also tells us that a total of 177 exploration and appraisal wells, the highest number since 1984, were started in 1988, that 167 offshore development wells were drilled during that year and that 24 development projects were approved, also in that year. All in all the thrust of the report leaves me in no doubt that there is a very substantial
1392
volume of development still to come in British waters. That will take us well into the next century. The consequence will be increasing discomfort —to put it no more strongly —for our fishing fleet.
Against the background that I have outlined, your Lordships may be interested to learn that there is no obligation whatever on the oil companies to consult with the fishermen's interests —for theirs is the main interface in the dark waters of the North Sea with the oil companies —about the location of production platforms, drilling rigs or subsea installations. Obviously those are sited where the oil and gas are to be found, or in the case of drilling rigs thought likely to be found, irrespective of their interference with fishing grounds or with the fishermen's favourite tow.
The impact does not end there in that there are fields in the UK Continental Shelf which comprise a number of platforms and satellite wellheads all of which are connected by interfield pipelines and small diameter flowlines. In those cases the companies concerned have claimed and been granted development area status for the fields in question. The implication is that fishermen should give those areas a wide berth.
As I have indicated, there are about 3,000 miles of pipelines. They comprise a mixture of large diameter trunk lines, smaller pipelines, interfield lines and flowlines. Some are trenched or buried, others are not. Therefore, in spite of the undertakings of the early days that there would be no proliferation of pipelines, that is what we most certainly have.
The views of the fishing industry on pipelines are clear and concise. Fishermen would like to see all lines buried on construction so that they can feel assured that no problem will arise in terms of contact with fishing gear. Moreover, when the time for abandonment comes, as it surely will, little if any remedial action will be required. Neither the Government nor the oil and gas industry have seen it in that light, at least so far. It seems that from the outset while some companies have either trenched or buried their pipelines, others have laid them proud on the sea bed.
In approaching the matter in that way —after conducting certain experiments involving the interaction between fishing gear and pipelines, I agree —the Government adopted a policy approach which decreed that whereas all pipelines of 16 inches diameter or less should be buried or trenched, those of larger sizes could safely be laid proud on the sea bed. We have been saddled with that approach to pipeline projects ever since with the consequent fouling of nets and the increase in debris which has subsequently occurred.
Fishermen create debris. I do not attempt to suggest otherwise. However, in my view that is as nothing compared with the amount of debris dumped by the oil and gas industry across the whole range of its activities in the North Sea. There is no doubt whatever that the oil operators and their support companies have been guilty of bad housekeeping in that respect. That is to put it reasonably kindly. It is, if anything, an understatement.

1393
The situation has not been helped by the patent ineffectiveness of the dumping at sea legislation or such legislation as we have to that end thus far. The legislation is clearly unenforceable given that the bulk of the debris cannot be attributed to anyone since there is no requirement in the legislation for equipment to be marked durably. That is one of the key points.
While the amount of debris dumped is a cause for disquiet, the picture becomes even more depressing when one considers what is happening on the question of abandonment in terms of both the emerging international legal regime and the statutory powers already taken by the United Kingdom Government under the Petroleum Act 1987. The prospect of either platforms or pipelines being left in the waters of the North Sea in partial form must dismay and alarm. I should make it clear that the proposed regime on platform abandonment, if it were implemented as it stands at the moment, would result in the removal of only the three platforms of the Beatrice field which are located in the shallow waters of the inner Moray Firth on the north-east coast of Scotland.
Regarding platforms in general, whether they are severed or toppled there will be a stump which will present a hazard both to the safety of navigation and fishing operations in perpetuity. At the very worst, that will give rise to the prospect of a vessel putting its gear round the stump causing great danger to the safety of that vessel and its crew. Inevitably, partially removed platforms will degrade, with debris being distributed all over the adjacent sea.
Much the same considerations will apply to pipelines which will also degrade and perpetuate debris on the sea bottom. That again gives rise to the potential fouling of fishermen's gear and a further increase in debris. A disused pipeline will be subject to an order by the Secretary of State who may authorise the pipeline to be abandoned in total in situ. I can see the argument in favour of that as an act of government policy, but it has the concomitant difficulty of further sea bottom debris pollution.
What should we be seeking to do in the circumstances that I have just mentioned? It seems to me at the least that vigorous pressure needs to be applied urgently within the international negotiating arrangements to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred. If we are to have any prospect of securing the introduction of satisfactory safeguards to combat the onset of the policy of partial removal of platforms and pipelines which now seems to be gaining momentum, and probably inevitably so, a possible package of proposed measures might include the following. It might include requirements to the effect that the area or areas around any partially —or completely —removed installation or installations should be the subject of a debris clean-up operation. In the case of partial removal, it should further be subject to an annual inspection with a view to ensuring that it remains free of installation related debris. There should be agreement that any debris identified as a result of such an inspection should be removed as soon as the
1394
parties concerned can arrange for that to be done. That would require an enforcing inspectorate, a concept which so far the Government have rejected.
My latter suggestion —for it is no more than that —might be a first faltering step at least towards some solution of what is becoming an increasingly intractable problem in the dark waters of the North Sea.
3.50 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy for introducing the debate, and congratulate him on his luck in the ballot only three weeks before the Third North Sea Conference takes place. In his introduction he set the problem in the context of world agreements covering all seas, and he rightly pointed out that the North Sea countries have a special responsibility for what happens in our seas. Although we in this country are to blame for many things, it is true that the discharges from the Rhine are of even greater concern. However, that should not leave us feeling complacent. Everything that is done by all the countries around the North Sea has an effect on the marine environment. I, and I am sure all noble Lords, believe that this country should set an example rather than lag behind.
The UK Government was a signatory to the ageement reached at the Second North Sea Conference two years ago. It outlawed the dumping of industrial waste in the North Sea from 31st December, 1989, unless there was no other practical alternative for disposal on land, and the materials dumped posed no risk to the marine environment.
In his introduction, the noble Lord asked the Government many questions. I wish to ask the Government why, having signed the agreement, do they grant licences enabling the CEGB to dump fly ash in the North Sea off the east coast? At present, 98·5 per cent. of fly ash is disposed of on land, so an alternative exists; it is unnecessary dumping. There is no doubt that the dumping of fly ash seriously affects marine life by smothering the sea bed and killing that life.
I have also been told that a local company called Thermalite has stated that it can turn the fly ash into breeze blocks. That process of recycling, about which we continually talk, may help to influence building costs.
The UK is now the only country in Europe still dumping sewage sludge in the North Sea. From our rivers 300 million gallons are discharged into the North Sea every day. More than 8 million tonnes of sewage sludge, containing a high proportion of heavy metals, is dumped into the North Sea each year. Direct industrial discharges include arsenic, copper, cadmium, nickel, mercury and zinc. We also continue to allow the incineration of toxic wastes off the Scarborough coast. That is to be banned completely from 1994. However, most of us would wish to see this country join the Danes in calling for a world-wide ban by 1991.
The fishermen off the east coast complain of diseased fish and a great reduction in their catches. They also complain of suffering from strange

1395
infections, and some of them now wear facial protection when fishing. Yesterday the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, Mr. Jim Wallace, met a delegation of those fishermen who were lobbying for an end to the incineration of toxic wastes.
The European Community agreed to phase out the dumping of industrial waste in the North Sea by 31st December 1989. That date has now passed. The UK Government recently applied to the Oslo Commission for a licence to dump further industrial waste. They have asked for a licence to dump 42,000 tonnes of waste from paracetamol production; 3,000 tonnes of waste, from O-tolyl-biguanide which is a curing agent and anti-detoxicant, and 4,000 tonnes of waste from the synthesis of asthma and allergy medicines. A fourth application has been made for permission to dump 8,000 tonnes of chemical waste. It is a particular waste called BSM which is mostly alcohol and has a very high oxygen demand. Quite clearly, it poses a risk to the marine environment in the North Sea. Most of those toxic substances could be disposed of in other ways. If that is not possible, they should be stored for a period of years until a means of disposal has been found.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred to an article in yesterday's Times about PCBs. I also read the article and the headline pleased me very much. It stated,
"UK will back international pact for a total ban on PCBs".
That is wonderful news; but further reading shows that again there is disagreement about the timing of the prohibition. Norway, Denmark, and Sweden want them to be phased out by 1995. West Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands and Switzerland are pressing for the year 2000. But again Britain, with only one other member state (France), is pressing for a much longer period; that is, 2005. That is too long, and in many cases the Government are not courageous enough in committing themselves to the earliest deadlines.
As a nation our responsibility is great. We should commit ourselves, as should the Government, to the complete phasing out of incineration of waste at sea by 1991; a complete ban on sewage sludge dumping at sea with immediate effect; a ban on direct discharges of sewage sludge into the sea, and an end to all industrial discharges into the acquatic environment by the year 2000. We should set up an urgent scientific survey of all mammalian populations in British waters in order to establish population levels, birthrates and general health. Together with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, I welcome the fact that for the first time the North Sea conference is to discuss the mammalian populations of the North Sea.
Lastly, I wonder whether some of the enforcement policies in this country are correct or whether we should consider altering them. For instance, there is the problem that dumping is controlled by the Ministry of Agriculture. Some of us believe that perhaps that Ministry is not as green as it might be. I should like to ask the Government whether they would consider transferring the responsibility to the Department of the Environment, which I believe better understands these matters.
4 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are a number of reasons to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, on having introduced this debate this afternoon. First, he is himself a distinguished former chairman of the Advisory Committee on Pollution of the Sea, of which my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff has been president. Secondly, as he said, it was timely that he should win the ballot for short debates only three weeks before the Hague Convention opens. Thirdly, as a number of noble Lords said, the debate is timely because we have just passed the deadline for the prohibition of dumping of industrial waste in the North Sea which was required by the second conference in London in 1987.
I have no doubt that the government spokesmen will go to the Hague Convention next month full of joy at showing how much better we are as regards the cleanliness of our rivers and in various other detailed respects compared with other European countries whose rivers discharge into the North Sea. We had a foretaste of that in the speech of Mrs. Bottomley at the Hamburg Harbour meeting on 12th September last year. She boasted that the Thames was very much cleaner than the Rhine, the Meuse and the Elbe. I do not doubt that she is correct. I do not doubt that many of the longer rivers which run through industrialised countries, and particularly the Elbe which starts off in the German Democratic Republic and Czechoslovakia, carry very much worse chemical contamination into the North Sea than does the Thames and, I imagine, even more than the Tyne or the Tees.
It is also true that we have quite effective scientific programmes to investigate attempts to devise controls for pollution in the North Sea. As she announced at that meeting, we have the North Sea action plan which is based on what I think is the nastiest acronym that I have ever heard; namely, BATNEEC —which means best available technology not entailing excessive costs. The sting of that acronym is in the tail: not entailing excessive costs. In other words, the phrase means that we shall do as little as we can but we shall call it by a grand name.
Under the North Sea action plan, Mrs. Bottomley promised the nations participating in the Hamburg Harbour conference that there would be substantial reductions in pollution of the North Sea by 1995. She talked about the North Sea task-force producing by 1993 a new quality status report which in effect is a bill of health for the North Sea, and the North Sea project from the Natural Environment Research Council producing mathematical models of physical, chemical and biological processes affecting the quality of the North Sea. So far so good. I have no doubt that there will be effective and sincere speeches made by Government Ministers at the Hague next month.
However, we have to look at the matters on which we can congratulate ourselves in the context of those matters on which we are far less able to congratulate ourselves. My noble friend Lord Kirkhill and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred to some of

1397
them. My noble friend referred politely to the bad housekeeping of the offshore oil industry. I agreed with him when he called for effective debris clean-up when offshore oil sites are partially or wholly abandoned and for a subsequent annual inspection. He made his remarks from the point of view of the interests of the fishing industry, again quite rightly, but there are wider interests involved.
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said —and he has very specific knowledge of this industry, particularly, as he said, in the Ninian field —there is a substantial amount of pollution from chemicals, oil and materials used in the upkeep and cleaning of the offshore oil installations. That damage is continuing. The evidence for bad housekeeping has been very clearly outlined by my noble friend. It would be interesting to hear what the government spokesmen will say about that at the Hague. After all, we are the largest single exporter of North Sea oil and gas and our responsibility is therefore very considerable.
I also want to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, on making a large part of the speech that I intended to make about dumping of industrial waste. As she said, the second conference in London in 1987 undertook to phase out the dumping of industrial waste by 31st December 1989 except for inert materials of natural origin. I think the qualification to that was that those who were dumping what are claimed to be inert materials of natural origin would have to prove that it was not in any way dangerous. I accept that that applies in particular to the minestone which is dumped off the north-east coast by the coal industry. I believe that it is nowadays generally agreed —certainly by the Scandinavian countries, which are the most advanced in the control of dumping—that minestone off the north-east coast is inert and not dangerous to the natural environment of the North Sea. My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton made that point only last Friday during the Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill.
But although all the environment Ministers at the London Conference signed the declaration, only the United Kingdom continues to make application for licences to dump on a very large scale. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred in particular to three applications; namely, those from Sterling Organics for 42,000 tonnes of materials used in paracetamol production; from Orsynetics for 13,000 tonnes of ortho-tolyl-biguanide which is used in the production of soap; and from Fisons for 4,000 tonnes of materials used in the preparation of asthma and allergy remedies. In fact, as confirmed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in an Answer only last December to my honourable friend Dr. David Clark, there were no fewer than 26 applications for dumping of chemical wastes in the North Sea in the course of 1989. Of those 26 applications one was not approved and was not put forward to the Oslo Commission but 21 of them were due to extend beyond the deadline of 31st December 1989 and therefore are in conflict with agreement to the London Convention and, I put to the Government, in conflict with the international obligations of the United Kingdom.
1398
When the government representatives are congratulating themselves at the Hague, perhaps they will put on a hair shirt and confess that our record on dumping is not what it ought to be and that there are many ways in which we continue to defy internationally accepted standards with regard to dumping damaging materials into the North Sea. I should like to remind the noble Lord who will reply to this debate from the Government Front Bench that in a parliamentary reply to Dr. David Clark on 4th December 1989 Mr. Gummer, the Minister of Agriculture, said that the final termination date for applications could not be precisely identified. He said that most of them would be terminated within about two years. That indicates to me that a considerable number will still be continuing for more than about two years and will therefore be at least two years outside the deadline agreed at the London Conference.
With reference to polychlorinated biphenyls, the noble Baroness mentioned the fact that our deadline of 2005 is very much worse than any of the other European countries with the exception of France. That is again a matter where the United Kingdom will have to stand up and be counted at the Hague. I shall be interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Reay, what the Minister will say at the Hague Convention and how we shall defend the fact that we are putting forward much worse deadlines for the removal of pollution than almost any other country.
We have talked much about the removal of damage from the dumping of chemical waste. However, in terms of quantity, there are two things that we continue blatantly to do, and about which we do nothing. Nobody else acts in this way. The first is the dumping of sewage sludge. The second is the dumping of large quantities of less damaging, but still damaging, industrial waste. The water and sewerage undertakings in this country dump 9 million tonnes of sewage sludge in the North Sea. A very large proportion of that is seriously contaminated with chemical effluent from the treatment that sewage undergoes. What proposals do the Government have to eliminate that?
It has been virtually universally agreed that dumping of sewage sludge is part of the failed tall chimneys technique for dealing with pollution. I refer to the idea that if one dilutes the pollution somehow one is dealing effectively with the problem. That has been shown not to be true when one talks of air pollution. It has become quite clear that the tall chimneys approach —the dilution approach —simply results in the damage caused in this country taking effect in Germany, Czechoslovakia, East Germany and other parts of Central Europe. While we congratulate ourselves on the purity of our rivers compared with those countries, we must compare the damage that we are doing to their forests and air conditions by our tall chimneys approach.
When we look at the remainder of the industrial waste, it is still the case that British industry is dumping 3 million tonnes of waste in the North Sea per annum after 31st December 1989 —after the deadline set at the London Conference. Mr. Patten,

1399
the Secretary of State, met Mrs. Maij-Weggen, the Dutch Minister for Transport, yesterday. I shall be interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Reay, what he said to her and how he defended the continuing pollution that is undertaken by this country and the continuing damage to the condition of the North Sea by the policies of this country.
I do not wish to go over the ground of the privatisation of water and the effect of that on the environment. It has become very clear that the privatisation of water and of the electricity industry has been used by this Government as excuses for failing to deal with pollution in the way that they should have done. However, I suggest that there are many answers that the Government will have to give at the Hague Convention next month. Any indication by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, of a recognition of our failings would be unexpected but very welcome.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for introducing this important topic which provides us with a very useful opportunity to reappraise marine pollution issues in the run-up to the Third North Sea Conference, which is to be held in the Hague in three weeks' time. As the outgoing chairman of ACOPs —the Advisory Committee on Pollution of the Sea —my noble friend is perhaps one of the best informed Members of your Lordship's House on marine environment issues. ACOPs has done much to influence and raise the quality of international debate on marine pollution issues and we expect to see evidence of some of this influence at the Hague Conference.
First, perhaps I may refer to the condition of the North Sea. The most accurate picture that we have is that provided by the quality status report, prepared and agreed by all North Sea states for the second London conference in 1987. The report demonstrates that, although there are some problem areas, the North Sea is generally in good shape. It continues to support a rich variety of marine life as in evident in this quotation from the report:
"[North Sea] habitats are rich in marine life. Large and diverse migratory bird populations are found along most of the North Sea coastline. Marine animals and especially seals are also widely distributed. The shallow and highly productive Wadden Seas have their own rich flora and fauna, and fragile and vulnerable ecosystems; they also provide the major habitat for the early stages of many commercial species of fish caught in the open North Sea. Many of the estuaries are flanked by salt marshes which support rich and sometimes unique populations of marine plants and animals and are important in the turnover of nutrients in the coastal zone".
In addition, the North Sea still yields an exceptional fishery, representing between one-quarter and one-third of the total catch of the North-East Atlantic. The threat to this major renewable resource comes not from pollution but from overfishing.
The picture painted by the quality status report, which was agreed by marine environment scientists from all the North Sea states, indicates clearly that
1400
there are specific environmental problems in the North Sea, principally in the areas close to the main sources of pollution of which the large industrial rivers are the most important example. Where the circulation of water is slow and depths are shallow, large volumes of contaminated riverflow can create problems in the coastal belt, but this is a far cry from claiming that the North Sea is dying or even that its general environmental quality is poor. Taken as a whole the North Sea does not show evidence of widespread damage. But it is to address the particular problems which have been identified that the North Sea conferences were established.
The first North Sea conference was held in Bremen in 1984 and the second in London in November 1987, hosted by my right honourable friend the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The conferences bring together all the North Sea states —Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and the United Kingdom. Your Lordships may like to know that for the purposes of these conferences the North Sea is defined as including the English Channel almost as far west as Falmouth and, on the Scottish coast, the waters as far west as Cape Wrath. In addition to member states the conference includes observers from the main relevant international organisations such as the Oslo and Paris commissions, the International Maritime Organisation, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, and so on.
The achievement of the first conference in Bremen was to establish the broad principles and strategies for international co-operation on the North Sea. It was the London conference which established the basic framework for tackling problems identified by the quality status report, by proposing specific measures for each of the main inputs to the sea. The most important of these was to secure a substantial reduction, of the order of 50 per cent. in dangerous substances entering rivers and coastal waters. The conference also agreed to phase out the dumping and incineration of industrial waste and to apply tighter controls to discharges from ships and offshore platforms.
The United Kingdom has made clear that it places a high priority on the measures agreed by the North Sea Conference and after the London conference we took an early lead in publishing a guidance note explaining how the declaration was to be implemented in the United Kingdom. We also committed ourselves to its general application to all our coastal waters including the Irish Sea.
To illustrate this commitment, I shall select some aspects of our implementation of the London agreement. The most important has been the development of a national North Sea action plan on reducing dangerous substances inputs to rivers. The action plan will, among other things, review the consents granted for any discharge of waste water to rivers, estuaries and coastal waters. Our first task in this area was to develop a system for identifying the most dangerous priority substances. There is no point in having unrealistically long lists where the likelihood of taking action is remote.

1401
In April last year we published our first priority "Red List" of the 23 substances which the United Kingdom considers to be the most dangerous to the aquatic environment, together with the criteria and selection system used for identifying them. Indeed the selection scheme is currently being refined with a view to identifying the next group of substances to be considered for possible later additions to the list.
Many of the substances identified in the "Red List" reach the aquatic environment from what are called diffuse sources. In other words, we are talking not about a single plant or industry, but about a scatter of waste sources—discarded drums of pesticides, abandoned dump sites and so on. We are increasingly taking the potential of such diffuse sources into account when looking at the approval for use of pesticides and similar chemicals. We have recently decided to ban all remaining uses of the pesticides dieldrin, aldrin and chlordane and we are now looking closely at lindane, and dichlorvos. But where such contaminants originate from past uses of land or materials, or from improper disposal, the problems are considerable and the persistence of these substances means that their reduction or elimination will sometimes be a slow and gradual process.
The United Kingdom can also point to a strong record on other aspects of the London agreement. We began a regular programme of aerial surveillance for oil slicks in April 1989 and recently we have increased that programme. Harbour authorities have provided reception facilities at ports for ships' waste and their adequacy is monitored. Indeed an example of good progress, and one where a lot of people can do something themselves to help, are the controls on disposal of refuse at sea. Annex V of the MARPOL convention on pollution from ships, provides strict controls on the dumping of garbage and prohibits completely the disposal of plastic refuse which is now an offence under United Kingdom law. Making this a reality will surely depend as much on education, publicity and public pressure as on any international agreement. A disgraceful amount of plastic and other litter is still thrown carelessly into rivers or from ships at sea. This is something that we can all play a part in putting a stop to.
The United Kingdom also took the initiative at the London Conference in proposing the North Sea task force to co-ordinate science and research in the North Sea. The task force was established in 1988 and brings together scientists from all North Sea states to prepare a new and much more comprehensive report on its quality. Much has already been agreed, but critical gaps in science remain. We in the United Kingdom are helping to cover those by directing research effort from the programmes of the Natural Environment Research Council and the Fisheries Departments towards the priority areas identified. The Department of the Environment co-ordinates the United Kingdom contribution and has increased its own programme to around £1.6 million per annum to help address these concerns.
So your Lordships may ask: how does this record compare with other North Sea states: We do not yet have a full answer, but it is clear that on the inputs
1402
of dangerous substances to rivers and coastal areas, the United Kingdom has a strong position. Figures showing the reductions expected to be achieved by 1995 will be published very shortly, while similar returns from some other North Sea states have yet to be made. Certain states have failed to address the critical problem of diffuse sources of dangerous substances, such as pesticides. Again this is an area where powers in the Environment Protection Bill, are proof of the Government's commitment.
I do not want to appear narrowly nationalist on this point, but I think it is worth reminding ourselves that the United Kingdom is not the source of most North Sea pollution. If we look at rivers, which are the most important source of pollutants, the United Kingdom accounts generally for about 20 per cent. of contaminants, while the Rhine and the Meuse alone contribute 50 per cent. On incineration, for example, the United Kingdom has made comparatively little use of the option, while the Federal Republic of Germany has accounted for about 60 per cent. of the total. Indeed when we hear strong environmental concerns being expressed about this or that aspect of the United Kingdom's inputs to the sea, I cannot help wondering if this is an attempt sometimes by some to deflect attention from more fundamental problems closer to home.
Turning now to some of the topics currently highlighted as a cause for concern, we can, I think, show clearly that the United Kingdom has kept to the undertakings it gave at the London Conference. In the case of dumping at sea, which has been raised by several noble Lords, the London Declaration clearly states that dumping should be phased out as practical land based alternatives become available, but that no waste should be disposed of in any way which has a worse effect on the environment. The United Kingdom is actively pursuing the availability of practicable land based alternatives. and indeed for both sewage sludge and industrial waste dumping detailed assessments of this are made before a licence is granted, while at the same time ensuring that the materials dumped are not likely to harm the marine environment.
In the case of sewage sludge, the London conference put forward an additional requirement that the level of contaminants in sludge should not exceed 1987 levels. Figures recently presented to the North Sea Conference Secretariat confirm that the United Kingdom has achieved this, and indeed showed that since 1976 levels of mercury and cadmium in sludge had been reduced by two-thirds, while in the case of the man-made organic micropollutants, such as pesticides, most levels were below the limits of detection. Indeed sewage sludge generally accounts for only 1 per cent. of contaminants in the North Sea and, in the form in which it is dumped, is around 95 per cent. water. We shall be continuing to keep under review the possibilities of land based alternatives to sea disposal, but such moves will in most cases require substantial investment and long term planning.
Turning to industrial waste, again the picture is far from that which some reports and overseas commentators would have us believe. Industrial waste dumping in the United Kingdom consists of

1403
highly diluted washings from industry on the one hand, and colliery spoil and power station fly ash, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, on the other. In all these cases, we are looking very carefully at the availability of alternatives, but these cannot be found overnight. In the case of the largest quantity of liquid waste —165,000 tonnes of ammonium sulphate from ICI at Billingham —a £30 million investment in a recycling plant to take this waste is now under way, but I understand that several years will be needed to bring it into full operation. Equally it will be obvious that landfill is not an option for large volume liquid wastes of this type. Nevertheless the United Kingdom has reduced the total of this type of waste disposed at sea by around 50 per cent. since 1980 and only nine current licences remain. Following further scrutiny of alternatives, one of these licences will not be renewed and it is hoped to terminate most of the remainder within the next two years. Indeed of the four United Kingdom licences which are being considered at today's special meeting of the Oslo Commission, one is no longer required and two will not be required by the end of this year.
In fact, none of the industrial wastes licensed for dumping in the North Sea is toxic and they are a negligible source of contaminants in the North Sea. The metals they contain cannot be detected above existing background levels. Incineration at sea is another form of disposal which the United Kingdom has agreed to phase out as land based alternatives become available. In recent years, the United Kingdom has made little use of marine incineration generating around 3 per cent. of the North Sea total, and we envisage that all United Kingdom marine incineration will end well before the 1994 deadline established by the London Conference.
Nutrients are a topic addressed by the London Conference which undoubtedly will also be one of the most important issues at the Hague conference. The agreement in London reflected the quality status report observation that high levels of nutrient input into the shallow coastal belt running from the Wadden Sea to the Skaggerak appeared to be a major contributor to eutrophication problems and to be linked with an increase in the frequency of exceptional algal blooms. Accordingly, states contributing discharges to these affected areas pledged themselves to reduce, by the order of 50 per cent. inputs of nitrogen and phosphate to these waters. That has proved to be an enormous commitment affecting not only discharges from sewage works, but also drainage and run-off from agricultural land, some of which is among the most intensively farmed in Europe. Again the hydrographic aspect of the North Sea is important. Riverflow from the great European rivers, such as the Rhine the Meuse and the Scheldt, is maintained as a separate, slow-moving band of water staying close inshore along continental coasts by the large volume of Channel water which flows into the central North Sea.
Following the London conference the United Kingdom surveyed its coastal waters to establish whether problems of eutrophication could be found.
1404
The only evidence of this was in a handful of highly localised areas such as Langstone Harbour in Hampshire. Indeed surveys of offshore levels of nitrate show no increase off the United Kingdom in recent years while for the hydrographic reasons already referred to any inputs the United Kingdom makes have no material effect on the situation off continental coasts. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom is considering carefully whether it can make reductions in nutrient inputs to the North Sea and a number of measures already taken by industry and pollution control authorities will help to achieve that aim. Equally important is the long-term commitment to further research to establish more accurately the exact contribution to the sea of man-made nutrients.
PCBs are a topic which is of particular concern to all those interested in marine mammals and it is likely that the next North Sea Conference will consider specific initiatives to phase out all remaining identifiable uses —an objective which we would support; but since remaining PCBs are used in "closed" systems only, that is, inside machinery, withdrawal in our view only makes sense if it is firmly linked to destruction in an environmentally safe way. Some North Sea states are proposing early withdrawal and then storage. Storage of withdrawn equipment containing PCBs is in our opinion not only no solution but ducks the issue and indeed introduces an additional hazard through the possibility of damage by fire or other means. I suggest that illustrates that it is not enough merely to make environmental policy gestures —the implications have to be rigorously and honestly addressed.
Oil pollution remains a high priority for those concerned with protecting the marine environment. One of the principal threats remains illegal discharges by ships, and North Sea states are co-operating even more closely both on exchanging information when an offence has taken place and on deterrent measures, including airborne surveillance. Among the issues for the third North Sea Conference will be proposals to achieve higher standards for legal discharges. The primary problem remains those who break the law. Another source of oil discharges is offshore platforms and here I hope that the forthcoming conference will secure an agreement to minimise and in due course eliminate the pollution caused by some of these discharges in what is an expanding and vital industry. When and if pollution occurs, the United Kingdom has well-tried and tested arrangements for preventing damage. Those are co-ordinated by the Department of Transport's marine pollution control unit. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy asked me whether other countries have similar bodies. I am informed that other North Sea countries all have similar capabilities and co-operate on their operation within the framework of the Bonn agreement. The unit to which I referred maintains a national contingency plan to cover emergencies at sea and offers advice and assistance to local authorities if pollution reaches the coastline.
This year's conference will also address for the first time the protection of marine wildlife, as a result of proposals put forward by the UK —a point

1405
made much of by my noble friend. These we hope will lead to a new emphasis on conservation for coastal and marine sites around the North Sea and in particular for the protection of small cetacean species of porpoise and dolphin, so dear to the heart of my noble friend and others.
My noble friend asked about the throwing of rubbish overboard. I am informed that all North Sea states have ratified Annex V of MARPOL which prohibits the dumping of most forms of garbage. A poster education campaign is under way by the Department of Transport.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, before my noble friend leaves that point it might be convenient to ask him whether he can reply to the related question that I asked about monitoring and control; because one can pass protocols and annexes, but it is extremely difficult to discover when garbage is thrown overboard in the open sea.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am told that the answer is yes. My noble friend assumed that the "green" Bill would prohibit the dumping of industrial waste anywhere on the United Kingdom continental shelf. That is not so. The clause in the Bill is designed to control dumping by vessels of non-United Kingdom registration loaded in non-United Kingdom ports. It is designed to deal with ships such as the "Karin B" had that ship dumped its waste over the side.
I hope that I have addressed some of the questions asked by noble Lords. I am sure that there will be others that I have not addressed. I cannot do so now and I hope that they will permit me to write to them.
In addition, for reasons which I am sure noble Lords will understand, I do not feel that I can say more at this stage about the expected conclusions of the Hague conference, but in selecting the topics to speak about I hope that I have given some indication of its scope. It will be concerned primarily with reviewing and cementing the initiatives agreed at London, as, for example, in consolidating the lists of dangerous substances used in each North Sea state into a common North Sea list. It should also produce some useful new initiatives.
The United Kingdom Government remain strongly committed to the success of the North Sea Conference and will continue, through that and other means, to do all that they can to protect and improve the quality of our seas and coastal waters.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the speakers who have taken part in the debate. They have spoken with knowledge of and great interest in the subject. We have not had to limit our contributions today because of the passage of time. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for taking part in the debate. He was Lord Provost of Aberdeen during the four years that I was Secretary of State for Scotland in the early 1970s when oil was first discovered in the North Sea.
Conflicting interests were immediately apparent between the fishing and the oil industries which the noble Lord has described today. In those years until
1406
1974 there was no Department of Energy. As part of the arrangements to adapt to the new oil discoveries I established a body containing representatives of both the fishing and the oil industries. At that time it could discuss and iron out early possible conflicts of interest. Naturally, I am not fully in the picture now, but I hope that my noble friend will have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said.
As we have time, I should like to say a little more about that topic in reply to the noble Lord. The fishermen's anxieties are ones with which I am familiar. They are concerned about debris and obstructions, including pipelines, on the seabed. It may mean that they cannot trawl on or near the bottom or that they foul their nets on obstacles. It is similar to the minestone from industry on land to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred. It is not harmful toxically, but it may interfere with traditional fishing grounds. Care has to be taken where it is dumped, particularly off the North-East of England. It is a long-term problem because fishing boats are not allowed to approach within a certain distance —if I remember correctly it is 1,000 metres —of any North Sea platforms. That is a safety precaution. The debris that may fall below the platforms cannot possibly foul their nets or be an obstruction at the moment.
Some of the fishing grounds may be unusable, but that is inevitable if we are to have an off-shore oil industry. That is part of having the industry. The noble Lord mentioned the abandonment of North Sea structures, when the oil fields eventually come to an end, or the structures are no longer in use. That, too, causes concern to the fishermen because unless they are removed they could leave obstacles for the fishing industry. It was discussed when the Petroleum Bill was passing through this House about two years ago. But I would mention that there are platforms about 100 miles from land in deep water where no one has ever heard of any fishermen trying to trawl the bottom for fish, so there could not be a danger there, except to submarines; but that is another question.
This is not an absolutely straightforward matter and certain questions still need to be worked out before abandonment principles are finally decided upon. I am told that the first case of a platform being abandoned is still at least five years off.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, supported my inquiry about licensed dumping by the United Kingdom after 31st December last, which was the deadline for ending dumping of industrial waste. She also shares my concern for wildlife. I am sure both of us were glad to hear what my noble friend Lord Reay, was able to say about that.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, expressed the views of most of us concerned with the subject, and helpfully raised some matters for which I did not have time in my speech. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Reay for his reply. I was not quite sure whether he was able to say that incineration at sea had already been completely ended in the United Kingdom, but he certainly indicated that that has not been done for some time and it is apparently not intended to do much, if any, in the future.

1407
I did not raise the question of nutrients —that is, nitrates and phosphates—because of the need to restrict the time of my opening speech. As regards the United Kingdom, I was delighted to hear my noble friend's statement that the Government were going to insist on reductions of emissions of nitrates into the rivers and waters of the North Sea from this country but, as he mentioned, the real problem is the long stretch of shallow water along the coast of the Netherlands and Germany known as the Wadden area, where nitrates and phosphates have caused a real problem of pollution.
Again, I thank all who have taken part in the debate, and I wish the Government representatives all good fortune at the conference at the Hague. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Legislation: Scrutiny Proposal
4.45 p.m.
Lord Rippon of Hexhamrose to call attention to the case for a Select Committee to scrutinise all Bills coming before Parliament, and to report whether such Bills contain insufficiently defined administrative powers or propose any inappropriate delegation of legislative powers; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I introduce this debate perhaps I may point out to those who are relying on the list of speakers that I want to discuss inappropriate delegation of legislative powers and not appropriate ones.
Your Lordships will recall that on 31st January the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, initiated a valuable short debate asking the Government to reduce the quantity and improve the quality of legislation. That debate successfully identified the mischief, and in particular the growing tendency for an all-powerful executive to diminish effective parliamentary control and replace it by ministerial legislation in the form of innumerable rules, regulations and orders having the force of law. I hope this debate will provide your Lordships with an opportunity to discuss possible remedies.
The first check should be inside the government machine itself. Unfortunately, there is at least circumstantial evidence, notably in the Bills themselves recently brought forward, that that is not working as well as it should nor, indeed, as I believe used to be the case. Bill after Bill contains Henry VIII clauses; that is to say, clauses giving the Minister power to amend or even repeal primary legislation by order. Moreover, there is an increasing reliance on enabling powers of one kind or another. So I believe that we have to consider what checks Parliament itself can impose.
In 1932 the Donoughue Committee, while it did not disapprove of the use of Henry VIII clauses in all circumstances, said they should be severely restricted and should always be explained and justified in the memorandum to the Bill. For my
1408
part, I see no reason why this should not be done as a matter of course.
Dealing with this issue in the Committee stage of the Courts and Legal Services Bill, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor had the following to say on 23rd January, at col 944 of Hansard:
"Many things have happened since Donoughmore reported, including the great development of the powers of the court in judicial review and the right to apply in the exercise of powers the underlying intention of the statute as the court gathers it".
The first thing that has happened is that there are now many more Henry VIII clauses. They are wider in scope and they are no longer time limited as they were in the cases considered by the Donoughmore Committee.
As for judicial review, I suggest that one of the main reasons for the enormous growth in demand in the courts for such review is that Parliament has lost control over the examination of legislation. If there were better legislation there would be less necessity for judicial review. But judicial review is not a complete remedy. The courts cannot override an absolute power given by Parliament to a Minister.
If I may indulge in a little personal reminiscence, I recall that in 1976 I had the unusual and perhaps unique experience of being briefed by the Inland Revenue to defend an order made in my name in 1973. It was made under the General Rate Act 1967 and was signed by a junior Minister. I never recalled actually seeing it myself. The order was alleged to be ultra vires and void because it rated a hereditament outside the rating area according to a formula which produced double rating and contrary to any previously established principle. The effect was to put the rates up from £4,000 a year to about £55,000.
I did not have too much trouble in the court of first instance before Mr. Justice Bridge, as he then was, but the Court of Appeal tried for three days to find grounds for upsetting the order, but concluded there was no way round the Minister's statutory power to provide whatever code or whatever principles he chose, or to repeal or amend any enactment including the enabling Act itself. Indeed, I recall that Lord Justice Cairns said to me, "Are you saying, Mr. Rippon, that the Secretary of State could if he wished have rated this hereditament at twice the salary of the chief executive?" I said, "Indeed, my Lord, that is exactly what I am saying. Parliament gave the Secretary of State absolute powers and he exercised them".
Your Lordships may note that it could be many years before such a power is exercised by a different Minister in a different government. It may also be noted that in that case the order was subject to affirmative resolution, but although the committees scrutinising statutory instruments do a fine job it is easy for orders to slip through the net, as that order most certainly did. We must bear in mind that there are up to 9,000 pages of statutory instruments a year, and it is all ex post facto. The orders are very frequently lengthy and complex and they do not explain clearly how they are to be used even when, as in the case to which I referred, taxation is involved.
I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for having undertaken during the

1409
Committee stage of the Courts and Legal Services Bill to ensure that in future, where the power to amend primary legislation is conferred even in a limited sense, he will see that the affirmative resolution procedure is followed. As I have already indicated, that is not in itself a sufficient safeguard, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said when we were debating similar clauses in the Companies Bill. I quote Hansard of 14th February 1989, at col. 113:
"We should be aware that the Bill is giving the Secretary of State unlimited power to reconstruct Clause 77 by order, which as we know even by the affirmative procedure … is not voted against and is not amended".
Of course, that is in your Lordships' House. In the other place it can be voted against but there is rarely even a debate.
In the debate which we had on the quantity and quality of legislation my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate expressed the view:
"what occasionally happens is that when criticism is made of the drafting of Bills it is not criticism of the way in which the policy is being expressed but of the policy itself". —[Official Report, 31/1/90; col. 406.]
I believe that that shows some misunderstanding of the concerns which some of us have tried to express. Criticisms of excessive delegated powers have come from all sides of the Chamber when we have debated similar clauses in recent years; for example, the Courts and Legal Services Bill, the Children Act, the Companies Act, the Financial Services Act, the Banking Act and the many local government finance Acts which regularly come before us. I doubt whether anybody, even the Minister who supports the policy, knew what would be the result of the community charge or the business rate.
In so far as there is any truth in the view of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, that only underlines the need for some method of objective scrutiny. As matters now stand, it is certainly true that when those issues are raised in the middle of a Committee stage, there are those who have not listened to the argument who tend to head for the party Lobby as soon as they have ascertained which that is. To my mind, the evidence is overwhelming that parliametary scrutiny is today, by any objective standards, totally inadequate.
Therefore, we need to consider a new machinery to remedy that situation. In France there is the Conseil d' état to which the government have to submit draft Bills. They may then be criticised for bad drafting or for provisions which are deemed to be objectionable in priniciple. The same applies to government decrees and regulations.
From time to time the case has been argued that in this country we should have some form of pre-legislation procedure. I see no reason why draft Bills should not be tabled and when appropriate discussed and considered before governments come to final conclusions. Unfortunately, I feel that there is frequently too short a gap between the publication of a Bill and the Second Reading debate.
All I wish to suggest today is a first practical step which the Procedure Committee or some appropriate body should study. That is what happens in Australia where in 1981 it established a Senate
1410
standing committee for the scrutiny of Bills. The committee consists of six senators —three government and three non-government —with one of the government senators in the chair. The chairman has a casting vote but I understand that that has never been used. Their responsibility is to focus on the structure of Bills and not in any way on their political purpose.
The terms of reference are simply to report whether Bills, by express words or otherwise:
"(i) trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties; (ii) make rights, liberties, and/or obligations unduly dependent upon insufficiently defined adminstrative powers; (iii) make such rights, liberties, and/or obligations unduly dependent upon non-reviewable decisions; (iv) inappropriately delegate legislative power or (v) insufficiently subject the exercise of legislative power to parliamentary scrutiny".
For a detailed description of how the committee operates in Australia I refer your Lordships to an impressive paper by Senator Rosemary Crowley, a past chairman of that committee, delivered last November to the Third Commonwealth Conference on Delegated Legislation held in London. She pointed out how zealous they are in Australia in dealing with Henry VIII clauses, how they can call upon the Minister to justify the powers which he seeks and the way in which they report to the legislature which can then decide whether or not the regulation or order-making power is appropriate. Therefore, the Australian Parliament is enabled to legislate with open eyes. I wish we could say with complete conviction that we are doing the same in this country today.
I believe that to many onlookers Parliament has become a sort of legislative sweatshop whose Members are so overwhelmed by the never-ending stream of Bills that in many cases they seem neither to know nor to care what they are rubber-stamping. I hope that your Lordships may feel that the establishment of a Select Committee on something along the lines of that established in Australia might help us to re-establish the authority of Parliament over the Executive. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this subject this afternoon, a subject on which he speaks with so much authority and expertise. He mentioned the Commonwealth Conference on Delegated Legislation last November. I suppose that modesty prevented him from mentioning that he fascinated the conference with an address about Henry VIII clauses.
I should like to take four examples from the statutes which illustrate the need for that which the noble Lord seeks. I have not delved deeply into the past. One can always find some absurd example if one digs deep enough, and sometimes that is rather unfair. I wish to take four examples from the 1988 statute book. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 begins by providing, in its first 18 sections, for the matter of extradition proceedings. Section 19 provides that those sections:

1411
"shall extend to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and shall have effect as if each of them was part of the United Kingdom".
It then goes on to provide in subsection (2):
"Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1) above shall, in its application to any of the said islands, have effect subject to such exceptions … as may be specified".
I am advised that such an Order in Council, far from being subject to any parliamentary proceedings, does not even have to be laid before Parliament. Therefore, Parliament having said explicitly that, for example, the Isle of Man was to be treated for these purposes as part of the United Kingdom, an Order in Council could strike the Isle of Man off the list and Parliament is not even notified that that has been done.
A similar case arises under the Education Reform Act 1988. Section 52(7) provides that an order under that section does not need to be laid before Parliament. I do not wish to go into that matter too deeply because I believe that the department has admitted that that occurred due to an oversight. Nevertheless, a scrutiny committee will be just as useful scrutinising oversights as scrutinising deliberate decisions of a mischievous character.
The British Steel Act 1988 is a good example of bad retrospective delegated legislation. The Act provides for the transition of the British Steel Corporation into a successor company. There is to be an appointed day. The relevant section then continues:
"and any provision of an order made under this subsection after the appointed day may be made so as to have effect as from that or any later day".
We could therefore have a situation where somebody had a cause of action subsisting on the appointed day and subsequently, by an order by the Minister, the cause of action could retrospectively be taken away from the citizen. We all know that no nice kind Secretary of State will behave in that way, but why confer such a power upon him?
The Employment Act 1988 provides that a Minister may make orders, and states that an order may:
"modify any enactment or subordinate legislation".
We then have the words:
"In this section —`enactment' includes an enactment contained in this Act or in any Act passed after this Act".
That led a certain learned QC to make this comment,
"A power to modify future legislation is remarkable enough; that it should be subject only to negative resolution rather than to draft affirmative procedure leaves me at a loss for words to express my admiration of a Parliament so modestly willing to defer to the superior wisdom of a Secretary of State".
I can imagine that Lord Hewart of The New Despotism fame might have used stronger words. I can imagine him saying "Power to a Minister to modify Acts of Parliament that have not seen the light of day; has Parliament gone completely and absolutely bonkers?"
I understand that until recently any order modifying primary legislation always had to come
1412
under the affirmative procedure. It no longer does. I cannot help thinking that it would be a very good thing if it did. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, mentioned slipping things through the net. I cannot help thinking that if there were something which the Minister himself was not quite happy about, he would be much less likely to try slipping it through the net if he knew that he had to stand at the Dispatch Box and defend it.
I know that it would take up valuable parliamentary time, but I believe the extensions of standing committees would alleviate the demands upon parliamentary time, at least in another place. I should like to see orders of that kind again subject to the affirmative procedure in every case.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, has done the House considerable service in initiating this debate on the need for scrutiny of Bills to come before Parliament in the interests of eradicating, or at least modifying, the granting of powers to Ministers which could infringe the rights and liberties of citizens and erode the legislative power of Parliament.
As the noble Lord mentioned, a Commonwealth conference was held in London last November and was well attended by parliamentarians throughout the Commonwealth who were concerned with delegated legislation. During the course of this conference it became evident that the legislatures of many of the countries represented exerted more influence and control upon non-statutory legislation than does the Mother of Parliaments from which they largely derive their procedures and customs.
The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, gave a very full description of the Senate scrutiny committee in the Australian Parliament. The same type of scrutiny is afforded in New Zealand and, to a lesser extent —though it does not apply to pre-examination of Bills before they are read a first time —in Canada.
That is not to say that there is a total lack of scrutiny of delegated powers at Westminster. With other Members of your Lordships' House I have the duty and privilege of sitting on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments of both Houses. It may be that not all your Lordships are familiar with the duties and powers of that committee, but it will suffice to say that we examine orders, regulations and the like made by Ministers to determine whether they accord with the powers given to government by primary legislation; to determine that they are technically accurate; that they do not exercise unexpected or unusual powers, and that they are framed in language which is understandable to the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, also referred to the fact that many of these orders and regulations are lengthy and complex. That is perhaps a very careful understatement of the actual case. I will say something about that a little later. In other words, the joint committee is charged with the examination of the technical quality of delegated legislation, but not of its substance. That is a somewhat confining rule. The committee reports to both Houses of

1413
Parliament regularly on its examinations of the delegated legislation. I must say that when I first sat on the committee, about six years ago, I was terribly frustrated by the inability to do anything after the fact, but over a period of time I have become inured to the limits of our competence.
In that sense, to a certain degree we act as a watchdog; regrettably it is a watchdog with a bark but no bite. I suggest that were we to have a select committee as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, considerable benefit would result. First, it would complement, in a way, the work of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Presumably the committee would have the power to invite Ministers to meet with it to explain and defend the authority conferred upon them by the proposed legislation and why such powers should be subjected to either the affirmative or negative instrument procedure. In addition to the obvious benefits for parliamentary control, it would help to eliminate lengthy debate at Committee stage upon whether these powers should be set out in the statute—because that would have been decided beforehand —or whether they should be subject to the affirmative or negative procedure. In that way a certain amount of parliamentary time might be saved.
The famous, or infamous, Henry VIII clauses have been mentioned. There are also other instances which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, mentioned. There are numerous instances of less proclamatory clauses in Bills which merit greater examination and consideration than the pressure upon parliamentary time —as excessive as it sometimes is—permits under the present system.
Finally, I wish to mention the number of statutory instruments which have come before the joint committee in the past 10 years: in 1979 there were 1,770, and in 1989 there were 2,510 which is an increase of 40 per cent. I revert to what the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, referred to as lengthy and complex instruments, orders and regulations. I wish very quickly to quote from part of a regulation which came before our committee only yesterday. It is in connection with the community charge and it reads as follows —if I can get through it:
"Where a liability order is made against a co-owner in respect of an amount, and also against another co-owner or a spouse or manager of a co-owner (whether at the same time as the order against the first mentioned co-owner or subsequently and whether in respect of all or part of that amount), the order made as respects all but the relevant co-owner shall not include under regulation 29(6)(b) or (7) of the principal Regulations(a) any additional sum in respect of the costs of obtaining the order against them, but they (with the relevant co-owner) shall be treated as jointly and severally liable for the amount included in the order against the relevant co-owner in respect of costs, and the order against them shall (as regards regulation 29(6)(b) or (7) of those Regulations) be made in respect of the sum outstanding in relation to it; and for this purpose the relevant co-owner is the co-owner against whom the liability order was first made in respect of the amount, or if there are more than one such, such one of them as the court considers appropriate."
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Keep going!
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, it is little wonder that we on the Joint Committee on Statutory
1414
Instruments sometimes feel like sacrificial goats on the altar of prolixity.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, for initiating this important debate. I doubt whether any of your Lordships would disagree with the main point that he made. He said that parliamentary scrutiny was inadequate. He has put before us a proposal for improving that situation. I fully support what he has proposed but it does not go far enough.
Perhaps I may explain why I think that is the case. First, there will be the obvious answer from the Government —which may be forthcoming even today —that we have already the committee on which the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, serves and to which he referred, and that the committee is capable of doing the job. Therefore, I shall first concentrate on the aspect of delegated legislation. We all know that Parliament is the proper body for the purposes of legislation and not others which are not in Parliament, notwithstanding that certain duties have been delegated to them.
Apart from that, we tend to deceive ourselves about the powers we have concerning delegated legislation. For example, where a Bill says that a proposal has to be approved by what we call for short the affirmative resolution, we tend to believe that that means something. It does not. It means nothing. It means that your Lordships can discuss the matter, full stop. We cannot vote on the issue, but I do not wish to go into the reasons for that now. For good reasons, we cannot vote on the issue under that procedure. Therefore, this House has no control whatever on delegated legislation; negative resolutions mean nothing and affirmative resolutions, for all practical purposes, mean even less than that. So one relies on the other place and what happens there.
The joint committee has been referred to. It reports in cases which have not slipped through the net. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, gave us a very good example from his own knowledge where an issue had slipped through the net, namely, the question of vires. Where a matter has not slipped through the net, the committee reports to the other place and says, "You must discuss so-and-so; this is not right". Of course it is appropriate that the other place should discuss the issue. The other place would debate the issue if it had the time, which it has not. Therefore, time and time again there are reports from the committee which go to the other place and nothing is done about them because there is no time available.
So in terms of delegated legislation, as regards both Houses, we are much less in control and have much less scrutiny than we think we have. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, has understated the situation when he says that parliamentary scrutiny is inadequate.
How does all this arise? If there is a great deal of legislation going through Pariament, it is natural that as much as possible of that legislation should be taken out of the body of the Bill and put into the

1415
appendix. Then as much as possible of the legislation should be taken from the appendix and put into delegated legislation. There is then a reduction in the apparent volume of legislation coming before Parliament.
I speak from the experience of a mere 20 years in this House plus 25 years in the other place. Notwithstanding the best endeavours of Leader after Leader of the House promising to reduce the volume of legislation, we all know that year after year the volume of parliamentary legislation and Bills put before Parliament increases astronomically. The figures were given in the last debate to which the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, referred. It is pointless trying to imagine that with public pressures continuing as they are, Ministers will be strong enough to stand against the demands for legislation, and that the volume of such work will decrease to a level where we can cope with it.
We have only to consider what happened last week. We were discussing a most important Bill for which any number of your Lordships are specially equipped to deal and to make recommendations. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, took a leading part in the debates. That Bill was being debated at 3 a.m. and we are still only in the early part of February. The situation will get a lot worse. If anyone tells me that is the proper way to debate that Bill, then I respectfully disagree. We are already in a situation where too much legislation is facing us and it will continue to do so. There is only one way in which we can escape from this problem.
We also know —and I assert it —that this House deals very well with legislation; it is very competent at improving legislation. This House has been shown to do that. This Chamber is also very competent at producing excellent Select Committee reports which is not surprising when one considers the reservoir of ability, experience and sheer brain power which this House possesses. Therefore, I am proposing that this House must get used to affording more time for dealing with legislation, which it is very capable of dealing with, by the simple process of allowing some of the Committee stage of some Bills to be taken away from the Floor of this Chamber. So long as we restrict ourselves to discussing everything in this one Chamber we shall never —I repeat never —be able to cope with the flow of legislation.
Why do I say "never"? What will happen in the future? There will always be sufficient legislation for the Commons to get its teeth into. The Commons does two things in particular. First, it guillotines large parts of Bills which we have then to consider with more than normal care; and secondly, it has many Standing Committees which take the weight off the Floor of the Chamber so that discussion can go on at the same. We have to examine every Bill as it comes from the Commons and we have to examine especially carefully the parts that have been guillotined.
We shall never be able to give Bills full consideration in the hours of the day when we are fresh enough unless we are prepared in appropriate cases to take part of the discussion of some of the Bills off the Floor of the Chamber and deal with them
1416
in Standing Committees. It would be an obvious step forward for us to have not the committee which the noble Lord has proposed but a committee with more powers, comparable to the Special Standing Committees which they have in another place and which the Select Committee on Procedure in this House recommended in or around 1976.
Such a committee could deal with the points to which the noble Lord referred and could also take evidence and examine the reasons for the Bill. It could examine civil servants about the reasons for delegated powers. It could do a thorough job without delaying any of the business on the Floor of the Chamber. It could do that perfectly well. This House is especially good at setting up Select Committees of able people. We have the ability to do it. It would be a great step forward and no time would be lost. It has been recommended by the Select Committee on Procedure. It would do the very things which the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, suggests.
I say to the authorities and to the Government that they should give careful consideration to enabling this House to do its job properly by adding to its scope in time by taking part of the discussion of Committee stages off the Floor of the Chamber. I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for being present for this debate.
5.24 p.m.
Viscount Dilhorne: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to support the Motion of my noble friend Lord Rippon. He is the head of my chambers and so I suppose that I have a vested interest of some kind in supporting him. It is of no importance really, except that it is delightful to be in his chambers.
Poor draftsmanship leads to bad laws and to the risk of arbitrary government. It is the volume and complexity of legislation which results in statutes which are obscure and poorly drafted and which, when they are construed by the courts, are found not to achieve what their promoters intended. A stark example of this process was provided by the Bromley error —I see lots of puzzled faces —which concerned an allowance to be made in the calculation of the rate support grant for the additional responsibility for highway maintenance taken on by the London borough councils as a result of the abolition of the Greater London Council in 1985. The result of this error was that Bromley and certain other borough councils received no allowance for the additional responsibilities they assumed.
The Secretary of State for the Environment admitted that the rate support grant system was of Byzantine complexity. Perhaps that was the reason why the error was not spotted before it was made. The error was incorporated in an almost unintelligible formula for determining the multiplier to be applied in calculating the rate support grant for 1986–87 in the rate support grant report for that year.
The legislative morass to which I refer began with the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, to which my noble friend briefly referred. The Act set up the rate support grant system. It really cannot have surprised anyone that that Act spawned

1417
litigation. The Act contained 197 sections, 34 schedules and occupied 1,329 pages in the Queen's printer's copy of the Act. The part that dealt with the rate support grant was a small part of that statute but it has proved an immensely fertile source of litigation and further legislative activity.
The saga continues with the Bromley error. The first problem encountered with the Bromley error was at the High Court in the case of Regina v. The Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Birmingham City Council. It was held that all the multipliers in the rate support grant report for the year were ultra vires because under the 1980 legislation the Secretary of State had no power to use them for the purpose for which he had used the multiplier in question. As a result the Secretary of State introduced a new Bill to make legal retrospectively what he had done illegally. I refer to the Rate Support Grants Act 1986. One of the provisions of the Act sought to limit the circumstances in which a multiplier could be varied once it had been previously determined. The Secretary of State obviously thought that, once that amending Act was passed, he would be able to correct the Bromley error by varying the original multiplier he had previously determined which the Act retrospectively made lawful. The saga still continues, for in the case of Regina v. The Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte the London Borough of Greenwich, Mr. Justice Taylor, as he then was, held that the Secretary of State had no power to correct the Bromley error. He said that the Rate Support Grants Act 1986 was held to have removed that power. Lord Justice Taylor, as he now is, put it this way —the Secretary of State was hoist on his own petard.
That cannot be a good thing. In order to reverse that decision Parliament was asked to legislate again. Section 126 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 was enacted to reverse what the courts had held to be the effect of earlier legislation which the Secretary of State clearly had not fully understood. Ill-conceived and ill-digested legislation in 1980 led to further ill-conceived and poorly drafted legislation in 1986 and to further remedial legislation in 1988 to undo what was then intended to be remedial legislation. That surely could be defined, if such was needed, as poor legislation.
The result of poor legislation is confusion, obscurity and litigation. Few people are thought ever to have understood the legislation relating to the rate support grant and the Department of the Environment can scarcely claim itself to have mastered it. Yet it is on such legislation that the finances of local authorities depend.
Noble Lords could be forgiven if they thought that that was the end to the saga. Unfortunately it was not, because the Government have now decided to move to a new style of legislation for financial assistance to local authorities. In the Local Government Finance Act 1988 they introduced a new system of revenue support grants. All that the legislature now provides is that the Secretary of State each year shall make a determination of the amount of grant for the year. That is contained in a report laid before the House of Commons. Once the other
1418
place has approved it, that is the amount of grant for the year. Then the Secretary of State makes another report, containing the basis upon which he proposes to distribute the grant among the receiving authorities. Once that report is approved the Secretary of State then calculates and pays the grant accordingly.
What seems to me to be significant about this skeletal legislation is that there is no statutory limitation on the basis upon which this grant may be distributed. Rate support grants used to be calculated as a result of statutory provisions in accordance with principles applicable to all authorities of a relevant class. The same principles had to be applied across the board to all relevant authorities. The present position permits a choice on any basis that the Secretary of State likes, provided that he can secure a majority in the other place. Any challenge made in the courts to such a decision could be doomed to fail. That follows a decision in the House of Lords of Regina v. The Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Nottinghamshire County Council.
That situation seems to beg the question of whether legislative simplicity has been bought at too great a price. It seems to me that wide discretionary powers, unfettered by statutory constraint or limitation, are not the answer to difficulties created by ill-conceived and ill-digested legislation. Is it not now time to say, "No more to poorly drafted, voluminous legislation"? The answer to this malaise is not to give the Executive unfettered discretionary power over which no effective parliamentary scrutiny can be exercised. That seems to me to purchase simplicity at too high a price and that price exposes everyone to the risk —and, I stress the word "risk" —of arbitary government.
I end this short peroration by repeating something which has not yet been quoted. It was said by my father many years ago, before he became Lord Chancellor, at the Anglo-American Bar Convention in the United States. He headed his discourse with the words, "The Disease of Words". He said:
"One of the results of a modern education not infrequently to be observed is the stringing together of a mass of high sounding words, sprinkled with adjectives in meaningless or almost meaningless conjunction"—
We have heard a very good example of such a case from the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy—
"When I heard one of these lengthy orations, I searched amid the verbiage for one trace of originality of thought —seldom with success. What is the message? What is the meaning? If the 12 Apostles had received a modern education, the world would still be heathen, that is, M'Luds, if they had adopted modern methods.
Noise and nonsense go well together. But an omelette of words is a disease destructive of the English language".
I suggest that we are already infected with that particular disease. I wholeheartedly support everything that each speaker has said so far in this debate.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it is in no conventional sense that we express our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, not only for his

1419
admirable speech based on wide experience, which was deeply informative and cogent in expression, but also because the matters which your Lordships have under consideration are of high constitutional importance. If legislation is passed which the ordinary citizen cannot understand, or can only understand with great difficulty, that is an affront to the rule of law. Moreover, if the Executive arrogates to itself, in the way that has been described today, powers which are traditionally those of the Houses of Parliament, that is an infringment of parliamentary sovereignity. Therefore, the matters which we are discussing are highly important, and today's debate has mainly concentrated upon the second issue; namely, the arrogation of executive power and how it shall be controlled.
It is alarming to find a recrudescence of an age-long pretension; namely, the claim of the Executive to legislate. It was settled at the Glorious Revolution. There was a slight attempt to revive it in the 1930s but then the Donoughmore Committee seemed to put the stop on the Executive pretensions. The recommendations of that committee were observed for over 50 years; but, then, suddenly during the last Session a crop of Bills was produced with Henry VIII clauses.
During the course of the passage of the Children Bill, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor made a rapid concession and appeared to accept the Donoughmore recommendations. Therefore, it was alarming to find in the Courts and Legal Services Bill, for which my noble and learned friend was responsible, a whole series of new Henry VIII provisions. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who noted it at the time, is nodding his head in agreement. It is therefore incumbent upon us to examine how we can cope with that particular infringement of constitutional proprieties.
There are five ways in which we can do so. The first is the one referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, with great effect during the passage of the Courts and Legal Services Bill; namely, the restoration of the legislation committee of the Cabinet to its former role which it carried out very efficiently. I do not think that that is exhaustive of all that needs to done; but it certainly would be valuable in itself. The second way is the hobbyhorse which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, suggested with great enthusiasm in his speech today. He said that your Lordships should set up Standing or Select Committees and take the business out of the Committee of the Whole House. I can only say that that was tried in the Pilotage Bill, but it was found to be unsatisfactory.
The third way is to perhaps look again at the French Conseil d'Etat. That works very well in the French context, especially in controlling secondary legislation. However, it may not be very easy to adapt in this country, although we may well look at it in connection with the noble Lord's suggestion of a Select Committee to scrutinise legislation.
Perhaps I should mention a fourth way, only to dismiss it. When I gave evidence to the Renton Committee, I recommended that the Report stage
1420
in the second House could be used for scrutiny of legislative drafting. I no longer think that that is satisfactory. Indeed it was not recommended by Renton.
So we come to the fifth way, which seems to me to have much to commend it, particularly with the Australian precedent. It is a Select Committee of Parliament, possibly a joint Select Committee with specific terms of reference to look out for such matters as the Australian committee had to watch for. It would be rather on the lines of a remit that is given to the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments.
For years now there have been complaints about the quality and quantity of legislation. No notice has been taken either of public or of parliamentary complaints. A snook has been cocked at the Renton Committee and its main recommendation. However, we have seen this kind of thing before. I remember that after the 1939–45 war there was a tremendous surge of bureaucratic activity, despite all protests that the ordinary citizens' complaints were being dismissed. That was brushed aside and in the end the whole matter exploded in the face of the Government at Crichel Down. A popular and able Minister was forced to resign; several civil servants were moved sideways and for a time the air seemed clearer. I am quite certain that if successive governments pay no attention to the complaints that are repeatedly made, they must expect another Crichel Down in this field.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, various important and interesting lines of thought have been provoked by the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon. Some of them the House may find more agreeable than others. It is clear that we suffer from too much legislation, much of it poor in quality. The blame for this excess in the amount of legislation which is thought to be at the root of our difficulty of controlling it has been put by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, at the feet of the electorate, the citizens whom we hope to serve. I find this unconvincing. It reminds me of the East German playwright, Bertolt Brecht, who said, "The people have lost confidence in the Government. We must get rid of the people".
As a society we are not very different in the scope of our governmental provision, in the economy, welfare or law and order from other democratic countries. None of them that I know of submits its parliament to the burden in terms of hours and days to which the British Parliament is submitted. The fault must at least in part lie with our institutions; this despite the fact that both our Houses of Parliament and certainly, for practical purposes in the other place, our parliamentary Chambers are unusually large.
What then are the reasons for this legislation being so voluminous and at the same time so poor in quality? Much of it arises —and this explains Henry VIII clauses, delegated powers and so on —from the overweaning ambitions of civil servants, the desire to make their mark by being known not to the public but in the pecking order of Whitehall as the authors

1421
of Acts of Parliament. On the other hand, Ministers have shown themselves not to be loath to increase their powers by giving themselves the power either to amend, in extreme cases, primary legislation or in any event to fill in the details at their own unfettered discretion.
My views on this have been fortified by the example given by the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. Sometimes one wonders whether we may come to have a gracious Speech which merely says, "My Ministers will lay before you a number of measures conferring greater powers on themselves, the purposes of which will subsequently be revealed". Sometimes it is obvious. For instance, it is obvious —this has been referred to by other noble Lords —in the Courts and Legal Services Bill with which we are at present wrestling that the Bill is deliberately designed in some respects to increase the powers of the Executive.
I do not have a particularly conspiratorial view of our situation but there is also the fact that the volume of legislation which Ministers are persuaded or persuade themselves they need to introduce is of poor quality because little time is given to serious preparation. Anyone like myself who has happened to work on the history of this country in the 19th century or the early part of this century—the period of the inauguration by Lloyd George of the welfare state —knows how infinitely greater were the researches undertaken before legislation was presented; how infinitely larger was the amount of parliamentary time given to a single Bill; how much wider in the country were the consultation and debate. We have debased the legislative procedure for the sake of haste.
Perhaps I may give an example from a Bill which your Lordships will consider in a couple of weeks' time. It is a Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will not claim is the result of the Government kow-towing to popular demand. I refer to the Education (Student Loans) Bill. So far as I know, it was demanded by no one except one junior Minister in another place. As presented to the House of Commons this was entirely an enabling Bill. It is very short and its content was to give the Secretary of State the power to set up and operate machinery for making loans to students in place of part of the grants they had hitherto received.
It was the intention of the Government, reiterated during the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons —where it concludes its stages tomorrow —that the purpose was to have a scheme which would be administered by the financial institutions, primarily the clearing banks. Therefore in the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum which accompanies the Bill there is the clear statement that student loans would be administered by a private sector company, established and wholly owned by financial institutions. No net increase in public service manpower would result from the passage of the Bill.
While the Bill was going through another place, as noble Lords know and as I repeatedly warned the Government would happen, the banks refused to take part in this lunatic scheme. The Government
1422
were forced to announce that they would set up a publicly owned company. Before the Bill reached your Lordships' House they began to recruit staff for this company.
No one knows whether the staff were to be composed of civil servants or other employees, but they would certainly have been on the public payroll. When it was pointed out that that was in violation of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill the Minister said that he would draw up a new Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to make the matter all right. That legislation was so badly prepared that the institutions that were supposed to operate it would not commit themselves to do so. It is legislation of that kind which obviously tempts any government to make legislation as vague as possible and to commit to delegated legislation all the information that the country requires in order to judge a scheme, safe in the knowledge, as the noble Lords, Lord Shaughnessy and Lord Diamond, and others have pointed out, that delegated legislation is virtually untouchable by either House of Parliament.
We have, on the one hand, blithering incompetence and, on the other hand, the urge for power. That combination could be fatal to parliamentary government. What, then, are we going to do? That is the question which the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, has offered to us. He offered his own remedy. The remedy sounds attractive. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, will enlarge on one or two of the points that he made when he replies to the debate. Is the proposed committee to be, as in the Australian case, a committee of the upper House of Parliament or is it to be a joint committee, as is the case with the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, on which I had the pleasure of serving with the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy? That makes a considerable difference.
At what point would legislation be submitted to the committee? Some legislation which begins in your Lordships' House could appropriately be submitted even to a committee of this House. On the other hand, most legislation is presented orginally —that will continue to be the case —to the House of Commons. The House of Commons may or may not feel attracted by the proposal of preliminary scrutiny by a committee not of its own choosing. I should like to know a little more about the form and nature of this committee and in what sense it could report to either House of Parliament and to what extent —this is perhaps the most important aspect of the matter—Ministers would feel able to brush it aside, as they brushed aside in the committee of the House of Commons to which I referred the grave constitutional objections to their handling of the student loans Bill.
We have to remember that another characteristic of this Parliament, as compared with many other democratic parliaments, is the extreme and increasing rigidity of party control. That committee would no doubt be set up, whether in one House or in both, through the usual channels. It would therefore be nominated by the Whips. I have little confidence in the Whips of a governing party when

1423
it comes to providing obstacles or potential obstacles to the legislation of that party.
I am sorry to keep harping on the matter of the ridiculous student loans Bill, but it is the most vivid illustration of my case. The student loans Bill went to a Standing Committee. It has just emerged from a Standing Committee in the House of Commons. When on Second Reading in the House of Commons it became clear that apart from the criticisms from the two main opposition parties there was considerable dissent on the Conservative Benches, not a single Member from the Conservative Benches who had expressed the slightest doubt on the merits of the Bill was allowed to serve on the committee, even though those dissentients included Conservative Back Benchers with the greatest factual and administrative knowledge of the problems before them. The Whips were quite ruthless in that matter and that was noted by other members of the committee.
I wonder whether, given our parliamentary structure and the rule of the Whips and their capacity for abusing their powers, the attractive solution which the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, put before us will work, or whether all we can do is to make it as difficult as possible for Ministers to get through ill-prepared and draconian legislation and to make their life such a misery that they will think again.
5.55 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I was intrigued to read in this morning's paper of the conversion of the communist party of the Soviet Union to the principle of separation of powers. I should like to think that I am a reasonable man. I do not intend to adopt today as extreme a libertarian position as the communist party of the Soviet Union. I believe that Montesquieu rather exaggerated; I believe that the notion of separation of powers depends on an over-exact sense of categories. Although I do not believe in separation of powers I believe strongly in checks and balances. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, to whom I am very grateful for introducing this debate, referred to the formidable nature of the power that is in the hands of those who pass an Act of Parliament. That is a point that cannot be overstressed. The noble Lord will perhaps forgive me for adding one more story to his examples. It is the case of the Bude and Torrington railway.
Parliament passed an Act setting up a company to make a railway from Bude to Torrington. It was then informed that that company had given up work. Therefore a second Act of Parliament was passed taking the power to take the railway away from the first company and giving it to a second company. The first company then appeared in court. It said that it had never given up work and that the second Act of Parliament had been grounded entirely on false information. The courts, inevitably, had to say that they could give no remedy. It was no business of theirs if an Act of Parliament had been grounded on false information. It was still an Act of Parliament and only Parliament could repeal it.
1424
Lord Burghley in Elizabeth's reign was wont to say that he knew not what an Act of Parliament could not do. Therefore, whoever passes such Acts must be subject to considerable scrutiny. That is also important as regards the matter of government by consent. I am sure that many of us, as I have, have explained to our children why they are bound to keep the law and make their protests in a legal manner. However, if we are to make that case convincing we must be able to convince them that the procedures used in the House are ones which, on occasion at least, are capable of being effective.
I also noticed on the ticker tape this afternoon that Czechoslovakia is about to send a delegation over here to study the Westminster method of parliamentary government. If they reach the same conclusion as the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, in his powerful speech when he said that the system exposes everyone to the risk of arbitrary government, will they really feel that our system will give them the kind of emancipation of which they feel in need? The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, said on 31st January that Parliament was in a state of acute malfunction. We have heard today a good deal of further justification for that view. The basic reason for that is that the parliamentary system assumes that the check on the Executive is scrutiny in another place. Ever since Sir Robert Walpole discovered that every man has his price, that has given rise to difficulties. It seems now to be giving rise to more difficulties than usual. It is extremely unusual now for government measures to be checked or significantly amended in another place. Therefore, almost all that stands between us and the will of the prince having the force of law is the revising powers, small as they are, of this Chamber. I should like there to be a little more than that.
Enabling power is a good example of the kind of dangers that we face. The revising powers of this Chamber, the amending powers, are the jewel in our crown. For that reason I am not entirely happy about the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, to refer them to a committee upstairs.
Whatever the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science may suppose, regulations cannot be amended. On the other hand there are precedents —and I have been surprised to find how many —for Divisions on them: 20 Divisions on affirmative instruments and three on negative instruments since 1968. That is not an altogether satisfactory state of affairs. Statutory instruments are not subject to the Parliament Acts and therefore there must be a genuine hesitation about dividing on them.
However, it seems to me that we need restraint on both sides. The principle of the Donoughmore Committee that enabling legislation should be kept for minor matters is a vital one. However, if this House is to restrain itself from dividing on statutory instruments then equally the Government should restrain themselves from using enabling powers for provisions which are not minor matters.
I shall take one example which I did not quote on 31st January because it had not yet happened. Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Social Security, said on 1st February in another place that the Government intended to use enabling

1425
powers for the purpose of taking students out of the social security system. That was another part of the package of measures with which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, dealt so ably. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate when he comes to reply to say, first, under what statutes those enabling powers are granted, and secondly, whether that is really a minor matter within the meaning of the Donoughmore Committee.
In the long term the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is right. The measures that are proposed are inadequate. In the long term there is no solution but changes in the electoral system which mean that once again the Government have to work for their majority in another place. I shall not develop that point today.
I warmly support the proposal for a committee. I could see it being presided over by a retired judge who might be capable of telling even Whips that they should not disrupt a court. Such a committee could scrutinise the kind of unintelligible gobbledegook which the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, so persuasively recited to us. It could pull up cases where enabling powers are proposed in a way which does not allow adequate parliamentary scrutiny.
I appreciate that there are difficulties in the way of such a procedure. No doubt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will tell the House about a good many of them. We have to reflect that there are also difficulties in the way of any alternatives. We should consider whether those difficulties are greater. The vital point in dealing with such procedural matters is that we must try to separate form from substance.
On 31st January the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate rightly drew attention to the importance of that point. However, if I may say so, I thought that in the process he did me a certain amount of injustice. He said that none of us had spoken on Bills except where we were against the principle of the Bill, or words to that effect. I spoke on the Football Spectators Bill and on the testing powers in the national curriculum in the Education Reform Bill. I was not against the principle of either. In one case I wanted to know what was proposed so that I could decide whether I was for or against it and in the other whether what was proposed could be done at all. However, that illustrates that if we try to thrash out these matters on the Floor of the Chamber allegations of ex parte will rush in both directions across the Floor of the Chamber. That will impede serious consideration of complicated procedural points.
The major attraction of the proposal that the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, has offered is that it enables us to consider questions of form in a non-party atmosphere, and I hope also in a legal atmosphere, without the need to accuse everybody of seeking party advantage.
If we are not to do that there are two possible alternatives. One is that we should make more use of the revising powers of this Chamber. I do not believe that that view will commend itself to the Government. However, if we look carefully at
1426
Erskine May we shall find that those powers are a little more extensive than they are sometimes taken to be. I do not believe that that is the best answer, but if we cannot have the committee proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, it would be a possible answer.
The other possible answer would be simply to accept that what the Executive proposes will pass into law more or less unamended —to accept that what pleases the prince shall have the force of law. That is a principle with a long history, but I hope that there are a good many common lawyers in this Chamber who would find that principle repugnant, as I do. That would be an abandonment of parliamentary scrutiny, a threat to the grounds of government by consent, and unacceptable.
Therefore, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, has put forward the best proposal that we can think of for the moment. I very much hope to hear when the noble and learned Lord replies to the debate that the Government are prepared to act on it, because they might find that the alternatives are worse.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it is not only noble Lords who are present in the Chamber at the moment who should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, for opening the debate on this subject. Parliamentarians of every party, and no party at all, ought equally to be grateful to him for dealing with this important matter.
Statistics regarding the growing number of statutory instruments coming before Parliament have been mentioned. Perhaps I may add one more, which is a telling one. In 1976 there were seven volumes of statutory instruments. We achieved the record in 1986 of turning those seven volumes into 10 volumes. That speaks for itself.
Before dealing with the problem and possible solutions, perhaps I may question the wisdom of one of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, if he will excuse me for doing so. He laid much of the blame for this on the:
"overweening ambitions of civil servants".
If we are not very careful such an attack upon those who cannot speak for themselves in this Chamber, like an attack on parliamentary draftsmen, will mean that the eminent people whom we want to be our civil servants and our parliamentary draftsmen will find it easier to avoid attack by taking on other careers. In my view that will not be to the benefit of this nation. If Ministers cannot control civil servants when they believe that they are wrong, they do not deserve to be Ministers. We must face the fact that, if Parliament cannot control the Executive, there must be something wrong with Parliament. Let us place the blame where it rightfully belongs.
I was greatly amused, as were all noble Lords, by the quotation from the statutory instrument made by the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy. Perhaps noble Lords will forgive me if I recall the melodious voice of my much lamented friend Lord Elwyn-Jones. In November, 1987, he quoted Lord Justice Harman's words about such a statutory instrument, so well

1427
described by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, as "frequently lengthy and complex". Lord Justice Harman said:
"To reach a conclusion on this matter involved the court in wading through a monstrous legislative morass, staggering from stone to stone and ignoring the marsh gas exhaling from the forest of schedules lining the way on each side. I regarded it at one time, I must confess, as a Slough of Despond through which the court would never drag its feet, but I have, by leaping from tussock to tussock as best I might, eventually, pale and exhausted, reached the other side where I find myself, I am glad to say, at the same point as that arrived at with more agility by Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls". —[Offical Report, 11/11/87; col. 1438.]
The noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, might apply those words to the magnificent example he gave.
It is right to reflect that the complaint voiced almost unanimously in the debate, so well initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, is not new. Many noble Lords have quoted the Donoughmore Committee, which sat in 1932, now 58 years ago. Although it is not strictly relevant to the debate, it is amusing to note that the cost of the committee's 130-page report was, inclusive of printing and publication, £241 8s. 6d. The committee sat on many occasions and that is a great example of economy not so much in evidence these days.
I looked at the committee's report and recommendations and I was interested to note that it dealt with an argument to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate may refer when answering the debate, although I may be proved to be wrong. In criticising the unexampled plethora of delegated legislation, noble Lords will be asking for something about which they have often complained; it is the length of Bills and the time which must be taken in dealing with them. It is interesting to note that 58 years ago the matter was dealt with by the Donoughmore Committee. At page 60 it stated:
"It is probable that, if this provision were no longer used, the operation of certain large measures of reform would be somewhat delayed".
This is the important point:
"Bills would take longer to prepare, and once the Act was in operation any defect in its provision could not be remedied until amending legislation had been passed. This price, however, may be worth paying, if there is anything in the view that the mere existence of the power has aroused suspicion and hostility against the machinery of government as it exists, and may well continue to do so in an increasing degree: and that is a standing temptation to Ministers and their subordinates either to be slipshod in the preparatory work before the Bill is introduced into Parliament or to attempt to seize for their own Departments the authority which properly belongs to Parliament".
Speaking with a voice uttered some 58 years ago, your Lordships may feel that the price of slightly longer Bills is well worth paying if subordinate legislation is to be reduced.
When talking about the Education (Student Loans) Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, produced an excellent example of subordinate legislation which ran riot. My only grievance is that I had a note to mention the Bill but the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, got in first. However, I merely add this comment in order to underline the point that we have reached, although his eloquence made that clear. The Bill contains 27 words enabling a ministerial order to be made to establish whatever scheme the Minister chooses. They were preceded by 48 pages of the
1428
White Paper and 68 pages of two successive consultation reports. In 27 words the Minister is given the power to produce any scheme he likes without Parliament having a real opportunity to look at it.
It has been said so often by Ministers that in this House noble Lords have the right to debate an affirmative resolution and to pray against a negative resolution. That has been answered on many occasions but I do not believe that it has been answered as effectively as it was in a paper which appeared in the 1988 volume of Public Law. The article was entitled The Parliamentary Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation and the authors were the late Mr. Hayhurst and Professor Wallington. This is what the academic had to say after analysis of events in your Lordships' House as against the figures that were given for both Houses of Parliament by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. At page 556 the article states:
"There is a tradition of reluctance to press disagreement to a division in the Lords. The Brooke committee could discover no instance of a division on a prayer before 1971, and we have found none since. Affirmative resolution instruments fared similarly until 1965, when the first (unsuccessful) division occurred. The Rhodesian sanctions issue generated a substantial back bench rebellion in the Lords with several divisions on draft orders and the one postwar defeat of an instrument to occur in the Lords, on the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1968. This provoked a government proposal to remove the Lords' power of veto and, perhaps mindful of this, their Lordships have not divided since".
Earl Russell: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting him, the figures that I quoted for divisions on statutory instruments since 1968 were for this House alone.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I am sure that he will agree with me that even those figures, as he said, showed that the debates were few and far between, the Divisions were minimal and the effectiveness of this House in being able to deal with affirmative or negative resolutions without the power to amend them at all is obviously minimal and not a solution to our problems. If it were to be a solution, there would be a challenge from the elected House which might produce that kind of constitutional uproar which as a rule your Lordships are not minded to welcome. I hope that that is a tactful way of referring to what might happen if there were to be such a dispute between the two Houses.
In conclusion, I turn to the very constructive suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, which concerns setting up a committee in line with the one that we already have and of which the noble Lords, Lord Shaughnessy and Lord Beloff, were proud to be members. As we all know, that committee deals with statutory instruments that come before it, not with the origin of the statutory instrument —that is, the Bill or, subsequently, the Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, suggested that such a committee should, among other things, look at the constitutional implications of Bills, including whether or not there was a proper delegated authority in all the circumstances and whether

1429
matters should be dealt with by primary legislation rather than secondary legislation.
That is an interesting proposal which obviously ought to be considered. I suppose that the alternative —especially as we were reminded that the Australian Parliament has such a committee, but in the Upper House —may very well be that, when one day your Lordships' Chamber comes to be reformed, part of the reformation procedure will be to give that second House, whatever it may be, the very power, right and constitutional defence of our realm of which we have been talking this afternoon.
6.22 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the complaint about the increasing incidence of delegated legislation and the substitution of decisions made privily by Ministers and their civil servants for the considered resolutions of Parliament is a refrain that is as regular as it is loud. As has already been observed during the course of this debate, we went through the first round of discussion on these matters on 31st January.
Noble Lords in some parts of the House may hark back wistfully to a golden age when Bills were expressed in broad general principles and it was left to the courts to determine, within the guidance given by those general principles, what were the rights of the citizens in particular cases. Many of us may wish to look back wistfully to that age; but life is not like that. Regrettably, it has not been like that for a considerable number of years. Dare I say, defensively, that it is not the fault of this Government, or indeed of any government, that life is no longer like that? There is a changing public perception of the role of government and generally as a society we are no longer content with the assumption that persons, whether natural or legal, interact with one another on an equal footing simply because in the eyes of the law they have equal rights. We are no longer content in major areas, such as health care or land use, to take but two examples, to leave these matters beyond the law and beyond regulation.
From time to time there may be an ebb and flow in the tide of regulation for particular economic activities, but we cannot escape from the fact that there are large areas of life which previous generations were content to leave to individual provision. But these are now expected to be covered. Such provision requires considerable legislation because these matters require not only the spending of vast sums of money, but also that new regulations be spelt out in some detail because the public and administrators must know the rules from the outset and how they are to be administered.
I heard what my noble friend Lord Beloff had to say about the overweening ambition of civil servants and what he saw as an arrogation of discretion. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that I have some considerable sympathy for his remarks about civil servants. They are not in a position to defend themselves. Perhaps I may say that it is also my view that by instinct civil servants do not want a vast area of discretion to exercise. If there is a complaint to be
1430
levelled from time to time against the civil servant, it is that he seeks too much detail in the provisions of secondary legislation certainly which spell out for him how that power should be exercised. That is often why, as the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, indicated, one gets some extremely elaborate pieces of secondary legislation which are not for the public at large but for administrators.
Perhaps I may take just one example —that of the National Health Service. Because there are conflicting opinions as to how an agreed purpose may be carried out, it is right and proper that the statute implementing the aim of establishing such a service should specify in some detail what form that service should take and in general terms how the money to be spent should be accounted for, so that the end product should reflect what Parliament intended. Continuing with that example, in any undertaking as large as the National Health Service there will be a multitude of minor decisions to be taken and Parliament is not the appropriate place to take those decisions. No doubt there are experts in this field as in many others in both Houses of Parliament, but I doubt whether Parliament is truly equipped to make such detailed arrangements. Its procedures are not so organised as to make it possible and often it simply does not have the time.
What is required —and that requirement has long been recognised —is a degree of delegation. Indeed, noble Lords may have reconsidered the Donoughmore Committee (which has certainly been referred to more than once in the course of this debate). Reporting in 1932, it concluded (at page 15) that:
"The delegation of legislative powers is at the present time inevitable".
Just after that report there was an uncomfortable parallel drawn with the Tudor period, to which I shall not refer. Nevertheless that was the conclusion reached. It is not unreasonable in relation to a particular piece of administration that the Executive should be given the flexibility to adjust this scheme, not least to accommodate a change of circumstance. I appreciate that it is not considered to be as adequate as some would like it to be, but parliamentary control is preserved by the requirement to place any proposal for detailed regulation before both Houses for approval even if it is in a negative sense. If a matter arises which goes beyond what Parliament had contemplated when the original Act was passed, it will be necessary for the Executive to return to Parliament with fresh proposals for primary legislation.
Therefore I suggest that any debate on the propriety or otherwise of a particular power to make subordinate legislation must start from the premise, which I suspect may have become obscured to some extent, that there is nothing inherently wrong with delegated legislation. Without it, governments simply could not deliver the degree of provision which is now demanded of them. I accept that a matter for concern, which was very clearly spelt out by my noble friend Lord Rippon in introducing the Motion, is this. The question of whether there is a tendency for excessive powers to be sought in some cases and of whether the establishment of a Select

1431
Committee would be of benefit in checking such a tendency, are matters that are very properly for this House.
First, the extent of the powers that are to be delegated to the Executive in any piece of legislation will depend on the legislative proposals that are made. There is no standard form of provision inserted into every Bill to enable subordinate legislation to be made. Each case is decided on its merits. Sometimes the powers conferred on that ubiquitous creature, the Secretary of State, will be limited to specifying the details of a scheme. Sometimes they will extend to the detailed regulation of a new body that is to be set up by the legislation. Sometimes they will enable the Secretary of State to regulate, for example, a particular part of an industry. Occasionally, they will extend to the amendment of existing legislation.
It is quite clear from the course of this debate that it is that last case which gives rise to misgivings. However, in such a case the power sought should be limited to the amendment of that legislation to the extent necessary to give effect to the legislation under consideration. I ask what seems to me to be the crucial question. Is there anything inherently sinister in such a procedure? The intention of Parliament might be that one set of rules should be applied for a purpose for which they were not originally intended. That intention could be implemented by amending those rules so far as was necessary to achieve that purpose. It would of course be possible to achieve the same result by inserting a mass of minor amendments into the legislation. That would probably be done by way of schedules.
However, noble Lords will be aware of the frequent complaints that arise when such a device is resorted to. It is not difficult to envisage that it may not be possible to work out the implications in sufficient detail before the Bill was presented to Parliament if the latter route were to be pursued. Nor, if it were possible, might it be desirable because further adjustment might be required once the new system of regulation had been brought into operation. If the relevant provision were in subordinate legislation, amendment would be straightforward. If it were in primary legislation, not only would there be the problem of waiting for a suitable opportunity in the legislative cycle, but a feeling would very soon grow that Parliament ought not to be bothered with such minor detail.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, considers that that might be a price worth paying. He gave a quotation to the House. However, I am sure that he will appreciate, as will many others, that where there are matters of minor detail that often have to be corrected following complicated legislation, it might be very undesirable if a long period were to elapse. The policy having been agreed, I suggest that it ought to be implemented without further reference to Parliament other than through the procedures for the scrutiny of the subordinate legislation.
The specific question that is addressed in the Motion is whether a Select Committee would assist in watching over any tendency of the Executive to
1432
seek excessive powers. It would clearly be possible to establish such a Select Committee. It would possibly be a joint committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, requested; or it might be a Select Committee simply of this House alone, rather on a parallel with the Australian example to which the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, referred.
When considering his proposal, I reflected on the piece of legislation for which the noble Lord is most famous, or notorious, for introducing during his long and distinguished political career; namely, the European Communities' Bill. If such a Select Committee had been established at the time that the noble Lord was bringing forward this legislation in another place it would have seemed to me to be entirely appropriate that such a Bill be referred to that Select Committee to consider what was contained within it. I should have thought that the Select Committee would have concluded, after consideration, that it contained some of the most extraordinary and certainly unique provisions of any legislation this century. However, whatever that Select Committee had said, I have no doubt that the noble Lord would have listened to it with the greatest of courtesy and would then have taken the legislation through Parliament without amendment as he so successfully did at the time.
In addition to the Australian example that has been given, I understand that in Sweden there is a special law commission set up to prepare each Bill. A permanent law commission then vets the Bill so prepared for the kind of provision to which noble Lords take exception. It provides an instructive example. The process there, however, is quite different from that which obtains in this country. As I understand the matter, the involvement of the Swedish Parliament is confined to a kind of Second Reading debate. There is no detailed consideration of the Bill on a line by line basis. In that way the time taken by the scrutiny of legislation by the commission is balanced by limiting the time taken by Parliament. That is obviously one way of doing the job, but it would be a remarkable departure for this country.
The various recommendations and constructive proposals for change during the course of the debate indicate, that there has not been any great willingness to surrender time and involvement in the existing stages that we have for the consideration of legislation in both Houses. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that I listened with great interest to his proposal on the use of a Committee stage away from the Floor of the House as a way to relieve pressure on the business of the House. I have been in the House for only a year. I have some caution in putting forward any personal view on how effective such a device might be. However, from what I understand of the Pilotage Bill, to which reference has been made, if we were to use that technique more extensively, the relationship between the use of Committee time and the latter stage of Report would have to be more carefully structured and restricted than it was when the experiment was carried out.
Perhaps I may revert to the Select Committee proposal. If such a Select Committee were to be

1433
introduced, would there still be a serious risk of duplication of all the effort that we make? There is the problem of whether such a proposal applies to this House or the two Houses. We would have to consider seriously the timing of the committee's examination of a Bill. Is it to consider matters in parallel, or must it all be concluded before the legislation is introduced? At the present time, we have a legislative programme that is set out at the time of the Queen's speech. Is that scrutiny to be undertaken during the Recess before the Queen's speech, or will this House and the business managers have to await the consideration of that Select Committee before the legislative process can be allowed properly to develop?
There is a further difficulty about this. What is to be done where there are, at a later stage in the course of a Bill's progress, amendments made which involve the conferring of a power to make subordinate legislation? At that point would the Committee stage stop while we referred the matter to the Select Committee, or would we carry on? It may sound a nit-picking point, but what concerns me about it is that if that were to be a possibility, far from it being a device that would improve the legislation which was going through this House or another House it might become a new and further device to block the progress of a Bill. That might be done by anybody —indeed even, rather curiously, Opposition Members—putting down an amendment which conferred excessive powers on the Secretary of State, which would have only the effect of having the matter referred to a Select Committee, and providing a further block or delay in the progress of the Government's legislation.
I am not suggesting that any of these problems are insoluble, but in highlighting what seem to me to be a number of the problems I hope it will be appreciated that they require to be considered very carefully indeed. I suggest that, while there is certainly plenty of opportunity for stimulating debate on this matter, it does not emerge as the only or indeed the immediately obvious resolution of the legislative difficulties.
This House presently has ample opportunity to examine the form and content of a Bill. The nature of any powers sought can be scrutinised at all stages of a Bill's passage. So far as concerns all subordinate legislation, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments subjects it to close scrutiny and any instrument can be scrutinised further, whether it is presented on an affirmative or a negative basis. I find it difficult to envisage a Select Committee mechanism which would avoid duplication of the other scrutiny mechanisms and which would retain the non-partisan character appropriate to a Select Committee. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has a point in his appreciation of how such a committee might be packed.
I suggest that the only test for the measures in a particular Bill is whether or not they are appropriate for that Bill. I say to my noble friend Lord Rippon, who referred to what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said over Henry VIII clauses and affirmative resolutions, that it would be right to
1434
regard what he said very strictly in the context in which his observations were made.
There is no general rule as to the appropriateness of delegated powers; it depends on the subject matter. It is possible to say, as the Donoughmore Committee said in relation to Henry VIII clauses, that they should be,
"abandoned in all but the most exceptional cases."
But beyond that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to set what is indeed the test of appropriateness for any such clause; and it will be readily enough appreciated that each Secretary of State will argue that in his particular case it is indeed appropriate.
What it would seem to me my noble friend is seeking in the establishment of a Select Committee is not that the judgment of that committee should be substituted for the judgment of this House, or indeed another place, but that such a committee should strike a note of warning or provide a note of censure where the Secretary of State seeks to secure too great powers for himself.
Before I conclude, I shall deal with a number of other matters that were raised with me. First, I say to the noble Earl that I have indeed received a letter from him, but I received it some five minutes before he rose to speak so I hope he will allow me to extend the courtesy of dealing with the matter by writing to him, rather than attempting to deal with it at this stage.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that while he is critical of the provisions that are contained within the various Acts of legislation which have come before this House in recent years —in particular in 1988, to which he referred —in a sense he undermined his own point. He had not missed what was the extent of the power being sought by the Secretary of State. It would seem to me that there might in a sense have been greater force in his argument if he had shown that, in one way or another, the Secretary of State had managed to sneak in powers which no one had noticed. In respect of Bills to which he referred —further reference has been made to the Children Bill and to the Courts and Legal Services Bill —I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, as well as to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and others, that they have not missed at any stage when a Secretary of State or a Lord Chancellor has sought to take to himself powers which may be described in shorthand as a Henry VIII clause.
In the course of what the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, had to say he read to us what was a very difficult provision in relation to something which the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments had had to consider. I am sure we are all familiar with some very difficult comparable provisions. What he had to say seemed to me to fall importantly within the ambit of what we had to say on 31st January, and was not quite so closely related or referable to what my noble friend had to say on the appointment of a Select Committee. Nevertheless, the force of what he had to say is, I am sure, appreciated by the draftsmen.
As I have indicated, on 31st January we had one go at this difficult matter, and there has been another

1435
barrel discharged at me during the course of this afternoon and early evening. While there are difficulties over the introduction of such provisions that will take a considerable time to resolve, I give my noble friend this very solemn personal assurance. Being aware of the difficulties that I will encounter if I seek to introduce a clause of the Henry VIII variety, I promise him and others that I will give it personally my greatest and most detailed consideration before I take the risk of coming before the House with such a provision.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate sits down, I do not know whether I heard him correctly earlier in his remarks. Did he say that regulations governing the community charge, which is payable almost without exception by every citizen of England and Wales, need not be written in language which is understandable by the general public? I may have got this wrong, but I wonder whether he can clarify it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No, my Lords, I was not saying that. What I was suggesting was that there are certainly circumstances where there is secondary legislation which is, frankly, drafted to enable administrators in one area of activity or another to understand what is to be done by them. I indicated that in the context of saying that sometimes it was not that civil servants wished to have to themselves a broad, ill-defined area of discretion but that often it might be said that they sought too great detail in the arrangements under which they operated, and that sometimes meant that there were pieces of secondary legislation which were extremely difficult to penetrate.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, suggested that as there might be a little time left at the end of this debate I might expand —I trust briefly —on some of the points that I made. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said that I had understated my case. I must say that that is an accusation which has rarely been levelled against me. But having come from the hurly-burly of another place I have been told that your Lordships do not appreciate language that is over the top. I tried to suggest a fairly simple practical solution of the kind which was designed to take this particular controversy out of the political arena, so far as that is possible.
Whatever merits there may be —it is not for me to express an opinion about it —in Standing Committees of the House to deal with certain Bills, that matter is then already in the political arena. Our problem is that we now have a great deal of skeletal legislation, albeit of great length, which is always justified on the grounds that the Minister needs flexibility to bring the Act into operation.
No one suggests that it is not appropriate to have delegated powers in suitable cases. From time to time they must be extensive. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, whose wisdom and experience is
1436
unparalleled —I have known him for many years in local government and parliamentary matters —pin-pointed the objection that the Government would make to new procedures: that if we provided more detail in Bills we should have more legislation. As I said in the debate on 31st January, I do not believe that that is true. After the Donoughmore Committee reported in 1932 the Henry VIII clause was never again used until the war. There were Bills such as the Public Health Act 1936 and the Local Government Act 1933 which were detailed and which lasted rather longer than does much modern legislation.
If the 50 local government Acts and 10 local government finance Acts that we have had in the past 10 years had been more carefully drafted we should be better off. My noble and learned friend is correct when he says that each case has to be considered on its merits. He referred to the European Communities Bill. Without any modesty, I should say that that Bill was extremely well-drafted and did not require any amendment, albeit that it needed three three-line Whips in a week in your Lordships' House, which is rather unusual. That of course was a Bill to implement a treaty. The Bill had to give effect to those changes in our national law that were required to give effect to the treaty. There have been other treaties such as the North Atlantic Treaty or the Brussels Treaty where there have been considerable derogations from national sovereignty without any debate in the House, debate being necessary only where the Ponsonby Rules are brought into effect.
If we look, as I suggested that your Lordships might, in great detail, as I hope the Government will, at the Australian procedure and the way in which that committee works, one will see that it is significant that its terms of reference require it to concentrate on certain fairly narrowly-defined aspects of a Bill rather than on the policy underlying it. Its purpose is merely to identify provisions which require further study. It can call upon the Minister to provide justification.
The purpose of the committee is to draw attention to where the delegation appears to go beyond the mere filling out of details. Details can certainly be dealt with in subordinate legislation, but the type of example of where it might intervene and make a report to Parliament, is where a fee, a charge or a levy in the nature of a tax is left to be set by regulations without specifying a maximum level of imposition. In the field of taxation it is especially important that the citizen should know just where he stands in language that he and not just his advisers can understand.
My noble friend Lord Dilhorne referred to local government legislation dealing with the rate support grant. I remember that in the other place as a Back Bencher on the 1980 Bill I used the phrase quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon: that it was a monstrous morass of legislation. In the event of course there was judicial review, and twice the Government were struck down. So what do they do? In the 1988 Act —I referred to this point then —they took a power which in effect —it was its purpose certainly —enabled the Government to redistribute the rate support grant on any principle they like.

1437
They can decide that only socialist authorities can have it. They can decide that it can go only to local authorities whose members have an average height of five foot six inches. Those are the powers at which we need to look much more carefully, because it will not necessarily, as in the case that I cited, be the particular government or Minister —he may say that he will look at the point with every care and that we can trust him —but a different Minister and a different government, perhaps years later, who exercise the powers in a way that no one foresaw.
My noble friend Lord Beloff asked whether it should be a committee of this place or a joint committee. That is a matter upon which I do not believe that it is necessary for me to express an opinion. I am too new a Member to advise the House on how it should regulate its affairs, but that is a possibility. It does not raise any great difficulty.
The important point is that the committee should be small —it is only seven members in the case of Australia —with its own legal adviser. At what point would the committee operate? It would operate, as in Australia, when the Bill is first presented. There would be no duplication of effort, no impingement on parliamentary time; and it would not act in parallel. The committee, because it is small and has its own legal adviser, makes its study and report. My noble friend Lord Beloff asked to what extent Ministers would feel able to brush it aside. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was right to emphasise ministerial responsibility.
The Minister is responsible. He can be called before the committee. He can be asked to explain before the committee. Perhaps he can defend himself before the committee; but he can say, "I will not accept the report. I ask Parliament not to accept the report. I take my ministerial responsibility for it". Of course the Minister cannot override ultimate parliamentary responsibility. It is at that stage that we have our share of responsibility and where I believe that our procedures do not enable us to fulfil our obligations.
Of course what I suggest is not the final solution; but I hope that your Lordships will feel that the debate has provided a basis upon which we can have a fuller consideration of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, rightly said is a matter of high constitutional importance.
Finally, I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate for his full, if cautious, reply. I am grateful to him for saying that this is a matter which requires further consideration. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate and those who have listened. I hope that it has at least been useful in throwing up some ideas for improving our procedures. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Traffic Obstruction and Public Utility Works
6.57 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildfordrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are planning to reduce
1438
traffic obstruction and delay due to public utility works in highways.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the background to my Question is the Government's recently announced policy to grasp the nettle of London's dire traffic congestion by a strategy of drastic measures. A major feature of that policy is to free all the main traffic routes in central London from vehicles parked at the kerb so that the whole width of the road is available for traffic movement. That is a logical and entirely admirable policy, but it removes only one of the obstacles to the free movement of traffic.
The second obstacle on the highway, and quite as obstructive as the parked vehicle, is the public utility street work which requires the surface of the street to be broken open for the work to be carried out. This denies to traffic a significant part of the highway, usually as much as half the highway. It is worse than a parked vehicle because the obstruction usually continues for several days or even weeks and —worst of all —often the contractor starts the job, opens up the highway, deposits heaps of materials and gear, and then leaves it for days or weeks before returning to complete the job. For the driver of a private car or a light delivery van this really rubs salt into the wound.
The Horne Committee, which made a survey of this, indicated that street works, large and small, amount to between 2 and 3 million a year. Naturally, the majority are in urban areas where traffic is heavy and where the concentration of buildings is densest. As an example, in the City of Westminster road openings are estimated at about 90 per annum per kilometre. In the City of London that figure rises to approximately 200 per annum per kilometre. All too often, as soon as one of the major utilities has finished a job, along comes another to open the road again in the same area.
The great majority of roadworks are carried out by the traditional methods of breaking open the road surfaces, excavating to find the cable or pipe requiring attention or replacement, completing the necessary works, filling in again and reinstating the surface.
Today there is a new technology of trenchless digging which is beginning to be used. To their great credit, British Gas has been the pioneer in that field in this country. It is currently relaying more than 1,500 kilometres by the trenchless technique. That is over half its annual programme. British Gas has adopted the trenchless technique not just pro bono publico but because it is comprised of shrewd people, trying to serve their customers and their shareholders. They have discovered that it is cheaper and quicker, and it always involves less breaking up of the road surface and therefore less traffic obstruction.
As an example, where there are no service joints to be made, lengths of a quarter of a mile or more can be moled before a new service hole is needed. The technique can be used to lay new pipes or cables up to 1,000 millimetres in diameter, or for relining old pipes needing repair.
One may well ask why all the public utilities do not use this new technique if it is so good. The answer

1439
is that it requires their workforce to be trained to use the new sophisticated moling machines, and the contractors must acquire the necessary range of machines and organise their workforce to do the job in small teams of skilled workers.
British Gas has adopted the technique for no other reason than that it is cost effective in money and time. In the event, it is conferring a substantial benefit on the public by reducing traffic obstruction.
The other public utilities such as electricity, water, British Telecom, and cable television which is coming along very fast too, evidently need an additional incentive to persuade them to adopt the new technique. The obvious solution would be the introduction of a lane rental charge for highway obstruction, which of course would be set at a level related to the very high cost of traffic obstruction in urban areas and to the number of days for which the obstruction continues. Then we could expect all contractors to make efforts to introduce the new trenchless technique.
Incidentally, I understand from some of my old friends in the water industry that Yorkshire Water PLC in particular is already doing so. Of course, the technique can be used for sewer pipes as well as for mains supplies.
No doubt the other public utilities will experience the same benefit as British Gas when they have taken the plunge, or perhaps I should say engaged the mole. They will find that the trenchless technique is cheaper and quicker, and the workforce very quickly takes to it because they see that it is really good.
The initiative to bring about this desirable end lies with the Government. I understand that a Bill has been drafted to cover all the aspects of a new street works Bill, including the power to introduce lane rental charges. I made vigorous representations to the Ministry of Transport to make sure that it did so. I should also add that if and when this much required Bill comes along it will be over half a century since we last had legislation in this field, so the present legislation is somewhat out of date. I feel certain that it will receive support from all sides —I see the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, sitting on the Front Bench —so the Government may like the change from some other legislation which has not received support quite so easily.
I ask my noble friend who has been good enough to come here this evening to answer my Unstarred Question: when can we expect him to introduce this very desirable Bill which would make a significant contribution to improving traffic movement? Or even —I would suggest to him —how about a Private Member's Bill, which I would gladly introduce for him?
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, upon putting down this Unstarred Question. It seems to me that it follows on very nicely from the previous debates we have had in your Lordships' Chamber. We had a transport debate on 17th January, one on London traffic on 24th January, and the debate on the Motor Trade Consumer Protection Bill on 2nd February.
1440
I am personally indebted to the noble Lord because I must admit that I had not heard about British Gas and the new trenchless system. Nor had I thought of charging people who dig up the roads a fee for closing the lanes. I had worked out that there are roughly seven different utilities which dig holes in our roads: water, electricity, gas, British Telecom, drains, as well as road improvements and repairs to the fabric of the road.
I shall concentrate basically on one thing for which there are no statistics —that is, the number of accidents which these roadworks cause. Mark Twain said that there are three types of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. Such statistics that I shall be quoting are produced by the Department of Transport, and I am sure they are fairly accurate. Briefly, in 1988 there were 246,000 accidents, 5,050 deaths, 63,500 serious injuries, and 254,000 slight injuries. That is fairly staggering although the number of deaths has been descending steeply for many years.
Dealing first with motorways, drivers become infuriated when there is a lane closure, mile after mile of traffic and, as far as they can see, no one doing any work at all. That can go on for a long time. Then there are the dreaded contraflows which are dangerous. However, when one considers the multiple pile ups which there are in fog or bad weather, when there are accidents involving 50, 60 or 100 vehicles, the fact remains that our motorways are the safest roads in the country and account for less than 3 per cent. of all accidents.
I am afraid that I do not have any statistics for causes of accidents; that is, whether they are caused directly or even indirectly by roadworks. However, there is little doubt that frustration and enforced delays, which lead to driver fatigue, must have a considerable effect. I believe that that is proved by the fact that most accidents occur at about 5 o'clock in the evening.
In 1988 71 per cent. of road accidents involved cars —that is, approximately 306,700 cars —against only 4 per cent. involving heavy goods vehicles —which is approximately 7,600. Most accidents take place on built-up roads with vehicles travelling at speeds of between one and 40 miles per hour and even more on built-up roads with vehicles travelling at speeds of between 41 and 75 miles per hour. The latter accounts for 70 per cent. of accidents.
Also, 70 per cent. of accidents occur at or near road junctions. Let us think about that. There are through roads in London where most accidents occur. The traffic builds up because a road has been dug up. Then, towards the end of the day, a person who has put in a full day's work gets into his car, and becomes frustrated at the delay. Once past the obstruction, he puts his foot down and becomes impatient. There is a tendency to jump the traffic lights or to become involved in an accident when turning right at a junction.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, that often a hole is dug in a road, the workers disappear and the hole remains there for days or even weeks. Finally something is done. The hole is

1441
filled in and, hey presto! the next week another utility comes along and does exactly the same thing. My Lords, there are things like letters. Cannot these different utilities get together and write to each other to say, "Look, we have to dig up such and such a road at this spot. We propose to do that on this day. When we have finished, before we fill in the hole, would you like to come along and do any work which is needed?" That would save an awful lot of time. However, it seems to me that utilities like British Gas and the electricity boards never talk to each other. Apart from the frustration to the poor motorist, that must cost an awful lot of money. If one hole is dug but is used by five or six utilities, then there is only one infill instead of perhaps five or six. Therefore, economically that would make sense.
As we know because we have discussed it very recently, London is coming to a halt. There are too many cars on too few roads. It is no good building any more roads because we do not have the space. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, suggests, there are new methods which can be used to reduce all those bottlenecks caused by people digging holes, then everyone would benefit.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it is easy to see that this is a debate on transport: the House has emptied, the lights are down and the television cameras are not switched on, because people are not interested in important matters like transport but in other matters elsewhere. Nevertheless, those of us who are interested in transport are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for asking this Unstarred Question. Apart from anything else, it gives us the chance to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, on the subject of the Home Report, a subject on which we have been longing to hear him speak for quite a long time.
Indeed, the Home Report is at the very centre of the whole question of public utility street works. It starts with the immortal words, "The problem with which we are charged is not a new one", and, indeed, it illustrates the point by including a frontispiece dated 1817. The report was published in 1985 to deal with an Act which, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, indicated, goes back as far as 1950.
There has been growing criticism of the planning and operation of roadworks. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, indicated many matters which are in the public mind and illustrated that very well. One sometimes forgets the difference between the amount of traffic on the road in 1950 and today. I do not know the factor but it is a very large multiplier. We are still trying to run our road system with that increased amount of traffic and trying to use it at the same time as a ducting for an increasing number of services, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said. New inventions such as cable television and all these wonderful optical cables are going through the middle of what is supposed to be a duct for traffic rather than for every other utility.
The AA has carried out a survey and studied something like 914 roadworks, 332 public utilities
1442
and 52 developers. It is interesting that it found that 44 per cent. of utility sites are badly planned and operated, 29 per cent. of local highway authorities works are badly operated and planned but, worst of all, contractors employed by the utilities have a failure rate of 55 per cent. by AA standards.
Again, as the noble Earl indicated to us, that is not only frustrating for drivers of vehicles and people wishing to move themselves and goods across the country, but it is extremely dangerous. He vividly explained the situation of motorways. I must admit that I had not taken motorways into consideration when I prepared my speech but that is very important. Much of our road network is coned off for much of the time, although not usually for putting gas mains underneath it.
Again the AA survey demonstrates that roadworks have repeatedly shown poor standards of safety and dangerous practices and it says that there is an indifference by those responsible. That is a serious matter. People working on sites in the road are exposed to considerable danger. Unless there is maintenance of a high standard of safety and good practices, there will be a lot of human suffering.
I find it particularly worrying that the survey can point at lack of management interest and control because, as has been said before in your Lordships' House, safety must start at the top of the organisation if it is to be effective. I remember that we talked about that in relation to the King's Cross fire and the Fennell Report. We there pinpointed the lack of an atmosphere in which safety was considered to be important. It is quite clear from what I read of this AA survey that the average local authority, the average contractor, the average utility is not giving enough direction from the top of the organisation to a need for safety among the people actually working on the roads.
I turn briefly to the Home Report because I do not intend to detain your Lordships for very long this evening. I have a few points relating to the report and to the Government's response, which was made in July 1986. It is an excellent report and deals at great length with the sort of things we have already heard and to which other noble Lords will doubtless refer. It goes into great detail about the reinstatement of roadworks: who should be responsible, who should pay, how they should pay, how they should be capable of being brought to task if the reinstatement is not adequate, both in the short and the long term. It goes into considerable detail on communication —a point the noble Earl made —between the various utilities and undertakings.
On the question of different organisations getting their act together, the report mentions mapping and pinpointing places where roadworks should take place. That gave me a strong sense of déjà vu and took me back to 1984, when your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology produced a report on remote sensing and digital mapping. That report strongly recommended that local authorities should be encouraged to digitise their maps in order that utilities could have a common base on which to pinpoint their areas of operation.

1443
On 5th July 1985, at col. 1403, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, if the Government would read again the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology on the digitising of maps. I said,
"This will go some way to assisting local authorities in finding where the holes in the ground should go the first time, instead of the second or third time. Are the Government aware that members of the Select Committee are somewhat upset that the Ordnance Survey is not pressing ahead with this important matter as fast as it should be?"—[Official Report, 5/7/85; col. 1403.]
I should like to ask the noble Viscount how far the digitising of maps has gone since that time, because it is a very important mechanism for ensuring that accurate mapping is carried out which can be used by a number of utilities.
I now turn to some specific items. I direct your Lordships' attention to Recommendation 37(3) of the report, which states that the various pieces of legislation should be amended so as to,
"oblige the utilities to take advantage of excavations to make accurate records of all existing apparatus found, whether belonging to that utility or to other utilities".
That again bears on the point made by the noble Earl, that over the passage of time there seems to be a history of people not quite knowing where anything is under the road.
Recommendation 43 refers to the question of the Traffic Signs Manual. In the Government's response —which I repeat was in July 1986 —the recommendation that the Traffic Signs Manual should be revised and updated was accepted. How far has it been brought up to date after that time? I ask because the response says there is a need for primary legislation which,
"will need to include basic requirements on signing and guarding … with a provision that these requirements will be deemed to be satisfied by compliance with a detailed code of guidance to be specified by the Secretary of State for Transport".
I am not sure whether that detailed code of guidance has been brought into operation, but I am sure that primary legislation is not in place for it.
Recommendations 49 and 50 interest me to a certain extent in relation to the Unstarred Question on transport problems for the disabled which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has down for next week. This refers particularly to the blind and disabled being fully consulted in preparation for the changes to Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual. The Government indicated in their response that that recommendation was accepted. Has any progress been made in that direction?
Recommendation 50 states:
"Where local organisations of the blind or the disabled wish to take an initiative in providing advance information about street works to their members, the utilities and the highway authority should assist in providing the relevant information".
That recommendation was accepted. How much progress has been made? That certainly is not something which needs primary legislation. Have the local authorities been assisted or encouraged to provide such information?
Recommendation 56 is interesting, again in relation to the investigation by your Lordships' Committee on Science and Technology of research
1444
and development in local government. It refers to the possibility of using prefabricated multiway duct systems. Has any progress been made on that? When your Lordships' Select Committee visited Leeds in, I believe, 1987, we saw some interesting patented applications which had been produced and which could be fitted into new roads to allow ducting to be built in situ in the kerbside, as the road was built. That struck us as being a very interesting idea.
In Recommendation 64 there appears to be something of a disagreement between the Horne Committee and the Government in the wording. The recommendation states:
"In all major highway schemes (to be defined by national agreement) there should be a statutory obligation on highway authorities to give notice to utilities likely to be affected by the scheme not less than five years before it is implemented".
The response again falls back on model guidelines. It states:
"The Model Guidelines could provide guidance on the lengthy periods of notice required for major highway schemes".
Are the Government still convinced that there should not be a statutory obligation written into the legislation when it finally comes before us?
There are many recommendations in this report which are extremely worthwhile, particularly those which emphasise the training and supervision of people working for local authorities and for utilities in teaching their people the right and proper way in which to handle all these difficult problems on the roads. However, one has to ask: why has legislation not come forward? This report was published in 1985 and the response appeared in 1986. The proposals for legislation were published by the Government in May 1989 but still there is no legislation in sight.
It is indicative of the time lag that the Printed Paper Office no longer keeps the Home Report because, so far as the PPO is concerned, it is out of date. That seems to me to be a shocking indictment of the way in which a most sensible, useful and helpful report has been treated by the Government. The Government can find time for legislation on projects like Autoguide; interesting, potentially exciting and worthy, no doubt, but, in terms of actually getting anything done on our roads, it bears no comparison to the recommendations of the Home Report.
The truth is that, if we were not a rather silly sort of civilisation, we should not try to combine roads, sewers, electrical cables, gas and telephones all in one situation; we should try to find some way of separating those utilities. However, that is a problem for the town planners rather than for legislation. The potential for legislation is here to make a considerable contribution towards improving the situation on our roads. I hope that very soon the Government will tell us when they are going to legislate.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, for giving us the opportunity tonight, despite a thinly-attended House, to discuss the urgent need for action on public utilities. As has been said already, the committee was

1445
set up as long ago as 1984 by the Government because there was rising concern expressed time and time again about the problems of congestion. There was also concern expressed about the operation of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950.
The committee was set up under the chairmanship of Professor Michael Home to review all aspects of that Act. We have been reminded tonight by most noble Lords that the committee reported in November 1985 which is four years ago. The Government responded in July 1986 which is over three-and-a half-years ago. More importantly, in their response the Government of the time said that they accepted most of the recommendations of the Home Report. Yet here we are still awaiting legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said.
It is not my intention to go through the report and deal with the various points contained in it. I want to deal with the need for legislation and the reasons why we have not got it. I wish to make three references contained in the summary of conclusions and recommendations of the report. These are introductions to three of the recommendations; Recommendation I says:
"The confusion of responsibilities for reinstatements of utility openings that is inherent in the existing system must be resolved".
The introduction to Recommendation 2 states:
"The many variations around the country in specifications for the reinstatement of utility openings are undesirable".
The last quotation is from the introduction to Recommendation 6:
The present PUSWA notices procedures are cumbersome, unsatisfactory and not appropriate to the current levels of street works activity".
Those are just three of the points which I picked up from the Horne Report as to why action and legislation is necessary.
Last Friday another Question on the issue of street works was raised in your Lordships' House. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, whom I am very pleased to note is going to reply to this debate tonight, gave the customary reply which we have also heard over the past two years from various spokesmen on the Government Benches. He said:
"A Bill … will be introduced as soon as a suitable opportunity can be found". —[Official Report, 9/2/90; col. 1029.]
The noble Viscount added at col. 1031:
"However, many factors must be taken into account when determining the legislative programme … Street works reform would have required a lengthy, technically complex Bill and there would not have been sufficient parliamentary time this Session".
That reply reflects the Government's attitude, but it does not take into account that the local authority associations and the public utilities group have been hard at work in the closest co-operation on the proposals for implementing the recommendations of the Home Report. In that regard, I wish to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, for sending me two consultative papers setting out the Government's proposals for legislation following the debate on London's traffic on 24th January.
One of them, containing 45 paragraphs, indicates the degree of preparation for legislation. The other paper deals with other matters to which I shall refer later. The noble Viscount pointed out that the
1446
proposals had been drawn up on the advice of the street works advisory committee, the setting up of which was Recommendation 72 of the Home Report. In the covering letter the noble Viscount says that the committee has been in consultation with the highway authorities and utilities committee set up by the local authority associations and the public utilities group.
In early 1989 the Secretary of State wrote to express appreciation for all the hard work which the joint local authority associations and the national joint utilities group put into the detailed technical aspects of implementation of the proposals in the Home Report. The Secretary of State ended by saying:
"We shall introduce a Bill as soon as a suitable opportunity can be found".
I repeat that all the local authority associations have been working in close co-operation. In May 1989, the ACC, the ADC and the AMA issued a document called, A Step Ahead: Improving the Pedestrian Environment. That was a matter dealt with in the Home Report. In the same month the same associations were joined by CoSLA in producing another booklet entitled, Highway Maintenance: Code of Practice.
The committee set up by the associations and the utilities has been hard at work with three working parties: one on a computerised street works register; another on training and certification; and a third on reinstatement specification. The associations were bitterly disappointed when there was no reference to legislation in the current Session concerning the Home Report. The Association of County Councils was so incensed that at one time it floated the idea of the promotion of a Private Member's Bill. The chairman of the highways committee of the AMA wrote to the Minister for Roads and Traffic, Mr. Robert Atkins, to convey the dismay of the Local Authority Associations. He pointed out the vast amount of work which had been undertaken involving large numbers of senior officers and elected members.
The Minister replied that legislation was not included for the current Session because of,
"the very heavy pressure on legislative time".
However, Mr. Atkins expressed the hope that the co-operative work towards a reform of the situation will be continued; an effort which Mr. Atkins said,
"has developed so well since the Horne Report''.
I can testify to the kind of work that is being carried out by the joint committee of the associations and the utilities group because I have seen many reports which have been submitted to the highways committee of the AMA. As its president I have received the reports, and I can see the amount of work that has been carried through.
I believe that we must repeat the question which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, asked last Friday; namely, does
"the Government give the subject low parliamentary priority?" —[col. 1031.]
I believe that the transport Minister and the department would like to see legislation on the Home Report. The Government have reiterated their

1447
commitment to legislation, but they have given no comment as to when. It must be emphasised that this situation is creating real difficulty for local government which is committing a vast amount of resources in terms of staff hours in order to develop the procedures necessary once the legislation is in place. That is through the highways authorities and the utilities committee and the working parties to which I have referred.
Unless a clear commitment is given to legislation in the next Session of Parliament, there is a real danger that elected members will curtail the amount of time they are prepared to allow officers to spend on this subject. That is a factor which I hope will be taken into consideration. Further, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, mentioned, in the debate on London's traffic reference was made to the position of red routes. We have also had recently a statement from the Secretary of State that the potential growth of public transport in London concerns the bus. The development of the bus and the development of red routes will all be at naught if the Home Report's recommendations to tackle street works congestion are not dealt with.
The control and co-ordination of road works is equally as important as the promised stringent control of parking on red routes. Both the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club have expressed concern at the delay in bringing forward legislation. The RAC says:
"It is appalling that after five years Professor Home's recommendations have still not been implemented despite the almost unanimous agreement that the recommendations are right".
The AA comments that,
"whatever the reason for not implementing legislation, the AA believes it was a very shortsighted decision and that the level of disruption to traffic movement caused by roadworks is enormous".
I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to the illuminating survey carried out by the AA. It showed that more than a third of all road works examined were operating at a standard below the minimum required. Surely that must be thorough justification for legislation.
There is a problem. In two recent decisions the Government have thrown spanners into the works. A key element in the package is the introduction of the computerised street works register. The local authority associations and the utilities have jointly agreed on a specification. But the cost of the next stage of that development will be around £700,000. Progress is now deadlocked because the Government are insisting that they will meet only one-third of the cost, the balance to be shared between the associations and the utilities.
The main beneficiaries of such a register will be the general public. Surely the cost of further development of the computerised register should be met by central government. It must be emphasised that the local authority associations have no nationally developed budget to cover this kind of expenditure. It would be a tragedy if this kind of work which is vital and which has been praised by the Minister did not go through because the
1448
Government would not meet the small cost of £700,000.
Last year the Government issued a consultation paper proposing that utilities should be charged for the occupation of road space when excavating a road. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, was prepared to accept such charges. This has introduced an element of controversy into what up to now has been a jointly agreed and widely supported legislative package. The associations have reacted. First, the joint committee of highway authorities and utilities was not consulted over this proposal. The department has consulted on all other matters and there has been general agreement. Secondly, the Government have made it clear that grants to highway authorities would be reduced to reflect any income derived from the charging system. Thirdly, the association consider that other proposals in the Horne package would have a far greater impact on congestion.
The associations have been concilliatory in their response. They have supported the possible inclusion of an enabling power in legislation for the Secretary of State to introduce a charging mechanism. However, they wanted an assurance that this would be used only if it could be shown that other provisions in the agreed street works package for reducing congestion were ineffective.
We have the Horne recommendations. The Government accepted in the main all 73 recommendations. We have the working groups praised by the Minister for Roads and Traffic. We already have draft legislation and yet we still do not know whether there will be legislation soon. In fact, we know definitely that we shall not have legislation soon. I know that the noble Viscount may be in difficulty on this point, but promises have already been made about other legislation in the next Session.
This matter is extremely important. The CBI has expressed concern about congestion. Everyone is concerned about congestion. The Government should give a definite undertaking to introduce a Bill in the next Session of Parliament. Unless that undertaking is given, the work that is being done now may not continue. That would be a tragedy because the work will be vital to implementing the proposals.
7.46 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford for having introduced this short debate on the subject of utility street works. The subject is not a new one, as the noble lord, Lord Tordoff, said when he quoted from the preface of the Home Report, although the degree of public expectation from people as users of the roads and customers of the public utilities is probably higher now that ever before.
We rightly expect high standards and quick response times from the utilities, while at the same time wanting street works to be co-ordinated and done quickly to minimise disruption to traffic, and good standards of road reinstatement. This is a tall order, and there is no doubt that a complete overhaul

1449
of the legislation governing utility street works is required if there is to be a real and lasting improvement. The Government are committed to bringing forward at a suitable opportunity legislation to reform the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950.
It may be convenient if I briefly summarise the findings of the Home Report on the Review of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950, the Government's proposals for legislation, and the preparations that have been made for the implementation of a new regime for utility street works. The 1950 Act came about as a result of the work of a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament under the chairmanship of Lord Carnock that reported in 1939. Until that time it had been necessary to include provisions to protect the interests of the highway authority in every Private Bill needed to empower the utilities to place and maintain their equipment in streets, and such provisions were often the cause of contention. The Carnock Committee resolved most of the contentious issues by recommending a comprehensive new code which would apply equally to all the utilities. This code became part of the 1950 Act.
All legislation has to be kept relevant and apposite to the circumstances of its application. The conflict between the interests of the utility and its customers, on the one hand, and those of the highway authority and road users, on the other, has become all too apparent in recent years. The cumbersome and outdated procedures prescribed by the 1950 Act no longer serve their purpose. To take but one example, the requirements to serve notice in writing on all the authorities involved before starting street works results in unnecessary bureaucracy. Utilities dig each year more than 3 million holes, the figure mentioned by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, that are subject to the requirements of this system of paper notices —a system in which there are 18 different forms of statutory notice for use by the utilities and a further 21 for use by other authorities; and a system which fails to distinguish the important advance notices from the routine. The highway authority has little opportunity to make adequate arrangements for traffic management, still less to co-ordinate works between various utilities. The possibilities for simplification and efficiency gains offered by information technology are precluded by the present statutory requirements.
Recognising problems such as these, in 1984 the Minister of State for Transport invited Professor Michael Home to chair a committee to review all aspects of street works legislation and associated matters. Its report, Roads and the Utilities, published in November 1985, is a model of its kind, providing a comprehensive and clear review of a complicated issue, leading to recommendations for action which command a wide degree of support.
The Government published their formal response to the report in July 1986, accepting the main recommendations, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned. These were: first, that the primary responsibility for carrying out reinstatements following street works by utilities
1450
should be placed on the utilities themselves. Local authorities and their direct labour organizations would be allowed to tender for such work if they wished, but would no longer have a statutory right to elect to do the permanent reinstatement themselves.
Secondly, there should be new performance standards for reinstatements with better specifications for materials and workmanship, backed up a by a system of training and certification of workmen and their supervisors. Proposals for improvements in the procedures for service of notices, for inspections, for traffic management, and for safeguarding road users were also accepted.
Thirdly and lastly, came the contentious proposal on sharing the costs of diversionary works on utility apparatus required by highway schemes. Here, the Government proposed that parties involved should agree a code of practice designed to ensure that no unnecessary works were undertaken, and that a cost-sharing agreement should be negotiated between highway authorities and utilities.
In accepting the main recommendations of the Horne Report, the Government recognised that primary legislation would be required to implement many of them. At the same time, i t urged local authorities and utilities to embark on the detailed technical work required to prepare the ground. The Street Works Advisory Committee was established to give the Secretary of State for Transport direct access to the best expert advice available. That committee has assisted in the formulation of detailed proposals for legislation, which were included in a consultation paper issued by the Department of Transport last May.
Over the last three years a considerable effort has been made by representatives of local authorities and utilities, in association with government officials, to draw up the various codes of practice which will underpin the proposed new arrangements. I must pay tribute to the industry of those involved, who have produced draft codes of practice on diversionary works, specifications for reinstatement, notice and inspection procedures, and begun devising arrangements for the training and certification of workmen and the establishment of a computerised street works register. I am sure that this computerised register will overcome some of the problems mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee.
It is most important —and, I must emphasise this point to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill —that the interested parties should continue to co-operate in this preparatory work to ensure that the implementation of the new arrangements can be done more effectively and quickly once the new legislative framework is in place.
The noble Lord also asked me about the funding for the new computerised streets works register. The Government have made a proposal to the local authority associations, which he mentioned, and to the utilities for the joint development and funding of a computerised street works register. The Government believe that the offer was a fair one, reflecting the benefits to be enjoyed from the system. However, the Department of Transport is happy to discuss the way forward with all interested parties.

1451
There are two aspects of the Government's proposals to which I would like to draw particular attention. The general standard of signing and guarding of works, in particular the protection afforded to pedestrians including blind and disabled people, can and must be improved. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, also, quite rightly, mentioned motorways in this connection.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that the Department of Transport's technical advice on safety measures and signing at road works—Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual —has been comprehensively reviewed and will be published in its new form later this year. Advice booklets on the new standards for use by the utilities and their contractors are being prepared.
A related matter of particular concern is the protection of the more vulnerable road users. This was considered carefully by Professor Home in his report. As well as the prescription of improved standards of signing, guarding and lighting of works in progress, the proposals for legislation will introduce standards for completed reinstatements. In setting such standards, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport will have the needs of pedestrians and cyclists very much in mind. The new arrangements for training of workmen and supervisors will also lay stress on the importance of protecting vulnerable road users. That is an important point and it was quite rightly brought to our attention by the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Underhill, when they quoted from the AA survey.
My noble friend Lord Nugent has drawn particular attention in his Question to the need to reduce traffic obstruction and delay caused by utility street works. The Horne Report argued the need for improved co-ordination of road works and better traffic management during the execution of works. The Government fully accept the importance of that aspect and have indeed gone further than Home in their proposals to protect the interests of road users, whether they be on wheels or on foot.
It is proposed that the highway authority will be placed under a duty to co-ordinate all excavations in the highway (including its own) with a view to minimising the disruption to road users. The highway authority and utility will each be required to observe a code of practice on the co-ordination of works and be subject to a fine for failure to do so. The highway authority will be empowered to designate as traffic sensitive those streets where works could cause great disruption to road users. On such streets, utilities will be required to consult the highway authority in advance before starting works. Where the highway authority is satisfied that works may cause serious disruption to traffic it will have power to direct the utility on the times of working.
My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, who is vice-president of the International Society of Trenchless Technology, has explained that the trenchless methods of construction and maintenance are now well established in this country. He told us that British Gas has used this extensively. The
1452
Government welcome the increasing use of such technology by the utilities and their contractors, particularly when it reduces the amount of disruption to traffic and inconvenience to the public caused by road works. As the various techniques are improved we may hope to see them become more cost-effective and still more attractive to the promoters of works.
However, we do not believe that the proposed street works legislation should include compulsion on utilities to use trenchless methods, which may not be appropriate in every case taking account of all the factors involved. The proposed powers for highway authorities to apply to traffic sensitive streets should nevertheless serve to increase the incentives on utilities to adopt working methods which cause less disruption to road users.
The Government are determined to tackle the problems of traffic congestion by every means they can. Utility street works and building works undoubtedly impose costly delays on traffic. Although much of this disruption is unavoidable and as customers of the utilities we often benefit from the work which causes it, unnecessarily long or frequent disruption to road users can and must be avoided. It was for this reason that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport came forward with a further proposal last autumn to take a power which would enable him to require highway authorities to charge the promoters of works in certain circumstances for their occupation of road space. My noble friend Lord Nugent called it "lane rental". This measure could act as a powerful incentive on the promoters of works and their contractors to minimise disruption and delay in the most traffic sensitive areas. The proposal drew a large number of responses which are currently being considered by my right honourable friend.
I wish to deal with one or two points raised during the course of this evening's debate. Perhaps I may take the three points which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, made. First, on digitised maps, the Government fully accept the importance of developing this system which has implications well beyond the field of utility street works. However, I wish to write to the noble Lord to explain how far work in this area has progressed. The Government's response to the Home Report stresses the importance of utilities ensuring that the location of their equipment is recorded in an accurate and consistent form.
The noble Lord also asked me about the interesting proposal concerning multi-channel ducts. The Government have invited the National Joint Utilities Group to re-examine the possibilities for the use of this new technology, including the prefabricated multi-way duct systems. However, one must recognise that on occasions there are practical difficulties in combining certain services in the same duct. We shall certainly be encouraging their provision in new roads wherever possible.
Lastly, the noble Lord spoke about Recommendation No. 64 —will an obligation on highway authorities to give notice to utilities of their works five years ahead be included in legislation? The code of practice on diversionary works has

1453
been agreed between the utilities and the highway authorities which will include such a requirement. The code will be backed up by new duties in the proposed legislation.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, also referred to road safety and quoted some statistics. I say to all Members of your Lordships' House that the Government take the problems of road safety very seriously. They have set themselves the objective of reducing road casualties by one-third by the year 2000.
I now come to a part in my speech which I think will not please noble Lords quite so much. I have to say that I cannot tell the House today when a Bill to reform street works legislation will be brought before your Lordships. However, it will be introduced as soon as a suitable opportunity can be found. It is simply not possible to vouchsafe that in advance, given the kinds of competing and urgent claims that can arise on the legislative programme. In the meantime we must all do our best to sustain the momentum.
Whether as drivers, pedestrians, occupiers of property or customers of the utilities, we all want to see utility works carried out efficiently and safely and with minimum inconvenience and disruption. The Government intend to play their part in securing what is needed to achieve that. The proposals for legislation which we have brought forward for consultation represent a considered and balanced approach to these improvements.
I have noted with interest the broad support that the measures command across this House and I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend to this and to the detailed suggestions made by noble Lords. I hope that it will not be too long before your Lordships have another opportunity to debate the subject, in the context of a Bill to reform the Public Utilities Street Works Act.

Heathrow Express Railway Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Select Committee with amendments, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at five minutes past eight o'clock.