Lords Sitting of 19 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 Newcastle.

The Homeless Mentally Ill: Care
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal asked Her Majesty's Government:
What initiatives they are proposing to regional health authorities concerning the growing incidence of homelessness involving ex-psychiatric hospital patients.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, we are aware of and concerned about this problem. We are currently in discussion with health and social services authorities and voluntary bodies in central London, with a view to identifying practical steps to help people get the support they need. We hope that any approach developed for central London will prove a useful model for other parts of the country.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Is she aware that it is not only a London problem? I can speak with great experience of Birmingham. Do the Government realise that the run-down of mental hospitals is causing a terrific financial and managerial burden on hostels that originally were meant to cater for homeless alcoholics, but the same hostels are almost becoming mini-institutions catering for the former patients of psychiatric hospitals? Do not the Government feel that their policy of closing down mental hospitals without adequate community services is a wrong one?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are aware that this is a problem that goes wider than that applicable to central London. As I said in my original Answer,
2
the intention is to study the central London problem not simply to solve that, but in order to replicate the findings throughout the country. The closure of mental hospitals has never been a primary object of government policy. In the White Paper Caring for People, published last November, the Government emphasised that the number of mental illness beds should be reduced only as a consequence of the development of new services. We have made it clear that Ministers will not approve the closure of any mental hospital unless it can be demonstrated that adequate possible alternatives have been developed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that regarding the mentally handicapped, the need for them to be settled in the community is being largely solved by help from the various voluntary societies including MENCAP? Can my noble friend say whether the voluntary societies are able to help in the case of psychiatric patients?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this aspect of the matter. We very much recognise the work of the voluntary organisations in this field. As regards the homeless mentally ill initiative affecting psychiatric patients, the Government have had a number of discussions with voluntary organisations and others with direct experience of helping the homeless in London. These organisations include St. Mungo Housing, Bondway Housing Association, Thames Reach and the psychiatric team for single homeless people at Guy's Hospital.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, if the Minister has referred to a new initiative, then it is a bit late. Will the Minister confirm that it is the intention of the Government to impose some limits on local authority expenditure because of the inequities of the poll tax? I believe that over 100 local authorities are involved. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that such cuts in public expenditure for electoral reasons will exclude the provision for community care, especially housing, in order to meet the appalling problem described by my noble friend?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, concerning funding, the Government certainly do not regard community care as a cheap and easy option. Nevertheless, we take the view that much can be done within existing resources given local commitment and collaboration which we believe to be there. However, gross spending on hospital and community health services for mental illness grew by 20 per cent. in real terms between 1978–79 and 1986–87 to £1,149 million. That is the most recent figure available. Estimated gross expenditure on local authority services for mentally ill people rose in the same period by 46 per cent. in real terms to £44 million. I feel sure that the noble Lord will agree that money is not the only consideration.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I ask the Minister to apply her mind to the question that I put to her. I am impressed by the list of statistics. The question is: is it true that the Government are proposing centrally to impose a clampdown on local authority expenditure concerning about 100 local authorities? Can she give an assurance that the cuts that will be required of those local authorities will not include housing provision for homeless people?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government are by no means intending to impose a clampdown on local authorities. They are intending that local authorities should react responsibly to their local responsibilities.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, following on from the query raised by my noble friend Lord Renton concerning what is being done for those who seek help from the voluntary organisations for the mentally ill as opposed to the mentally handicapped, is my noble friend aware that the National Schizophrenia Fellowship in Bournemouth has sought approval to convert a house to act as a hostel for schizophrenic patients in that area? Is she further aware that notwithstanding many efforts, two successive houses were chosen, but in each case the planning committee of the local district council turned down the request on the ground that "it is a jolly good idea, but not in our area, please"? Does my noble friend not agree that that situation is disgraceful, and can she say whether the Government can bring some pressure to bear to get the Bournemouth District Council to act as good Christians?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there has been concern in recent years about how to make effective arrangements for the continuing care of mentally ill people being treated in the community. In this context we believe that the voluntary organisations have a very important role to play. The department has already issued National Health Service planning guidelines. Shortly detailed guidelines will be issued to ensure that by 1st April 1991 all district health authorities are required to initiate in collaboration with local social service departments explicit individually tailored care programmes for all such people.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the growing concern in the Churches about the strain on the clergy—mainly Church of England and Catholic clergy—who live in these areas, particularly the inner cities, and who have these folk on their doorsteps very regularly? Can she assure us that in any consultations about the right way forward the views of such clergy will be taken into account?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said at the outset, we are aware of the general concern. All interested parties who can make a contribution will be consulted. I should like to re-emphasise that the care programme approach, reinforced by the new specific mental illness grant to local authorities payable from 1st April 1991, should have a significant impact on the provision of adequate locally based services.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the care of the mentally ill coming out of institutions is a problem on its own and is quite different from the care of people who are frail, infirm or physically ill in a minor way? Such people require highly skilled attention. Voluntary help is often totally inadequate and cannot be relied upon for dealing with these especially difficult cases.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the research and evaluation funded by the Department of Health has shown that, most commonly, homeless mentally ill people—the group to which the question is directed—have had care organised outside hospital but have subsequently lost touch with services. In the future, we are working to direct our efforts to ensure that the numbers losing touch in this way will fall as a result of the care programme approach.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in the heart of London a hospital has been empty for more than 10 years? I do not blame the present Government for that, but it has been empty all that time. It used to provide 250 beds. It is called St. Olave's. Would it not be a good idea to use it to help the people to whom the Question refers?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing that point to my attention. I shall look into the matter.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the resident psychiatrists at Holloway Prison has told me that he and his colleagues have recognised more and more that they are treating in prison now the same women they used to treat in psychiatric institutions? Does she not agree that that is strange care in the community for the mentally ill?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is difficult to obtain reliable figures on the position across the country in regard to how people are being dealt with. As I said previously, in many cases homeless mentally ill people have had care organised outside hospital but have lost touch subsequently with the services. This

5
is a consequence of the new approach; it has developed as a result of the new approach. It is something at which we are looking and which we hope to be able to avoid in the future.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I wonder whether we ought not to move on to the next Question. We have had 11 minutes on this one.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, we have taken 11 minutes. It is perhaps the moment for the next Question.

ACAS
2.48 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the role and the future of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the role of ACAS is to promote the improvement of industrial relations. There are no plans to change the role or functions of ACAS.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that since its inauguration 17 years ago ACAS has been successful in either stopping strikes or preventing strikes in more than 90 per cent. of cases referred to it? Does he not recall that the London Underground unofficial strike was resolved by ACAS and that the Post Office strikes were resolved by ACAS? What is more, the very serious police dispute was resolved by ACAS. Why do not the Government refer the ambulance dispute to ACAS?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if the noble Lord wished to ask about the ambulancemen's dispute, why on earth did he not table a Question in those terms on the Order Paper? This Question quite obviously refers to ACAS. Therefore, perhaps I may answer the part of his supplementary question which I think is appropriate. Yes, ACAS has been successful. The noble Lord said that the service has helped to settle 90 per cent. of disputes, but I think the figure is about 80 per cent. However, that is still a very high success rate.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, every organisation and trade union in the country can consult ACAS. The only time they are stopped from doing so is when this Government prevent an attempt to settle a dispute which could be resolved by ACAS. Therefore is it not time that they changed their wretched policy?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord knows perfectly well the answer to that accusation. There is an adequate method of negotiation for the ambulancemen and that is what is taking place. There is no such thing as compulsory conciliation.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that ACAS has a panel of very
6
distinguished mediators and arbiters? Would it not, therefore, be a good idea to make much more use of their services than appears to be the case in current circumstances? Finally, what is the Government's attitude to arbitration?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government's attitude to arbitration and conciliation is an extremely good one. Indeed, the number of inquiries received has increased from 303,000 in 1987–88 to 360,000 in 1989–90. Therefore this is something which we fully support.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that the obstinacy of the Government has proved to be extremely expensive? They have now spent £20 million on employing police to undertake extra work, whereas £ 10 million would have resolved the dispute. How stupid can the Government get?

Football: Safety at Sports Grounds
2.51 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to promote implementation of the Taylor Report on the Hillsborough Stadium Disaster.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government intend to require all-seated accommodation at football league grounds and to create a national review body for safety at such grounds by setting up a Football Licensing Authority under Part I of the Football Spectators Act 1989. The guide of safety at sports grounds will be revised as quickly as possible and we shall use powers under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 so that local authorities are required to include mandatory conditions in safety certificates.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, does he agree that post the Taylor Report the football industry is entering a phase in which the leadership of the Government could be most important? Moreover, can he tell us whether in implementing the report's recommendations the Government will lay stress on the involvement of, among others, football club supporters who I believe can play a major part in this?
Also the Minister referred to all-seated stadia. Did he notice the announcement over the weekend about the exciting prospect of a new stadium on Merseyside, designed, I believe, to provide an opportunity for Everton and Liverpool to share a new ground? However, does he acknowledge that planning difficulty is being experienced by local authorities in agreeing over the siting of new stadia? Further, will he consider issuing a planning guidance note which would be helpful?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is true to say that the Government welcome the report of Lord Justice

7
Taylor. So far as concerns supporters, it draws attention to improvement to their environment, to amenities and to safety. Therefore, it lays great stress on the welfare of supporters. The membership of the Football Licensing Authority has not yet been decided, but the interests of football supporters will be considered.
As regards new stadia, the Government support the Taylor recommendation that there should be an advisory design council set up by the Football League and the Football Association. Local authorities will be able to ensure that any new ground complies with the safety recommendations contained in the report. Moreover, the Government certainly hope that any new ground will also provide all the amenities which the report recommends.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is not one of the major features of the Taylor Report to remind clubs of their duty to take care of the people whom they attract to their grounds?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords; I agree with my noble friend. Indeed, football is part of the leisure and entertainment industry and clubs are responsible for the safety of the people who attend their grounds.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell us what happened to the identity card scheme?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is probably well aware that the report of Lord Justice Taylor did not recommend continuing with the scheme and the Government were happy to accept that recommendation.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the diminution in bad behaviour at football matches, and mainly outside the grounds, owes a great deal to the involvement of the official supporters' clubs and their national movement? Further, will he accept from me that when setting up a body of people to decide on the guidelines for football, it would be tragic if the official supporters' clubs were left out, bearing in mind the objective contribution that they could make?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords; I agree. The Government recognise the support and encouragement of the football supporters' associations and the contribution they can make. That applies both nationally and locally.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, can the noble Viscount remind the House, if he can be accurate, how much the Football Trust has pledged towards the implementation of some, if not all, of the recommendations in the Taylor Report?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Football Trust has said that it will contribute £75 million towards the implementation over a period of 10 years.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, provided that the money goes to the clubs which can least afford to
8
make their stadiums and grounds all-seated, will the Government consider making a grant to the trust to help it proceed much more quickly in bringing about these improvements?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is the Government's policy that the clubs should be responsible for the costs involved in making the accommodation in these stadia all-seated. We do not propose to make grants to the football clubs.
Lord Monson: My Lords, quite apart from the fact that many traditional football fans of all ages actually prefer to stand, does the noble Viscount agree that all-seated stadiums are by no means an automatic panacea? In fact, apart from anything else, seats can be ripped out and used as weapons.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, many of those aspects were carefully investigated by Lord Justice Taylor when he made his report. It would be wrong to suggest that the idea that seats could be used as missiles was not taken into consideration. However, it was thought that the benefits of having all-seated stadia were paramount.

Mr. Salman Rushdie: Death Threats
2.57 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
On how many occasions the Director of Public Prosecutions has considered complaints concerning threats to the life of Mr. Salman Rushdie, and on how many occasions proceedings have been authorised.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, in the past year the Director of Public Prosecutions has considered letters from 39 correspondents comprising complaints in respect of five instances of alleged threats to the life of Mr. Rushdie. Three police reports have been received in respect of allegations against individuals. Additionally, one article and one letter published in national newspapers have been considered. In respect of each instance the director decided after very careful consideration that there was insufficient evidence to justify the institution of criminal proceedings.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. However, does he recall that it is now just over 12 months since Ayatollah Khomeini imposed his death sentence on Mr. Rushdie? Is he also aware that since that time we have witnessed a series of threats made in this country against the life of Mr. Rushdie who is still obliged to have armed detectives by his side in order to ensure that he is not murdered? Is he further aware that we have also witnessed constant threats which have been made by a number of individuals, including Dr. Siddiqui, and that we have seen banners carried in public processions saying, "Kill Rushdie"? In those circumstances does he not agree that it is rather odd that criminal proceedings have not been instituted against a single individual?
The Lord Chancellor: No, my Lords. The Director of Public Prosecutions concluded in the light of all the evidence available to him to which I have referred that it was not appropriate to institute criminal proceedings. In particular, in relation to Dr. Siddiqui he gave careful consideration to all the evidence available to him, including video evidence, concerning the remarks and actions of this person and received advice from leading counsel as to whether such remarks gave rise to any criminal liability. The evidence available to the director was insufficient to render it appropriate to commence proceedings. Accordingly, he was bound to conclude that proceedings Should not be instituted.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord say whether the decision not to prosecute was taken solely on the grounds of evidence or whether the matter of proper public policy was a part of the consideration?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my understanding is that it was taken on the grounds that I have mentioned; namely, that the evidence was insufficient.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, are the Government giving consideration to preventing these public exhibitions in which the Moslems seem to believe that they have a right to take over our streets and call for the death of whatever person has been condemned by the ayatollah?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I have said, the Director of Public Prosecutions has carefully considered every instance that has been brought to his notice in which this subject was raised. In deciding whether or not to institute prosecutions, the director must be bound by the evidence available in the light of the law. Every citizen is entitled to expect consistency from prosecuting authorities. Nevertheless, the director regards as a matter of extreme gravity any conduct on the part of any person within this jurisdiction which amounts to the offence of incitement to murder. It will remain his policy, with the full support of the Attorney-General, to deal accordingly with evidence establishing such conduct that may be placed before him.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that millions of people up and down the country have seen with their own eyes evidence of the death threat being made by Dr. Siddiqui and others? They have seen with their own eyes people parading through our streets with banners, shouting, "Kill Rushdie". Does the noble and learned Lord agree that if other people did that, they would probably be clapped in gaol or at least prosecuted? Is he further aware that this is doing no good to race relations in this country when the majority of the population believe, rightly or wrongly, that there is one law for one section of the community and another law for another section?
Finally, are these death threats not considered serious? They do not appear to be since no prosecutions have taken place. However, if they are
10
not, why is Mr. Rushdie granted an armed guard at such huge cost to the British taxpayer?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the question of an armed guard for Mr. Rushdie is not a matter for the Attorney-General, and I speak here primarily on behalf of the Attorney-General at present. It is a matter for those responsible for ensuring his safety so far as possible.
Regarding the earlier questions, particularly the reference to television, the brief extracts from Dr. Siddiqui's speech which were shown on television were insufficient to provide a reliable basis for determining whether an offence had been committed. The director, together with leading counsel, was supplied with a video recording of the whole speech and the events relating to it. He was therefore able to base his decision on all the available evidence.
I am sure your Lordships feel that in taking a decision whether to prosecute, the Director of Public Prosecutions ought to take account of all the evidence available to him and decide whether to institute a prosecution on the basis of that evidence. It would not be right that prosecutions should be determined by popular view or popular demand on a particular occasion. However, I emphasise the view of the director about the nature of any circumstances suggesting that the offence of incitement to murder had been committed. I believe that that view is clear and should commend itself generally.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, has the noble and learned Lord read the report of last night's meeting convened in the East End of London by Dr. Kalim Siddiqui, the director of Britain's Moslem Institute? The report stated that:
"… youngsters at the meeting—some under 10-years-old—gave their support to the death sentence".
Does the noble and learned Lord agree that our children—I repeat the phrase "our children"—should not be admitted to meetings of this kind, especially at such an age? Will he consider consulting his colleagues on whether a suitable Minister can ask the leaders of the Moslem community, including Dr. Siddiqui, to see him? He can then communicate our sense of outrage that children should be brought into this matter.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am answering this Question as spokesman for the Attorney-General because the responsibility for prosecutions is a matter for him in his personal capacity. The Question relates to prosecutions. On the question of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, it would not be appropriate for me to make any comment on these circumstances. However, I shall take note of his suggestion and bring it to the attention of those of my colleagues who have responsibility in the matter.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the very basis of our democracy is that every citizen in this country is entitled to live in freedom under the law unless he offends against that law? Mr. Rushdie's case

11
establishes that that principle no longer runs in this country.
Is the noble and learned Lord not replying to the Question on behalf of the Government? Prosecutions depend on the energy which is shown in collecting evidence. Will the noble and learned Lord agree that it is no good looking at a picture on television and saying, "That is insufficient evidence"? Has the Attorney-General instructed the Director of Public Prosecutions to go out and seek the evidence which is shown prima facie on the television and on the streets of this country in order to establish a prosecution?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I entirely agree that freedom under the law is essential in our democracy. An aspect of that is that people should not be prosecuted except on the basis of evidence sufficient to justify a prosecution. Turning to the reference to items seen on television, the comment I have already made indicated that the Attorney-General's consideration of these matters was not restricted to what was shown on television. The Director of Public Prosecutions obtained a video of the whole speech and of the circumstances relating to it. In the light of the whole evidence available to him, he came to the conclusion that I have narrated.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that many of us still remain puzzled that not a single prosecution has been initiated against a single individual, notwithstanding the clear evidence before our own eyes that death threats have been directed at Mr. Rushdie? Was the noble and learned Lord saying, when he referred to the law—I think I quote him correctly—that the present law is insufficient? If so, no doubt the Government will decide to bring forward further proposals. If I may say so, they have rightly taken the view that terrorism is a grave matter which requires the most robust response by government. If the present law is inadequate, what steps do the Government propose to take to deal with that issue?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the decision on whether or not to prosecute has been decided, in the light of the evidence, on the basis of the existing law. The law in relation to incitement to murder is the law set out in Section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. I know of no proposal to change that section. However, in deciding whether or not a prosecution should be taken the Director of Public Prosecutions has to apply that section to the evidence available to him about the whole circumstances arising in the situation complained against.

Capital Allowances Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 139 [Supplemental]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 125, line 36, at end insert ("including activities relating to the recording of such knowledge").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving Amendment No. 1 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 which stand in my name. As a prologue to my presenting these amendments to the House I should say that at the last meeting of the Joint Parliamentary Select Committee on Consolidation Bills I expressed anxiety that matters relating to capital allowances on patents and know-how were not consolidated into the present Bill but had to remain in what is known as the principal Act; namely, the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. The evidence given suggested that capital allowances for the important matters of patents and know-how should be dealt with under that Act. I did not understand the arguments in favour of that.
I had considerable support at the Joint Select Committee from Members of another place and also from Members of this House for my view. It seemed to me odd that a Bill entitled Capital Allowances with a separate section, Part VII, on scientific research should not include references to capital allowances on patents and know-how. Patents and know-how are obviously the direct products, assets and property, known as intellectual property, arising in the course of scientific research. It seemed to me therefore that at least for the convenience of practitioners in the field of patents and know-how and intellectual property rights, such as lawyers, research workers, research organisations and advisers of all kinds, there should be a reminder that the provisions of the Capital Allowances Bill do not apply to patents and trade marks.
After that introduction, I presume to refer to the relevant principles involved in the law as regards the consolidation of Bills. That is to be found in Erskine May. I am not yet sufficiently presumptuous to say that I am trying to bring Erskine May up to date in this field, but most of the cases cited in Erskine May to justify the propositions to which I shall refer have dates of nearly 70 years ago. I am obliged to Mr. Keith in the Public Bill Office for providing me with the relevant pages of Erskine May which deal with Consolidation Bills. The principles that I shall apply in submitting my amendments are the following.
Erskine May states on page 494:
"Where the title of a Bill is only to consolidate the law on a particular subject, it is out of order to amend the provisions of the statutes which by the bill are to be consolidated and fused together".
I accept that there should be no change of law in consolidation. However, if Members of the Joint Select Committee are satisfied by the circumstances—I stress the word circumstances—relating to the Bill in question, amendments may be excepted from that rule and may be moved to such a Consolidation Bill. That is the first proposition that I shall apply. There may be circumstances in relation to the other matters which will follow which would justify my amendments.
My second proposition arises directly from Erskine May, which states that an amendment would be allowed,
"which would make the words of the bill express more clearly the law as it stands"
—that is to say, the law as it stands in 1990 and not the law as it stood in 1921 when most of these matters were decided upon.
The third proposition from Erskine May which I shall pray in aid to support my amendments is as follows:
"An amendment which seeks to bring the bill into conformity with the existing law, if the Chairman is satisfied that the bill, as reported from the Joint Committee, would nevertheless effect an alteration of the law".
We had a long discussion in the Select Committee. Although the chairman did not record that he was satisfied that the Bill, as reported from the Joint Committee, would nevertheless effect an alteration of the law, the general opinion of the committee was that some clarification of the present position in relation to patents and know-how on capital allowances should be considered.
My first amendment is to Clause 139 of the part of the Bill which relates to scientific research. Clause 139(1)(a) states:
" 'scientific research' means any activities in the fields of natural or applied science for the extension of knowledge".
I have tabled my amendment for the purposes of clarifying the present position of the law. The amendment suggests that there should be added to line 36 of page 125 the words,
"including activities relating to the recording of such knowledge".
That seems to me a commonsense and simple proposition to put forward. Scientific research is usually recorded. However, the word "activities" in this part of the Bill and the reference to applied science bothers me as regards their meaning. Therefore the words,
"activities in the fields of natural or applied science",
must mean that there should be some recording of those activities and of the knowledge that has arisen from them. Therefore it seemed to me that by way of clarification a definition of scientific research should include the recording of the knowledge gained from it in some way or other. Once it is recorded it becomes generally known, usually in the form of know-how. Therefore, I submit that that amendment would be helpful as regards the definition of scientific knowledge.
Some people may think that the words "natural science' that appear in the definition are odd. However, having had considerable experience of the natural sciences triposes at Cambridge and having consulted the Oxford Dictionary I can declare that the world "natural" includes not only biological matters but also physics, chemistry and mathematics.
The words "applied science" in the definition also suggest that scientific research has some practical and perhaps industrial application. Therefore it seems to me necessary to clarify what is meant by,
"activities in the fields of natural… science"
by including the words,
"including activities relating to the recording of such knowledge".
With the leave of the House, I turn now to Amendment No. 2. The amendment proposes the addition of the words "including exploitation thereof at the end of Clause 139(1)(c). The rather lengthy paragraph (c) states that:
"references to expenditure incurred in scientific research do not include any expenditure incurred in the acquisition of rights in, or arising out of, scientific research, but, subject to that, include all expenditure incurred for the prosecution of, or the provision of facilities for prosecution of, scientific research".
Therefore one cannot obtain money under that definition for applying for patents and creating intellectual property rights.
In this context the word "prosecution" has quite a different connotation from the one that we heard earlier this afternoon. Therefore, if expenditure includes:
"expenditure incurred in the prosecution of, or the provision of facilities for the prosecution of, scientific research",
it seems to me that the word "facilities" must include funds available for the scientific research. It should not include merely the apparatus or the staff employed in the laboratory. The facilities must include some kind of funding. Often funding can result from exploiting the scientific research in ways of which many noble Lords will be aware. Therefore the intention is to clarify that the facilities for the prosecution of scientific research must include facilities for the exploitation of scientific research in the related trade or trades.
I turn now to my third amendment which concerns paragraph (d) which defines:
"references to scientific research related to a trade or class of trades".
In my view those words support my argument in favour of the previous amendment that exploitation of scientific research is relevant.
The paragraph continues:
"(i) any scientific research which may lead to or facilitate an extension of that trade or, as the case may be, of trades of that class".
I suggest that the words,
"whether by its exploitation in the course of trade or otherwise",
should be added to paragraph (d). The paragraph would then read:
"references to scientific research related to a trade or a class of trades include—
(i) any scientific research which may whether by its exploitation in the course of trade or otherwise lead to or facilitate an extension of that trade or, as the case may be, of trades of that class".
I have presented rather circuitous arguments. I am glad that from a sedentary position once again the noble Baroness agrees with that observation. However, these are important matters and I am trying to bring us up to date as to the significance of scientific research and what the term should include. I am relying upon the proposition in Erskine May that it is proper when consolidating a Bill to introduce words which would clarify the existing law. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: As the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has pointed out, the Bill is a pure consolidation. It makes no change in the law. The Bill has been examined by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, of which the noble Lord is a

15
member. The committee unanimously agreed to lay the report before your Lordships.
The committee has considered the Capital Allowances Bill which was referred to it. It has heard evidence on the Bill and made the amendments set out in the annex to the report to improve the form of the Bill. The amendments have already been given effect to. The committee is of the opinion that the Bill as amended is pure consolidation and represents the existing law and that there is no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has suggested three alterations to the existing Bill. The effect of the first amendment would be to make into scientific research the recording of the results of the research. Clearly the necessary recording of experiments is part and parcel of research. That does not need to be mentioned. However, the amendment appears to be wider, and since it changes the existing wording in Section 94(1) of the Capital Allowances Act 1968 it could be expected to go wider than the scope of the existing provision. In those circumstances I feel that I cannot accept the amendment in a consolidating statute.
The effect of the second amendment would be to bring into the definition of expenditure on scientific research in Clause 139(1)(c) the exploitation of the results of scientific research. We all know that once something has been discovered in the course of scientific research it is very often exploited. However, the exploitation of the results of scientific research need have nothing to do with the scientific research itself. It is an activity consequent on that research. Again the amendment would appear to alter the existing law.
The effect of the third amendment would be to make clear that the references to scientific research related to a trade included scientific research which might lead to or facilitiate an extension of that trade. The trade might well be extended by way of exploitation of the results of scientific research, but I cannot accept that an express reference to it in the Bill is desirable.
Clause 139(1)(d) was orginally enacted in Section 31(1) of the Finance Act 1944 in the same words. There is a risk that any alteration would be read at least as an attempt to change the law. So far as I know there is no evidence that anyone has ever had any difficulty with the existing provision. I believe that to be true in relation to the other matters which the noble Lord's amendments seek to change. I agree entirely with him about the importance of patents and know-how. However, I urge him to accept the joint committee's view that its amendments were the appropriate amendments and that the Bill as it now stands is a satisfactory consolidation which states the existing law.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his clear exposition of the matters. He has introduced references to certain Acts which were not before the committee when I was present. Having heard what he has said I shall consider his remarks. In those
16
circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 126, line 4, after ("includes") insert ("patents and know-how and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment refers to the definition of an asset in Clause 139(1)(e). As paragraph (e) now stands:
" 'asset' includes part of an asset".
What is meant by an "asset?" The word appears in Clause 136 and 137 onwards and appears prima facie to refer to apparatus or, for example, a building to contain the experimentation. However, in my view, on a proper reading of Clauses 136 onwards, the word "asset" includes those assets arising from scientific research; namely, patents and know-how. I confess at once that I am therefore in difficulty in my amendment, in that it states that the words "patents and know-how" should be inserted after the word "includes" so that paragraph (e) would read:
" 'asset' includes patents and know-how and a part of an asset".
On the question of know-how, the answer given earlier by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor helps me. He said that, whenever scientific research takes place, it is usual to record the results of that research. As soon as that scientific research is recorded, it becomes know-how. It is the know-how in relation to that research. I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord to have regard at least to that aspect of the amendment. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, at the risk of intruding unnecessarily into the learned discussion, perhaps I may say that, if the expression "know-how" is to be included in a capital allowances Bill, it should also include registered designs and the new design right created by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. I suspect that that extension of the law would be outside the remit of a consolidation Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with respect, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, is right on that point. Sections 520 to 533 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 provide for allowances and charges to be made to taxpayers in respect of capital expenditure on the acquisition and disposal of patent rights and know-how. On the other hand, Part VII of the Capital Allowances Bill concerns expenditure on scientific research, not on the disposal of patent rights or know-how. Scientific research might lead to patentable discoveries or might result in know-how, but, whether or not it does, Part VII covers expenditure on scientific research.
The noble Lord's amendment would bring into Part VII of the Bill expenditure on the acquisition or disposal of patents and know-how. If the amendment were made, one consequence would be that disposal

17
of patent rights would then fall within Clause 138, which would be entirely wrong. The same is true of know-how. I hope that having raised that point, which I agree is extremely important, the noble Lord may think it wise in the circumstances of this consolidation Bill to leave the provisions as they are.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that exposition. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for his helpful intervention. However, with great respect to both the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, I cannot agree that the phrase "know-how" must inevitably include copyright, designs and trademarks. Know-how is the written record of research. How can it possibly be said, in the case of a chemical experiment, that a design arises from that research? One is making a new product. There is no question of copyright or design.
It is rather difficult to proceed, given the fact that the noble and learned Lord has told the House that to introduce patents and know-how into the Bill at this stage would be contrary to the provisions of Clause 138. In those circumstances, I shall read what he said. I thank him for his kind observations. After all, it is an important matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
In the Title:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 5:
Line 2, at end insert ("other than certain enactments relating to patents and know-how").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment raises the matter of the Title to the Bill. As it now stands, the Bill seeks, "to consolidate certain enactments relating to capital allowances.
In my view and the view of many Members of both Houses at the recent meeting of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, there should be a further reference in the Title to the fact that the Bill does not include matters relating to patents and know-how.
The reason for that view reflects the common-sense approach to the matter. In these days of advanced technology and the advancement of science: generally, patents and know-how are often the life-blood of comparatively small firms. Such firms do not have large legal departments and their accountants may not be familiar with matters of importance to their business; namely, patents and know-how. If they consulted the Capital Allowances Bill—
"An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to capital allowances"—
they would have to search through over 142 pages to see whether it applied. They would then see that Clause 161(11)—a reference which the Committee decided should be included—on page 143 states:
"Chapter 1 of Part XIII of the principal Act (which relates to patents and know-how) contains further provisions relating to capital allowances".
In order to assist persons who are interested in the problem of capital allowances, patents and trademarks, it seems to me common sense that the
18
Capital Allowances Bill should immediately put them on their guard that they must look elsewhere if they wish to deal with the important question of patents and know-how. They would have to plough through over 142 pages to find just three lines relating to the matter. That does not seem to be the way to assist persons in industry.
The amendment to the Title of the Bill which I suggest in my amendment would cover the position. The Title would therefore read:
"An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to capital allowances other than certain enactments relating to patents and know-how".
The word "certain" appears to have crept into my amendment. From a drafting point of view, perhaps the word "certain" should not be included and the Title should include a clear statement that the enactments relating to capital allowances in the Bill do not include enactments relating to patents and know-how. I apologise for that slight error in the amendment. I am sure that it is my fault. With the leave of the House, I should like to delete from the amendment the word "certain" so that the amendment would read,
"other than enactments relating to patents and know-how".
I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, we entirely appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, speaks with authority on behalf of the certain section of practitioners among whom he has always been a leading light. Perhaps I may speak for practitioners generally who ask not to be misled by consolidating statutes which seek to help understanding and not to create misunderstanding. If a Bill which seeks to consolidate certain enactments relating to capital allowances does nothing else, it tells the practitioner that it relates only to the consolidation of certain enactments. The practitioner is warned that there may very well be other enactments relating to capital allowances which have not been consolidated in this Bill. I cross out the word "certain" in view of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd. But if we add the words,
"other than enactments relating to patents and know-how"
the immediate impression created for the practitioner is that there is only one exception to the rule in regard to a consolidating statute relating to capital allowances—the exception that relates to patents and know-how—and therefore he can rely on this consolidating Bill to cover every other enactment and every other aspect statutorily in relation to capital allowances.
On behalf of general practitioners—not on behalf of the specialist practitioner for whom the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, speaks with such authority—I ask that this amendment be disagreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the interest and expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, in this matter are known to all noble Lords. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in acknowledging it freely. On the other hand, it is important to bear in mind that there are people other than such experts who have an interest in this

19
consolidation. It is to deal with the concerns of what I might call the constituency that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, represents that the Joint Committee decided to insert Clause 161(11), which states:
"Chapter I of Part XIII of the principal Act (which relates to patents and know-how) contains further provisions relating to capital allowances".
I think that that is entirely accurate. I believe that it would be not helpful to seek to elaborate the Title. The fact that these are not all enactments relating to capital allowances is emphasised by the use of the word "certain" in the Title as it stands. In fact, if and when this consolidation goes through, as I hope it will, the standard works will have an index in which those concerned with patents and know-how will quickly be directed to the provisions of Section 161(11). That was the course taken by the Joint Committee in order to deal with the concerns raised before it very properly by the noble Lord.
I hope therefore that in the light of all the considerations heard, noble Lords might feel that his work has been well done and recognised by the Joint Committee in this way, and that the House has already given effect to that.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am very much obliged for the kind words said about me by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. There is another expert on intellectual property rights in this House at the present time. The noble Lord, Lord Cawley, is sitting opposite me and his splendid work in that field has been known for many years.
The intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, emphasises the difficulties that people find in obtaining information on simple matters without going to vast expense—in this case, the capital allowances for patents and know-how. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is a most distinguished practitioner with a large solicitor's office. I am speaking of the small solicitor in the country. He may be asked for advice by the directors of a small firm that has produced good inventions—the lifeblood of the firm must be good inventions. The solicitor says, "Yes, there is an Act—the Capital Allowances Act. We shall get a copy of that and study it." To his horror he finds that he must search through the whole Act. Meanwhile the machine that counts the time that he spends goes ever upwards and in no time at all hundreds of pounds go forth in legal fees.
Therefore, in my simple approach to these matters I felt that the Title, despite the erudite objections raised by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, should include something to the effect that this Bill does not include anything about patents and know-how. I had hoped that the noble and learned Lord would have been sympathetic. I fully realise that my amendments are not perfect and I had hoped that by the next time the Bill comes forward the noble and learned Lord himself might be able to suggest something in the Title to warn off people so that they are aware that this Bill has nothing to do with capital allowances for patents or know-how and
20
thus save the time and expense of small firms in particular of finding out about these important matters.
In these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

British Railways Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936), deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Town and Country Planning Bill [H.L.]
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is the first of four Bills on the Order Paper in my name. If I may, I shall speak to all four together, and then move the other three formally, together with the consequential Motion in connection with the fourth. I should like to offer my compliments and thanks—and I trust also those of the House—to the Law Commission and the draftsman who have made such an excellent job of this enormous task of consolidation.
The last major consolidation of the Town and Country Planning Acts was in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, which has been considerably amended by primary legislation, including the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1972, the Local Government Acts of 1972 and 1985, the Land Compensation Act 1973, and the Town and Country Planning Act 1984.
The result of the constant addition of material into the text of the 1971 Act and the repeal of extensive parts of it has been a loss of coherent structure. This is especially apparent in Part IV of the 1971 Act dealing with special controls. The system of controls relating to listed buildings and conservation areas and to hazardous substances are so voluminous as to justify whole Bills relating to these topics alone. They have therefore been consolidated in the second and third Bills under my name, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Bill and the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Bill.
In other respects, the structure of the Town and Country Planning Bill broadly corresponds to that of the 1971 Act. The only difference is the creation of a new Part which relates to Crown land and includes material from the Town and Country Planning Act 1984 and the Building Restrictions (War-Time Contraventions) Act 1946.
Finally, there is the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Bill, which is ancillary to the three main Bills. It deals with a number of technical and transitional matters, including repeals and consequential amendments.
The Law Commission has, in accordance with usual practice, issued a report on the consolidation

21
in which they make a number of recommendations for minor technical amendments to remove anomalies and inconsistencies which came to light during the consolidation exercise so that the law can be stated in a clear and straightforward fashion.
There is a special Motion on the Order Paper relating to this consolidation. The Planning (Consequential Provisions) Bill is an essential part of the consolidation, but it is not, in the strict sense, a consolidation Bill. It is most conveniently dealt with along with the other three Bills, by the Joint Committee, but the rules of the House require that the House must refer it to the Joint Committee specifically. The other Bills will go through to the Joint Committee in the ordinary course.
I beg to move that the first of the four Bills be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Bill. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Planning (Hazardous Substances) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Planning (Consequential Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, to which I referred earlier.
Moved, That the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Bill [H.L] be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Food Safety Bill [H.L.]
3.50 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that Her Majesty and His Royal Highness, having been informed of the purport of the Food Safety Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament, for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 5 [Food authorities and authorised officers]:
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 10, after ("islands") insert (", regional").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the agreement of your Lordships, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 2 since the amendments are linked. The purpose of these two amendments is to have the same flexibility in Scotland as is proposed in England and Wales—for the Secretary of State (in the case of Scotland) to have the permissive powers that the Ministers have in England and Wales to decide which should be the appropriate food authorities. The problem that arises—is that there seems to be some discrepancy between the treatment of Scotland on the one hand and of England and Wales on the other. It therefore does not seem unreasonable that the two should be brought into line.
However, there is a further reason for my moving the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, was kind enough to write to me on the subject and to indicate in his letter the reasons why the Government did not feel disposed to accept an earlier amendment to this effect. He explained that in 1983 there had been changes in Scotland in the application of the Food and Drugs Act and that these had been moved to district level. Perhaps I may quote from his letter. He added that:
"The Bill does allow the co-operation of trading standards departments in the field of food standards in as much as the food authorities (in Scotland the District and Islands Councils) can authorise persons other than their own officers to undertake their responsibilities under the Bill. This leaves the way open in practice for Trading Standards Officers to act as agents for food enforcement should the authorities judge it economical to do so".
He stated that there was in fact this flexibility in practice.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that I am president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration. I have put this letter to the officers in Scotland. I received the reply that since 1983 there has been no move to include TSOs in any co-ordination or liaison groups. They further point out (and it is very important for the efficient implementation of this important Bill) that it is only in Scotland that each food manufacturer or trader has two home authorities: the region—namely, the

23
TSOs for trade descriptions, weights and measures and price marking—and the district for compositional labelling. In England and Wales, on the other hand, there is only one authority responsible for all consumer protection functions. It follows from that that there is a strong case for closer co-ordination in Scotland, which apparently has not occurred since 1983. This admirable Bill provides an opportunity for stimulating such co-ordination and making it at least permissive. I therefore feel that in all those circumstances your Lordships would wish to support the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I moved a similar amendment to that which has been so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, at the Committee stage of the Bill. Quite frankly, I was disappointed with the response that I received at the time from the Minister. I too have had the benefit of seeing the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, sent to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on the subject. It is admirably friendly and lucid in many ways. However, it finally comes down in favour of not making the concession for which the amendment, I think, reasonably asks.
The case has been fully stated by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. The only point that I mention, which may not be of immediate importance but could be of some importance in the not-too-distant future, is this. If the single market is achieved on time, that in itself may require a reappraisal of functions. Therefore, the flexibility that the Bill gives in England and Wales for such a reappraisal, should the need arise, should be extended to Scotland.
I hope that on this occasion the Government will give a more sympathetic response to the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say in response to the amendment. Both noble Lords who have spoken to it know Scotland well and will appreciate that the geography is very different from that south of the Border. The local government arrangements are also different. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, every citizen in Scotland is involved with two authorities, the district and the region, except where there is a unitary authority, which is in only a small part of Scotland, However, one has to remember that the regional council may not be geographically close to an event. For example, if there were a problem in Oban, the regional council headquarters is in Glasgow. If there were a problem in Wick, the regional council headquarters is in Inverness. One has to remember that there is therefore a remoteness. Communications are not easy.
The fact that there is a discrepancy between the remainder of the country and Scotland does not matter. We often have discrepancies and welcome them in Scotland, We need a flexibility that is suitable for the operation of the system. I shall listen with interest to my noble friend on the very detailed point that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has made. It is outside my experience. But it is within my experience that, for example, the public analyst in
24
Tayside, where I live, is employed by the regional council. That public analyst could perfectly well work as an agent for the district council in Angus. That would be a flexible arrangement which would work very well in my view. I have been content with the system as it stands. However, I shall make up my mind when I have listened to my noble friend. I hope that that is helpful.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I am a little surprised and disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, continues to press this matter. During Committee the noble Lord, with support from the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, put down amendments designed to designate regional councils in Scotland as "food authorities". I explained then, and, as has been stated, the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, Minister of State at the Scottish Office has since written to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to emphasise that Scottish Ministers had no wish to alter in any way the present arrangements. The single tier unitary system whereby EHOs of island and district councils have sole responsiblity for food law enforcement was put in place after very careful consideration as recently as 1983. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour said, demographic circumstances are different in Scotland and the seat of the regional council can often be very remote from parts of the region that it covers.
The present arrangements, I am assured, work very well. Indeed, Scottish Ministers are firmly of the view that to turn the clock back again and create some statutory role for TSOs would not only give rise to uncertainty but be completely at odds with the will of most industry and consumer interests.
As I have said before, we recognise that in a limited number of organisations there is a call for close co-operation between EHOs and TSOs. If this cannot be achieved by administrative means, then the Bill provides scope for the "food authority" to enlist and authorise others, who could be TSOs. But that decision we believe must be one for the food authority. There is no need for fundamental revisions in statutory responsibility.
I appreciate that all the noble Lord is seeking at this stage is an enabling power similar to that which we have in England and Wales and which would enable the Secretary of State to allocate some or all of the district councils' food responsibilities to regional councils. However, the Government cannot agree to this change. It would inevitably be unsettling. Once the power was there the arguments closed by the 1983 decision to go for a unitary system would be reopened and there would be pressure from trading standards officers for changes to be made. This is clearly undesirable when the existing systems works well and was reviewed so recently.
Of course if the structure of local government in Scotland were to be looked at again at some future date and the Government decided to make changes, primary legislation would inevitably be required and, if appropriate, the issue would be addressed and debated then.

25
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, quoted from a letter written by my noble friend Lord Sanderson. I emphasise the final point made in the letter. It stated:
"This leaves the way open in practice for Trading Standards Officers to act as agents for food enforcement should the food authorities judge it economical to do so. That is a matter for decision at the working level, and there is nothing in the Bill to impede it".
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, raised a particular point but I suggest that we jump that hurdle when we reach it.
To sum up, these amendments are not acceptable to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for the good reasons that I have given. I hope that this further explanation, even if it is not welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will convince him that he should withdraw his amendments.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, with the leave of the House, will the Minister say whether Strathclyde region, for example, is pressing to be a food industry?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not believe so.
4 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the full comment in the amendment that I have moved, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. As she expected, I was sorry to hear her remarks. At first I was disturbed by her suggestion that the object of the amendment was to put the clock back. There is no question of doing so. As she later mentioned, it is a proposal for a permissive amendment to put Scotland on all fours with England and Wales.
I am disturbed by the concern of trading standards officers in Scotland. After all, the success of such legislation depends upon those who must carry it out. They are the environmental health officers and trading standards officers. It is most important that those two eminent groups have a full understanding, one with the other. I have been advised that trading standards officers in Scotland believe that since 1983 the system has not worked as flexibly as it should have worked and, as the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, said in his letter, it did work. That is a matter of great concern.
I do not propose to push the amendment to a Division. I merely wish to register the concern of trading standards officers in Scotland. It should be the responsibility of government to ensure that the concern is set at rest so that it is effectively implemented and everyone involved in carrying out the legislation can work closely together. I hope that the fears of trading standards officers in Scotland—they are a worthy group of people—can be allayed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 17 [Food safety and consumer protection]:
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 3:
Page: 13, line 47, at end insert—
("() No regulations under subsection (1)(c) above authorising the irradiation of food shall be made before the
26
draft Directive on food and food ingredients treated with ionising radiation has been adopted by the Council of Ministers.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, during the course of our debates on the Bill the subject of irradiation has caused the most bitter argument, although nothing is ever very bitter in your Lordships' House. It has certainly attracted the attention of those outside, in the press and the media, and I have no doubt it will continue to do so when the Bill passes to another place.
It may be that when our debates began in this House many noble Lords were somewhat ignorant of the subject of irradiation. We have dealt with the subject at length and I hope that your Lordships are now better informed about the process in terms of adding to food safety and also understand the fears held by those of us who were more anxious about its introduction than the Government. We remain anxious, and those of us who opposed the introduction of food irradiation as part of the Government's largely laudable package of measures to improve food safety believe that many questions remain unanswered.
Those unanswered questions are the cause of my amendment. The provision falls a good deal short of that which I put forward in an earlier amendment, which I withdrew. I had intended to move the amendment on Report but another amendment brought forward many of the same arguments. The matter was reached late at night and to have dealt with it then would have been unfair not only to your Lordships but also to those outside the House who follow our deliberations closely. I refer particularly to those who are interested in the new development; for example, customers, consumers, retailers, manufacturers, and so forth.
As the subject of irradiation passed through the debates in your Lordships' House an unusual aspect was the fact that we received a report from the Select Committee on Irradiation. Rather unsatisfactorily, I suggest, it was squeezed into the dinner hour. Nevertheless, some of us spoke for longer than the Government wished in order to express our fears and to seek further information from noble Lords who had served on the committee. Although only four members of the committee were present we received a clear message which is contained in its report. It is the substance of the amendment I have tabled today.
Although the Select Committee guardedly accepted in principle that irradiation could be a useful tool in helping the Government in their fight for food safety, it recommended that we should wait until the EC directive on irradiation has been approved by the Council of Ministers. Member states of the EC will then have an opportunity to meet and agree on its introduction. It can be done in a co-ordinated way with the proper backing of all members of the EC and decisions can be made on its introduction into retail and catering outlets, restaurants, and so forth.
It was also unusual that during the course of the Bill through your Lordships' House three television programmes were shown on the subject of irradiation. I hope that your Lordships saw those

27
programmes and did not see just one of them because I thought that one programme was rather biased in support of the Government's view of the matter; namely, that the process is completely safe. Even that programme was rather cautious about saying that it was completely, absolutely or wholly safe. Those descriptions have been used in recent weeks not necessarily by the noble Baroness on the Government Front Bench but by various government spokesmen.
On the information that the people of this country have—and I am perfectly prepared to concede that some of that information has not been wholly understood—it is quite clear that there is a general anxiety about the process. It is not an anxiety about the unfortunate name of the process—irradiation—which many people confuse with the happenings in Chernobyl and other places. I believe that most people now gather that the danger about this process is not the radiation levels but what happens to the food as a result of the process when the structure of the food is broken down. They are worried about what happens in the long term if food is taken which has been irradiated over long periods. In my view, that has not been adequately explained to the public.
I have introduced this amendment in order to give us just a little more time. When we press for immediate action the Government are quick to say we must wait to see what happens in the other countries of Europe and must not be too hasty. On this occasion, they want to be hasty. One can see the reason for that. There has been an unfortunate increase in cases of food poisoning in recent times, for one reason or another. The Government want to be seen to be acting in a positive and radical way to deal with that. Some noble Lords may have suffered, as I did, from the salmonella outbreak. However, in most cases of food poisoning which have taken place the contaminated food is not in any event necessarily suitable for the irradiation process.
Furthermore, it emerged from the television programme last Thursday evening that the professor of microbiology at Leeds University, who has been carrying out some experiments for quite some time on listeria, has some evidence to show that not all the listeria is killed or eliminated by the irradiation process. Indeed, in some cases you can see a multiplication of the listeria after irradiation. There is a warning note there. If we wait until the European Community directive is approved by the Council of Ministers, we shall have a little more time to think about the process. Perhaps the Government will be putting themselves rather less at risk should something go wrong in the long term.
I suggest to your Lordships that to try to introduce this process of food irradiation into the country through regulation is thinking only in the short term. I do not think that the Government have fully considered what could happen in the long term. They are only concerned with dealing with this present problem of listeria and salmonella. Nobody would argue but that irradiation increases the shelf life of certain goods which are suitable for irradiation.
However, this Bill is not about shelf life but about food safety.
My postbag—I am sure this is the case with other noble Lords—reflects that those mostly concerned about this matter are parents of small children. It is all very well for noble Lords and others outside who can go and choose for themselves. Indeed, I suggest that there will not be much opportunity to buy irradiated food because the major supermarket chains except for Sainsbury's, have said quite categorically that they will not introduce it. Sainsbury's has said, perfectly properly, that it will be introduced if there is customer demand for it. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover, put that view himself in this House and I see nothing wrong with that. However, if I understood the tone of that speech on that occasion, he believes it unlikely that there will be immediate demand.
However, let us consider the case of people in institutions, schools and even restaurants. On the television programme the other evening the honourable friend of the noble Baroness, who I think is the Minister for food safety, admitted in a rather airy way that the Government were having problems regarding irradiated food in restaurants. I should think they are having problems with that. How will that be marked on a menu? One of the policies of the Government is that people should be given more choice. However, let us suppose that a lorry driver goes into a transport cafe. How will it be indicated to him whether or not certain elements of his meal have been irradiated? That area must be a minefield. I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, is not present because I know that he has some fears about that.
I am sure that in certain cases—for example, school meals—inevitably people will be exposed to irradiated food and I hope that that does them no harm. I do not suppose that Oliver Twist, if such an unfortunate individual existed now, would care very much when he asked for more porridge whether or not it was irradiated. He would just want more porridge. Therefore, I suggest that this has not yet been sufficiently thought through.
My amendment proposes that the Government should wait and put the brake on this matter. I believe that they should not hammer us. That was the attitude of the honourable friend of the noble Baroness on television. Some of us find that attitude of certain members of the Government increasingly irritating. It assumes that millions of us are all idiots but that the Government are absolutely right. The public are right to be concerned about this new process and have a right to be assured that it is perfectly safe, which it is not. I do not suggest that it is unsafe. We just do not know enough about it.
I leave those thoughts with the House and commend my amendment to your Lordships. I believe that it is moderate and sensible and gives a short period for consideration. If more research is being carried out, then it gives time for those findings to be available. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment for slightly different reasons. My reasons are purely practical. It is an enormously complicated and expensive process which is highly emotive. We do not really know exactly what regulations will emerge in Europe. We cannot afford to be out of step because if we produce a regulation which we have to withdraw at the end of the day, that will be very expensive and will not help the cause of irradiation, if there is such a cause.
Too often we are out of step with Europe in any event. In this case it appears to me absolutely logical, as we said in our report on irradiation, that we keep in step with Europe. I commend that approach. We could get into a lot of trouble, a lot of people could be put to a great deal of expense and we could look extremely foolish. Therefore, it appears to me to be common sense to keep in step with Europe and to await the outcome of those regulations with everything in place in the Bill so that the Government can go ahead step by step along with our friends in Europe.
Lord Borthwick: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the debate. I disagree with much of what has been stated.
The Americans lost more people in the Korean war as a result of irradiation than from enemy action. There was a breakdown of the irradiation system. All of the food came from America and fed the troops very well. I think that they probably quite liked it. However, something went wrong and the system of irradiation broke down. They began to become very ill and died. The death rate was higher than it would have been from a battle.
Irradiation kills a lot of useful things as well as things; that are not useful. We must attune our bodies to the areas in which we live. Some people drink the water of the Ganges and live happily. If British people tried to do that, they would probably not come out again. After two sniffs of the evening air when going past the Ganges, they would probably go down with fever next morning because they do not have the immunity of the natives which has been developed over many years.
For those reasons, I am very much against the introduction of irradiation. It is a very bad thing.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, at Committee Stage we moved a similar amendment to the one moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. Sadly, we had no joy from the Government on that occasion. I do not anticipate any change of heart in spite of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland's eloquence this afternoon. Nevertheless, the Opposition firmly support the principle that the Government would save themselves a great deal of aggravation if they moved in step with the Community on this important issue.
It is ironic that while Clause 18 of the Bill paves the way for being communautaire (whether we cross bridges before we come to them or not) the Government have signified in clear terms their firm intention to proceed ahead of Europe, with unknown
30
consequences for the trade and for consumers. The Government are acting with undue haste and are needlessly making trouble for themselves. Nevertheless, I support the amendment.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I hope that the Government stand their ground. I was astonished to hear the noble Viscount, when proposing this amendment, stating that we were probably ignorant of the subject. The subject has been canvassed for 30 years to my knowledge. I say that because I was then Minister for Science.
No noble Lord has mentioned the fact that this amendment deals with gamma ray irradiation. The public does not know the difference between alpha, beta and gamma. The public proceed on the dog latin motto omnia nuclear pro magnifico. We are in danger of becoming a nation of hypochondriacs and litigants like America, which is my mother's country. I am getting rather tired of it all.
We know all that there is to be known about gamma ray irradiation at the present time. It is known that it does not wash woollens, it does not pay income tax and that it will not wind up clocks. However, it will kill a certain number of bugs. Nobody can say that anything is absolutely safe because it will not destroy toxins which are already there. However, it will make food a great deal more healthy and safer than it is at present. That is a certain fact. Future knowledge may lead us further on.
The idea that the Community must tell us whether or not we eat irradiated food is to put the matter the wrong way round. Why should we restrict ourselves to food which the Council of Ministers allows us to eat? Why can we not choose for ourselves? Even if the Government are not infallible—and I have never known a government which were—why should we not be allowed to pass regulations of our own about what we eat in the form of chocolate, or the speed limit on our roads, instead of having all of this nonsensical pseudo-scientific talk fed to us day after day, even at the Third Reading stage of Bills?
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, this situation is reminiscent of an earlier stage when the noble and learned Lord spoke as he has just spoken. I found myself left with one paragraph. In that paragraph I stated that we had been studying this matter for 20 years. We had been asked by the World Health Organisation to implement some provisions urgently in relation to the care of chickens. The decision of the Council of Ministers does not guarantee anything in relation to food safety. I suggest that the Government get a move on.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, has spoken as he spoke before, and I am afraid that I am going to speak as I spoke before, since this is the last chance for your Lordships' House to look at food irradiation. I should like briefly to run through the arguments against proceeding with this process with undue haste. I shall do no more than list them, since they were developed at earlier stages of the Bill. It is, however, important to do so.

31
Irradiation destroys vitamins. It damages the structure of food; if it did not, it would not be effective. It creates chemical processes whose long-term effects on humans are uncertain, to put it no higher. It does not of course make one glow in the dark, and I have little sympathy for protest groups which harp on dangers of radioactivity at the proposed dose, for which the evidence is minimal.
Irradiation is far from totally effective in protecting against hazards in food. Furthermore, the destruction of beneficial bacteria means that any contamination that takes place after food has been irradiated is that much more serious.
The evidence from safety studies is, I believe, a good deal less impressive than is often claimed. Epidemiological studies—that is, on populations exposed to irradiated food—are almost totally lacking. It is no argument to say that many people have been fed with such food if proper trials have not been conducted in order to discover what happened to those people. (Witness the dangers of smoking which were discovered after some 400 years.) Toxicology is an extremely imprecise science. Many of the animal studies relied upon would not meet current standards of evidence. Anyone who has looked at these matters will know that assurances of absolute safety can never be given, which makes all the more alarming some of the recent claims from the side of the Government. However, one looks, in the environmentally conscious 'nineties, for a rather firmer basis of relative safety, as some committees have pointed out. The major scientific database that underpins all the judgments on safety is a manifest shambles of disorganisation.
Then one has bias, mostly of the unconscious variety. Scientists will always want to play with their science, and technologists with their technology. They do not usually take kindly to those people with possibly a wider focus who want to be quite sure that they have it right first. That is especially true when they have something in their sights which they feel could be of great benefit to mankind. One can understand that situation. One of the things that worries me about the present debate is the enthusiasm, amounting almost to passion, in some pro-irradiation quarters. It is better to be dispassionate in matters that concern people's well-being.
There are reputable scientists and there have been reputable committees, including expert committees, who would not agree with what the Government are intending to do. If that were not the case, I would be foolhardy indeed to stand here and say what I have said. However, I am doubly strengthened by the observation that experts in this kind of field have a track record of blunders that makes me astonished that they can continue to give the assurances that they do without going bright red in the face. Since we last debated irradiation a week ago there have been two scientific findings that illustrate this point. We have been told for years that fluoride in the water supply at one part per million poses no danger to health. It has even been called a fake controversy. The latest American studies suggest that fluoride may cause cancer. The claims and enthusiasm for
32
fluoride have their counterparts in the irradiation debate. At Sellafield the often-denied connection between radiation and leukaemia in the local population appears now to have been made.
"Some of the doses implicated"—
I read in Saturday's Independent—
"are within the levels previously considered safe".
Does anyone sit down, I wonder, and examine the system that produces those wrong results—not merely wrong, but dangerous—with a view to understanding why it happens so often, and doing better next time? Shall we have to learn the hard way with food irradiation as well? To proceed now would be to go against the weight of public opinion in this country—a point which has already been made—and against the whole trend towards a fresher and more natural food supply and lifestyle.
I understand the arguments for consumer choice, as soon as (but not before) the safety issue is resolved; but I wonder whether the Minister has taken in the implications once irradiation is in the food supply. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has referred to some of them.
I have here an invitation to an official dinner which came the other day. Suppose irradiation were already a fact. What do I do about it? Do I ring up the secretary and say, "Are you having irradiated food?" He probably will not know. He probably will not know who the caterers are. Do I put it in my diary or do I not? Suppose a neighbour rings me up and says, "We should like both of you to come to Sunday lunch. We have some people we should like you to meet on Sunday". Do I ask, "Are you having irradiated food?" It is hardly a good social ploy. Do I keep a card index of friends and acquaintances who have irradiated food? Do I keep it up to date, constantly modified?
That is the everyday reality. Buying food for home cooking is the easy bit. I know all that because I went through it when I was allergic to a range of foods and drinks. In effect, the exercise of choice is just not possible unless one suffers the life of a hermit. Once irradiation is in the food supply, we are all in for it, whether we like it or not.
I am well aware that I have spoken more strongly than the amendment may warrant but that is because I believe that irradiation is a bigger issue than the Government have been willing to concede. I urge the Minister to accept this extremely modest amendment. 4.30 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, has not the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, terribly misled himself and is he not misleading us by taking one American report on fluoride, which suggests that it may cause cancer, and trying to leave in your Lordships' minds, presumably having it in his mind, that that will be the same for every other type of advance in the scientific processing of food or other things that we take into ourselves? He is thereby implying that that will apply equally and precisely to irradiation, upon which we are well aware that studies have been continuing for 20 years. We do not even know whether the American report was a one-off which happened to hit the press and whether it is substantiated. It is

33
dangerous for your Lordships to be given the thought, without the noble Earl having said so, that the position would be the same. I hope that your Lordships will view cautiously what he said in that manner.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am most grateful for the last words of my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I cannot compete with my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham or the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, but in 1985 when I became a junior Minister in the then DHSS I was given the in-house responsibility for ionising radiation of food. I thus have quite a long pedigree of familiarisation with that process. I have had the opportunity, for instance, of seeing the excellent research undertaken in Northern Ireland. I have had plenty of opportunity to question and to be informed. My conviction as to the safety and Tightness of the process is thus, I submit, well-founded.
Following what the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said, I must say that my regret that the process was named "irradiation" has proved to be right. If for instance it was called long-life food, or even food ionising or whatever, I wonder whether we should be gathered here today querying a process of scientifically proven safety. I arrived at MAFF in 1987 asking, "When are we going to bring in food irradiation?"
I have listened most carefully to what has been said today, at various stages of the Bill and in our debate; and I must say that it was a novel experience for me to be squeezed into the dinner hour. On the question of delaying the introduction of irradiation until agreement is reached on the proposed European Council directive, I recall that my noble friend Lord Middleton described the recommendation in his sub-committee's report to this effect as,
"consistent with the Committees' cautious approach".
I was particularly struck by the comment of my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour at the Committee stage. She indicated that when the committee agreed that recommendation she was under the impression—which she believed she shared with other members—that Community agreement was imminent. She went on to say that, if that were not the case, she could understand the Government's point in proceeding.
I believe that it would be wrong for the Government to allow their hands to be tied by the amendment for a number of reasons. First, the difficulties in Europe are political. They do not concern the safety of the process. Secondly, the technical standards applied to irradiation are not in dispute in Brussels. We shall be able to anticipate them and therefore there is no question of the United Kingdom introducing a different standard. Thirdly, if other provisions, such as the type of food to be irradiated, are subsequently agreed for the European Community as a whole they will obviously be incorporated into our own domestic regime. Fourthly, we need to act now to make available a safe and effective alternative treatment for the decontamination of herbs and spices. Fumigation by ethylene oxide will cease to be allowed within the
34
Community at the end of this year. There is widespread support for the use of irradiation for that purpose. Fifthly, and most importantly, the Government believe that irradiation offers real public health benefits through enhanced food safety.
There are few in the Government who support the European ideal more warmly than my right honourable friend the Minister. However, Community agreement on the directive in question is some way off. If the amendment were to be accepted we should be giving Ministers in other member states power to decide upon the timing of the introduction of food irradiation here even though some of them have already felt it appropriate to introduce it for their own consumers. We should thus be abrogating our right to take our own decisions in areas not yet covered by harmonised arrangements. That was a point most ably made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham.
We should also be putting ourselves in the position that we should be unable to take a decision until all others had done so. As I have previously made clear, the Government concur fully in the wish to have one harmonised set of rules across the whole EC. We very much hope that the current deadlock in Brussels will be broken soon; but, as I said in our debate on the sub-committee's report, it would be a brave Minister who would now risk a forecast as to when agreement might be reached.
I also cannot help feeling that the amendment is spurious. Members of your Lordships' House who oppose the process have given up their attempt to attack irradiation on its merits as an issue of food safety. There is a recognition, which is borne out by the recommendations of the sub-committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Middleton, that irradiation under carefully controlled conditions, including proper labelling, has a role to play in improving food safety. Moreover, the Government are required to consult on their detailed proposals for regulations and to set them out in a statutory instrument which will be laid before the House. In those circumstances, I feel that this is a spurious, delaying amendment, with the undesirable constitutional overtones that I have already described.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, mentioned Professor Lacey. I am aware of the claims made on television last week about the effect of irradiation upon listeria in poultry meat. I can only say that these claims are in complete conflict with the published findings of research at Queen's University, Belfast, and elsewhere. The published research shows that the level of dose envisaged for poultry meat will bring about a very significant reduction in listeria numbers, a reduction of about 90 per cent., in fact. These published results are supported by the findings of research conducted by my department which have not yet been published in full.
I shall be very interested to look into the claims. It is slightly unusual to give a new scientific finding on a television programme without having first written scientific papers to support it. I can inform the House that as soon as we became aware of these claims we wrote asking for full details to be supplied to us as soon as possible. I should add that statements made on that particular programme about listeria's

35
ability to grow at low temperatures are nothing new. This particular property of the bacterium is very well known. That is one of the reasons for the stress which the Government have laid all along on the need for good hygienic practices and close attention to temperature control following irradiation.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, mentioned the problem of labelling in restaurants. The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, also spoke on the same subject. The noble Viscount is quite wrong to suggest that we are having problems over labelling in catering establishments. We have made it quite clear that we shall provide for that and we are consulting widely over it. In any event the proposed EC directive does not cover that point. The Government will have to work out the UK solution to this issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said that we must not get out of step with Europe. I could not agree with him more. I see no reason whatever to delay in providing enhanced food safety and in providing British consumers with the choice already available to French, Belgium, Italian and Netherlands consumers. That means that the millions of British holidaymakers in Europe, perhaps even the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, may already be eating irradiated food.
But what have your Lordships to fear? As I have said before, there will be no compulsion for the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, or indeed anybody else, to eat food treated with ionising radiation. Consumer choice is the name of the game. The likelihood is that very few foods will be irradiated. Indeed at the moment there are many foods for which the process is not suitable, but it is suitable for poultry meat, shellfish and herbs and spices. These are all important uses of irradiation from a food safety point of view. We shall provide for full and clear labelling. We shall not relax our efforts to make food as safe as possible, but irradiation is such a valuable adjunct to our armoury that we would be wrong to delay. When the Community reaches agreement on this matter, should our rules differ we will of course amend them, as will France, Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands. For all these reasons I cannot accept this amendment.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The noble Baroness said that the difficulties in Europe are political. I imagine that most difficulties in Europe are political. I am not absoluely sure what she meant. All I am saying concerning this amendment is that we should wait until Europe resolves whatever its difficulties are even if they are political. However, I fancy that they are more than that.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, asked why we should be dictated to by Europe as to what food we should and should not have. As I understand it, the truth of the matter is that we are in Europe and the result is that we shall have some measure of dictation concerning what we have and do not have in the way of food and other things. I do not believe that that will be bad in all cases.
36
This is a very limited amendment. The noble Baroness has been eloquent but she has not answered all my points by any means though she has clarified some. A great many people in the country have expressed concern not about the safety of the measure but about the haste with which the Government are engaged in bringing in the process. I would not be responding to my responsibilities and it would be unfair of me if I let the matter go. I shall have to put the amendment to your Lordships' House for a decision.
4.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 76; Not-Contents, 120.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kennet, L.

Amherst, E.

Listowel, E.

Ardwick, L.

Lockwood, B.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Longford, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mais, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monkswell, L.

Monson, L.

Carter, L.

Mulley, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Northfield, L.

Cobbold, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Peston, L.

Craigavon, V.

Phillips, B.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Raglan, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Ezra, L.

Seear, B.

Falkland, V. [Teller.]

Serota, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Shackleton, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stallard, L.

Galpern, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grey, E.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hunt, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

John-Mackie, L,

Kearton, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Blatch, B.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Blyth, L.

Aldington, L.

Boardman, L.

Allerton, L.

Borthwick, L.

Arran, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Auckland, L.

Butterworth, L.

Aylestone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Balfour, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Beloff, L.

Carnock, L.

Belstead, L.

Cawley, L.

Bessborough, E.

Coleraine, L.

37

Colnbrook, L.

Margadale, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Marsh, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cox, B.

Mersey, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Milverton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Monk Bretton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Diamond, L.

Mottistone, L.

Elibank, L.

Mountevans, L.

Elles, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Munster, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Newall, L.

Erne, E.

Norrie, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pennock, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gisborough, L.

Polwarth, L.

Goold, L.

Pym, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Reay, L.

Marylebone, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rodney, L.

Havers, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Henley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hesketh, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hirshfield, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hives L.

Seebohm, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Selborne, E.

Hood, V.

Shannon, E.

Hooper, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stedman, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strange, B.

Joseph, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Killearn, L.

Kimball, L.

Strathspey, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Sudeley, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Swinton, E.

Layton, L.

Terrington, L.

Long, V.

Teviot, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lyell, L.

Trefgarne, L.

McCollof Dulwich, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Ullswater, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wise, L.

Manton, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 28 [Appointment of public analysts]:
4.53 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 20, line 17, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (1) above").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7.
Noble Lords may recall that in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Carter, moved an amendment to enable public analysts to continue to undertake analytical work on behalf of food businesses. At that time, I did not believe there was a problem about the drafting of Clause 28(2) which called for an amendment. However, I undertook to look in to the matter and write to the noble Lord. As a result, we came to the conclusion that these three amendments are needed.
On reflection, we consider that it would be prudent to be able to remove any doubt as to what activities
38
fall foul of the prohibition on public analysts' involvement in food businesses. We propose to do this by providing a regulation-making power. We intend that such regulations will list what activities will preclude people from acting as a public analyst. It is difficult to set out an exhaustive list and the use of regulations rather than the Bill will enable adjustments to be made more easily to the list. Examples of what we would propose to include initially are directorships of food businesses, full-time or part-time employment in such a business and retainers accepted from such a business. I assure noble Lords that we do not intend generally to prevent public analysts from undertaking work for food businesses on an ad hoc basis. However, we need to be sure that there are appropriate arrangements to avoid conflicts of interest. In drafting the regulations there will of course be full consultation with interested organisations in the usual way.
We wish also to make a change to Clause 31 which will allow for official samples to be passed on where the analyst feels there may be a conflict of interests as well as in the circumstances already provided for in the current text, such as lack of expertise or appropriate equipment. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the amendment. I recognise the difficulty the Minister has had with the clause and subsection. There is still a degree of imprecision in the wording. I presume that this will be taken care of in the regulations. We shall look at those very carefully when they come before us.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 20, line 19, at end insert ("; and in subsection (2) above the reference to being engaged directly or indirectly in a food business includes a reference to having made such arrangements with a food business as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Ministers").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Analysis etc. of samples]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 21, line 17, leave out ("an effective") and insert ("the").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Time Limit for prosecutions]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 24, line 28, at end insert—
("; and unless there has been served on the person charged a notice in writing of the date and nature of the offence alleged, such notice to be served before the expiration of the period of thirty days beginning with the date when evidence which the person proposing to institute the proceedings considers is sufficient to justify a prosecution for the offence came to his knowledge.
(2) Such a notice as is mentioned in subsection (1) above may be served on any person either by serving it on him personally or by sending it to him by post at his usual or last known residence or place of business in the United Kingdom or, in the case of a company, at the company's registered office.

39
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) above—

(a) a certificate of a person who institutes proceedings for an offence mentioned in that subsection which states that evidence came to his knowledge on a particular date shall be conclusive evidence of that fact; and

(b) a document purporting to be a certificate of such a person and to be signed by him or on his behalf shall be presumed to be such a certificate unless the contrary is proved".).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like again to thank my noble friend the Minister for the series of fairly concentrated discussions that have taken place since we last discussed the subject matter of the amendment. I am most grateful to her. I return to this amendment because I feel that some misunderstandings arose during our discussions at Report stage. For example, my noble friend suggested at one time that the amendment sought to give special protection to food manufacturers, importers and sellers. That was not the intention; and the amendment, if noble Lords were minded to accept it, does not seek to do so either.
The amendment seeks to insist that enforcement authorities investigating a complaint should notify formally within a reasonable length of time any likely plaintiff that an investigation is being undertaken. There are a number of examples of where enforcement authorities have not instituted legal proceedings—indeed it was not necessary for them so to do—until some months after they became aware of evidence. I suggest that such delay may have been due to shortage of resources or because of a queueing system. Whatever the reason, delay makes it difficult for the plaintiff to conduct internal investigations when many events will have taken place since the offence was perceived to have been committed.
I believe that an amendment requiring enforcement authorities to give notice within a very short space of time that they are minded to carry out an investigation which may lead to allegations is only right. The requirement would be there to help the plaintiff in making his own examinations and in carrying out his own internal inquiries. Whatever the outcome of the enforcement officer's investigation may be, that can only make more clear either a prosecution or, indeed, a defence. I trust that I have made the intentions of the amendment quite clear. I commend it to your Lordships' House.
5 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment. Unless this is agreed to, how can an individual who is being prosecuted possibly prepare an adequate defence in respect of an offence which is most probably a minor offence and, what is more, almost certainly an accidental one, allegedly committed as long as three years previously?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth for the remarks he made. As I said before, I think that the time limits in the legislation are reasonable. Therefore, I should be reluctant to see them effectively undermined by the qualification proposed in the amendment. As my noble friend said, we have discussed many of the potential
40
problems together. However, we should like to give some further thought to one aspect of the problem raised by him.
If an environmental health officer or a trading standards officer undertakes an inspection of premises, the owner is on notice that if all is not in order he may be prosecuted. If he takes a sample, regulations under Clause 32(2)(e) provide that he gives notice of the fact to the "persons in charge". We can look at the problems described by my noble friend in making any such regulations. If a prosecution stems from a complaint by a consumer and the proprietor is not aware of it, I can see that it may be difficult for him to defend himself later when proceedings are taken against him.
However, perhaps I should say that I believe the enforcement officer would usually visit the business promptly when he receives a significant complaint to check the position. Moreover, I am assured that most, if not all, authorities already operate procedures whereby the proprietor or the person in charge would be informed of a complaint. But if there is a problem it seems to me that it may be suitable to address it in a code of practice for enforcement authorities and not in the Bill. I undertake that we shall look at the matter in that context.
I should perhaps add that in all such cases the enforcement officer would normally interview the proprietor or other person in charge. If he wished to use the replies of the interviewee he would have to caution him first and explain the nature of the complaint in accordance with the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. If he did not caution the interviewee, the replies would not normally be admitted as evidence by the court. If there are problems in practice about which my noble friend is aware, I should be most grateful if he would let me have full details of them. I ask for such details because it is very difficult to judge from anecdotal evidence. I should be very glad if he would write to me giving me chapter and verse. I hope thereby that we can settle this problem—if, indeed, it is a problem—once and for all. In the circumstances, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful for the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. He underlined the fact that there is a serious matter under consideration here. I am also grateful to my noble friend the Minister for what she said. Of course I shall respond to her invitation to provide chapter and verse of those cases which have been brought to my attention where, I believe, it would have been more helpful had a more prompt response been made by the trading standards officers or others.
I listened carefully to what my noble friend said with regard to what a court may take note of. I was reminded of the discussions we had over defences which were available to manufacturers and retailers. It seems to me that we should be looking at the problem which I have outlined to your Lordships with that aspect in mind. Whether a visit is made promptly is perhaps by the way; what I seek is

41
an assurance that my noble friend will embrace somewhere the requirement to give formal notice.
My noble friend has given an undertaking to give further thought to one particular aspect and also to what may be contained in a code of practice, which is provided for in Clause 41. I am grateful to her for that consideration. Therefore, I do not wish to proceed further with the matter this afternoon. However, I hope that before the Bill becomes enacted we may actually see what is in my mind on the face of the legislation rather than in one of a number of codes.
I shall beg leave to withdraw my amendment shortly, but since I am on my feet and since I do not propose to take part in the next stage of the Bill's proceedings, I wonder whether your Lordships would allow me to thank my noble friend the Minister for her courtesy throughout the proceedings. She has certainly helped me over a number of problems. I should also like to thank her for her unfailing humour during at least two rather long late-night sittings on the Bill.
I do not know whether your Lordships noticed the fact that during the Report stage we had—and I think for the first time in Parliament—the unique and extremely pleasurable attendance of three noble Baronesses conducting the proceedings on the Bill. We should perhaps mark that fact. Indeed I was reminded on one occasion of the Gilbert and Sullivan operetta "The Mikado" and especially "Three little maids … are we". I can only say that although those three little maids may have been wary, I suspect that our three little maids who conducted the proceedings on the Bill were not unwary of what lay before them. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
This important Bill which brings together legislation covering the whole of Great Britain received a broad welcome from all sides of your Lordships' House on Second Reading. That positive response continued through most of the subsequent discussions. The spirit of co-operation has also been most evident within the government team. I must pay tribute to the very valuable contributions made by my noble friends Lady Hooper, Lady Blatch and Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne. It was especially pleasant to reactivate the old team of "Little and Large", particularly when my noble friend Lady Hooper has a great deal of other legislation with which to preoccupy her.
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth has slightly stolen my thunder because I was going to say that we had created a little piece of history. Opposition Peers must have been terrified at being faced with not one, not two, but three battling Baronesses for the first time. I venture to add that the Lords show the Commons the way.
I also wish to thank the noble Lords, Lord Gallacher, Lord Carter and Lord Tordoff, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for their unfailing
42
courtesy and good humour. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, also deserve my thanks. Your Lordships have put a lot of careful work into the Bill and this is shown by the fact that we made about a hundred amendments to it. Last but certainly not least, I wish to thank all those officials and my private secretary for their hard work and for putting up with me through what I might call thick and thin. I have also learnt an enormous amount about a wide range of subjects such as elvers, guar gum, Mr. Babbage's differentiating engine and some things that I should have preferred not to discuss so soon after dinner!
Your Lordships are well aware that the Bill contains a considerable number of enabling powers. We have looked at some length at the way in which secondary legislation is scrutinised by interested parties, with the help of a number of your Lordships on both sides of the House, including my noble friend Lord Mottistone, who moved the first amendment on the subject. The Government brought a comprehensive amendment at Report stage to extend the provision for consultation and this received a positive response.
The issue which we discussed for longest and in the greatest depth was food irradiation. We had the benefit of the debate on the report of your Lordships' committee, chaired by my noble friend Lord Middleton. I hope that I was able to reply to some of the concerns expressed by explaining the Government's intention and the World Health Organisation's view that food irradiation has real potential for reducing food poisoning. I also emphasised our commitment to consumer choice. In this context that means making available irradiated food under strict controls and ensuring that it is properly labelled so that the consumer can make an informed choice.
I thank your Lordships very much for the close scrutiny that has been made of the Bill. I commend it to the House and wish it God speed to another place.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition I wish to express our thanks to the Government for the manner in which the Bill has been handled in your Lordships' House. On Second Reading, it received what is popularly known as all-party support; that is to say, on all sides of your Lordships' House the speeches were strongly in favour of the Bill, complimentary about its purpose and complimentary also about the skill with which it had been drafted. The compliments about drafting skill, however, did not extend to the Committee stage because your Lordships managed to devise more than 180 amendments to table to the Bill. Some of them, I am glad to say, were accepted by Her Majesty's Government. Unfortunately some of the better amendments were not. Needless to say, most of the better amendments were tabled by Her Majesty's Opposition.

43
I too noticed with considerable alarm the composition of the Government's half-back line on Report. I wondered whether I had strayed by some mischance into a ladies' night but I realised to my consternation that I had not. My consternation gave way to regret that I had failed on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition to table as many amendments on Report as I had been urged to do. It was not that I wanted the honour and glory of moving them; it was simply that I felt that if I had tabled more I should have had my wrist metaphorically slapped far more often than I did. That said, however, I congratulate the noble Baroness particularly on the skilled way in which she handled the Bill and her two assistants for their backing aid, which I thought was of a most exemplary character.
I also wish to thank my colleague, my noble friend Lord Carter, for his support, and to congratulate speakers on all sides of the House for the expeditious way in which they dealt with the Bill. Other noble Lords, please copy! Like the noble Baroness, I wish the Bill well in the other place. I do not think that it will have quite as untroubled a passage, from what I hear. Nevertheless, we have set them a good example. The purpose of the Bill is first class and I hope that it soon passes into law.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, from these Benches perhaps I may join in thanking the noble Baroness and her team, both inside and outside the House. I hope it is not improper to say so, but having had the opportunity of discussing certain amendments with the noble Baroness I found myself confronted with an entirely female team of assistants and officials. This potential sixsome is formidable indeed. Nevertheless, they were a group of people prepared to listen to what was said to them and to agree, where they felt it was possible to agree, and to bring back amendments in the name of the Government, for which I am extremely grateful.
There are still some matters which we should have liked to see in the Bill, such as, the independent food agency for which my noble friend Lord Ezra pressed. He also would have liked to see trading standards officers more fully integrated into the system. I raised this splendid hare of "superglue" meat, as it was subsequently referred to, which seemed to hit the popular press at an amazing rate during the week. That culminated, I may say, in the ultimate situation of being discussed by Ms. Katherine Whitehorn in the newspaper the Observer yesterday. I could not have put it better myself, except that I think I did. She said:
"there isn't anything intrinsically more wicked about using up little pieces of meat in this way, than there is about using bits of pig's cheek to make brawn—provided that we know what we are getting".
That has been the theme running through many of the amendments that have been debated in your Lordships' House—the fact that consumers ought to be aware of what product they are getting, what it contains and how it is made. I think that we have gone some way towards that.
I understand that my honourable friend the Member for Truro in another place has received
44
some Answers to a number of Written Questions in the last 24 hours. I am glad to say that the tone of the Minister's reply is at least reassuring. I note in particular that the labelling rules which he talked about will apply equally to catering supplies as they do to retail sales. This is talking specifically about meat bonded together with blood plasma. I am not sure whether it is worse to mention this before or after supper!
I believe that it was important to raise this matter. I hope that the Government will keep a beady eye on it. Again, the trading standards officers are somewhat worried as to whether the provisions in the Bill will be adequate to deal with the problem as it develops. It is a matter which I believe the noble Baroness has agreed to discuss further with me in the period between the Bill leaving this House and reaching the other place.
Once again I wish to thank the Minister for the great help that she gave, particularly in relation to the freedom of information amendments which we discussed before the Committee stage. She came back at Report stage with her own amendments on that. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is still worrying about removing manufacturing processes from the face of the Bill. I sincerely believe that he is mistaken and that the problems which he genuinely has are covered by the trade secrets legislation rather than merely manufacturing processes. Any matter which is secret to a process will of course be maintained as a secret, except in the most dire circumstances when the Minister can override that.
All we have done is to stop manufacturing processes which are not secret being revealed to the public in the cause of public safety. I hope that eventually the noble Lord will be able to accept that, although I see him looking fiercely at me; so perhaps he is not yet in that position. Once again I thank the Minister for the Bill, which will do much good for food safety, provided that it does all that the Government intend it to do.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I too wish to thank my noble friends Lady Trumpington and Lady Hooper for the courteous way in which they have handled the Bill and for the many amendments they have either accepted as they were or to which they have tabled amendments of their own. I also thank them for the way in which they have written good letters to try to put my mind at rest on certain matters. The Bill is a good Bill. However, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, brought up the matter of Clause 33(7) as I was not proposing to do so. What he had to say was in my opinion misguided. I believe he only introduced that matter as a kind of token. It is unfortunate that manufacturing processes will not be treated in the ways they have been heretofore. However, that is another matter. I hope that the Bill proceeds well through another place and that it is not mucked about. I hope that the point on manufacturing processes will be brought back into the Bill in another place. In all other respects I wish the Bill well.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Social Charter: ECC Report
5.21 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on a Community social charter (3rd Report, HL Paper 6).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall begin by thanking those who have put down their names to speak in this debate which shows every sign of being an interesting one. It may be one-sided but we shall see whether that is the case. The report is one in which the practice was followed of publishing a version with the evidence and another shorter version without the evidence. I hope that that practice is found to be useful.
The committee's inquiry into the Community's proposals for a social charter could not begin until after the Summer Recess. The House will recall that the Government are committed to delaying agreement on Community proposals until both Houses have had an opportunity to comment. As the European Communities Committee has a responsibility to make its conclusions known before a final decision is taken by the Council of Ministers, that meant that this time the committee had to aim at reporting before the European Council on 8th and 9th December of last year.
Although the inquiry was therefore quite short, the sub-committee concerned, Sub-Committee C, had an opportunity to hear the key witnesses, including the Minister of State from the Department of Employment, Mr. Eggar, and informally those from the European Commission. The committee, as ever, is greatly obliged to the witnesses for their help. It is also indebted to its clerk, Mr. William Sleath, for his helpful service.
At the European Council in December the social charter was adopted by 11 member states. The United Kingdom was alone in dissenting. However, that is not the end of the story. Indeed in a sense it is only the beginning. There is general acceptance, as the conclusions at the Madrid summit made clear, that there is a social dimension to the internal market. Over the coming years the implementation of that social dimension is likely to remain near the top of the Community's agenda. The United Kingdom Government for their part would, I know, put special emphasis on the conclusion at the Madrid summit that for the well-being of Community citizens priority must be given to the creation of jobs. However, the Commission, with the approval of the 11 other member states, sees an important role, subject to that overriding aim, in formulating proposals to make a reality of the charter. In passing I should say that our report made the point that, along with full United Kingdom membership of the European monetary system, adoption of the social charter, whether one likes it or not, has become something of a touchstone for judging the United Kingdom's commitment to the development of the Community.
The first draft of the charter appeared in May of last year and further drafts followed in September and October. It is the October draft on which the
46
committee's inquiry was based. The draft is printed with the report. It showed considerable differences from the earlier versions. However, the member states were not given much opportunity to negotiate on this final version. The committee believes that more time should have been allowed for ironing out remaining problems in the text. However, the French presidency and the Commission were adamant that the charter should be discussed, and if possible settled, at the December meeting of the Council. Perhaps they were influenced by what they regarded as a failure on the part of the charter's critics to respond to the compromises which appeared in the October draft.
The introduction to our report tries to summarise the 12 categories of fundamental social rights which are set out in the charter. Some of these are not controversial. I think that all our witnesses accepted that health and safety provision, equal treatment for men and women, freedom of movement and vocational training are all legitimate areas if there is to be a charter at all. There are also some absentees. There is nothing about mandatory worker representation on all boards and young boys will still be able to deliver our morning newspapers. Those are two matters on which there had been a lot of anticipatory comment in this country. However, there are certainly other elements in the charter which are calculated to provoke more argument; for example, part-time work and minimum rights to annual paid leave.
Our report recognised that there was a perfectly understandable groundswell of support in other member states for some form of social charter which would look to benefits for workers, children, the elderly and the disabled as well as those accruing from the market to shareholders and managers. At the same time we recognised the feeling of the United Kingdom Government that more restrictions and rules would be likely to result in more loss of jobs and more unemployment. But for our part we found it hard to accept that a social charter necessarily implied a mandate for unrealistic regulation which could smother economic growth. We noted that the preamble to the charter recognises in terms that employment development and creation must be given first priority. We noted also that what was in contemplation was acceptable to the Germans, the French and the Italians, who are hardly less interested than we are in economic growth.
The general principle underlying our report mirrored that of the Select Committee's recent findings on the Delors Report, that the United Kingdom would have a greater say on the social charter in particular and on the future of the Community in general if it could persuade its partners that it was fully committed to the Community. That was one reason why the report recommended that the Government should accept the draft as a basis for negotiation. That did not mean that the committee believed the final draft of the charter to be faultless. It did not embrace the charter with, say, the enthusiasm of the Labour Party, whose fervour led it to take the significant step of abandoning the closed shop. Rather, we believe that a commitment by the Government to work towards

47
a compromise on the text would have allowed them to carry more weight in suggesting improvements. As it was the Government were forced into isolation.
The report argues that the charter should have been a statement of generally accepted principles, for the most part contained in existing Community law or in international agreements. The report also argues that some detailed provisions still feature in the final draft which sit rather uncomfortably in their surroundings; for example, some of the provisions about children and adolescents. We believe that that material would have been better left out. Such material in the charter itself tends to prejudge issues which are more suited to detailed legislation, whether at Community or national level. The exclusion of the material would have made the charter, in our view, more consistent. in tone and form as a statement of generally accepted principles.
Although under the final version of the charter responsibility for implementation is to be divided between member states, the Community and employers and others responsible at local level, the charter itself does not spell out where the dividing lines are to be. Some of the rights in the charter were to be the subject of proposals from the Commission; others were not. The choice in the end will be determined by the Treaty of Rome as amended by the Single European Act and within that framework by the principle underlined at the Madrid summit of subsidiarity—namely, that action should be taken at Community level only when the objective can be better reached in that way than by leaving the matter to member states.
It was quite clear to us in the course of our inquiry that, although the latest text of the charter acknowledges subsidiarity and also respect for national practices, critics feared that the failure of the charter itself to specify at what level each proposal would be implemented would mean that in the event more action would inevitably be taken at Community level. That is why we recommended that the charter should have provided explicitly that its adoption would not affect or prejudice the question of legislative competence to implement its provisions. We felt that had that been done it might have allayed to some extent fears that the charter was designed to pre-empt decisions in areas of disputed competence.
The committee's report was written before the Commission issued its action programme to implement the charter, although we had some informal indication of what was in prospect. That programme, now that we have it, does a good deal to clarify the proposed divisions of responsibility. The programme consists of 43 new initiatives, of which 17 are for legally binding directives. The idea would be to spread the programme over the next three years. The proposed legally binding directives are certainly not limited to uncontroversial areas. However, at the same time some of the topics which could have proved to be controversial are to be left to member states to implement. In particular, wage-setting is described in the programme as a matter for the member states and the two sides of industry alone. The Commission proposes to limit
48
itselt to expressing an opinion which will impose no legal obligation.
In a Written Answer to a Question on 15th January (at col. 511 of Hansard) the noble Lord who is to answer the debate said that the United Kingdom Government had been unable to support the proposals for a charter and that the charter was therefore not applicable in the United Kingdom. I believe that the Minister would readily agree that that does not dispose of the issue and that the United Kingdom will not be able to simply ignore proposals for action in the areas covered by the charter. For one thing the comparison between the charter and existing international and Community obligations, which for convenience we set out in the appendix to the report, shows that the United Kingdom is already committed to much of the charter's contents.
The United Kingdom's decision to reject the charter has no effect on the power of the Commission to submit proposals to the Council of Ministers on the lines it has indicated. Indeed, the Prime Minister herself said in a written reply on 13th February in another place that the Commission had the right to make proposals on any matters falling within the competence of the Community. No doubt when the time comes the United Kingdom, along with other member states, will engage in the usual vigorous negotiation of every proposal made. There are indications that some of the other member states will have difficulties over some of the detailed proposals.
The United Kingdom, unlike the others, is not, as it were, morally committed to the principles enshrined in the charter, but the Government can hardly stand aside when the draft directives start to appear and refrain from arguing about content and competence. In some areas, probably including proposals dealing with health and safety, the powers likely to be invoked could mean that the council could act by qualified majority vote so that this country would be bound even though it might not have voted for the proposal in council.
As I said at the beginning, therefore, the story of the social charter is far from over. Perhaps I may make the modest claim that as the statements of intent in the charter are translated into proposals for action over the coming years, and as argument takes place over those proposals, this report may act as a useful summary of the arguments surrounding the charter at the time of its adoption. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on a Community social charter (3rd Report, HL Paper 6).—(Lord Allen of Abbeydale.)
5.37 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, we for our part should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and his committee on three counts: first, for the fascinating review in the report of opinions on the charter. Everything from the soaking wet to the positively dehydrated is there. It is a very good source for students of attitudes towards the charter. Secondly, and in some ways more importantly, we should like to thank them for the very balanced judgment with which they reached their conclusion

49
at the end of the report. They say that the Government should accept the present draft as a basis for negotiation. That is a very modest, reasonable and well argued conclusion. We feel that that is a very good way into the debate.
Thirdly, we should like to thank them for their account, particularly via the evidence put forward by the Minister of State, Mr. Eggar, following the speech made by the former Secretary of State, Mr. Fowler, on 29th November in another place, of Mrs. Thatcher's view of the social charter. That fills out the statement which the Prime Minister made to the Daily Mail in May last year:
"The Social Charter was a throwback to a Marxist period: a class struggle period".
Those Ministers who have been responsible for developing the Government's policy in relation to the social charter have been committed to developing that approach.
I want this evening, first, to analyse the Government's arguments for saying that the social charter is a throwback to the Marxist period—a period of class struggle—and then to specify the Opposition's position. If I misunderstand and misrepresent the Government's position, I know that the Minister will be quick to correct me.
As I understand it—this is an attempt to summarise the argument advanced by Mr. Eggar before the committee—there are three contentions. First, the social dimension now means improving the standard of living of citizens and workers in Europe by encouraging unrestricted competition rather than by encouraging social action; in other words, in the form of minimum standards of terms and conditions and minimum industrial rights. The social dimension, which everyone thought meant social action, now means competition. That astonishing argument derives from the fact that the remainder of the partners accepted, particularly at the Madrid Summit, various points in the preamble, notably, the reference to job creation as a top priority, together with the principle of subsidiarity and other points.
The Minister appears to suggest that, if the principle of job creation as a priority is included in the preamble, the remainder of the charter, including the action programme, is therefore inevitably what he calls a mish-mash of contradictions; and that the remainder of Europe is totally misguided in not appreciating that, when it allowed the Prime Minister to include the phrase "job creation", it torpedoed the rest of the charter. That seems to be the guts of the argument. Perhaps the Minister will tell me if I am wrong.
If that is the Government's argument, there are three points that I should make. First, why do the Government, Mr. Eggar, Sir Norman Fowler and the Prime Minister never give us any evidence that job creation can be maximised only if the labour market is totally deregulated, and that we are the only country in Europe to see that? Secondly, why do they grossly exaggerate the extent to which the charter and the action programme constitute a programme for regulation at European level?
50
The evidence advanced by Mr. Eggar in the committee's report was non-existent. He was asked at one stage whether he or the Government had made any estimate of the effect of the charter on jobs. He said that, unfortunately, they had not done so, but—as I understand it—that someone in the Commission had told him that that was the case. Unfortunately, we do not know who that was. It might have been the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield; that is the kind of thing that he would say. It might have been Sir Leon Brittan; that is the kind of thing that he might have said. It was not the Commissioner responsible, Mrs. Papandreou, although various attempts have been made on the Government's part to insinuate that she said precisely that. In fact, she said that no one could say one way or another. That is the conclusion to which anyone would come if they considered the objective evidence about the relationship between job creation and deregulation.
There are a number of kinds of evidence which I must list briefly for the House. There is the evidence on the non-wage side which is largely the Government's own evidence. In the early 1980s the Government asked the Department of Employment and the PSI to carry out a number of studies to see how far the existing employment protection facilities in this country discouraged employment. The answer was that most employers did not think that they had much to do with it, so the Government stopped inquiring.
Secondly, on the wage side and the question of whether job creation is minimised by regulation or deregulation, the Government sponsored and the Department of Employment paid for a number of studies into the abolition of wages councils to see whether their abolition had led to a growth in employment. The answer was that, although wages continued to decline, employment also continued to decline, so the Government stopped commissioning such studies. One might say that there was some international evidence of minimum wage regulation and its effect on job creation. The trouble is that, as is always the case with international studies, if one goes to one economist, one is given one set of arguments, but if one goes to another, one is given a quite separate set of arguments and the overall effect is magnificently inconclusive.
Thirdly, if one moves into the realm of economic theory, one finds those economists who on the whole support the Government, such as Professor Minford, who says that his model tells him that (deregulation creates jobs. However, one finds other economists, such as Deakin and Wilkinson who say that low wages are linked to high absenteeism, low productivity, little capital investment and a low rate of technical advance. The Government no longer pretend to cite any iron-clad evidence to suggest that deregulation creates jobs and regulation destroys jobs.
I turn now to the Government's gross exaggeration of the charter's supposed effects. When Mr. Eggar addressed the committee, he spoke as if the charter and the action programme involved a Community-wide minimum wage. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said, that is not the case. It will not be regulated across the Community

51
and regulations imposing minimum wages are not suggested either in the charter or in the action programme. Again, Mr. Eggar spoke as if all 43 items in the action programme produced regulations. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, reminded the House, that is not the case. Of the 17 directions, which are legally binding in some sense, 10 are concentrated in the area of health and safety. The Minister spoke at one time as though we had already adopted the qualified majority rule across the area covered by the social charter. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said, it appears that, if the qualified majority rule is to operate in the foreseeable future, it will do so in the area of health and safety and will not commit us legally to anything else in general at this time, if the Government desire to veto the results.
One can only turn therefore to the Government's record in their attitude towards not this social charter but previous documents and attempts on the Community's part to create a framework of social rights. One cannot explain the Government's attitude. One cannot explain the rejection—and I am sure that the Minister will refer to this point tonight—of the modest proposal in the committee's report that the Government should accept the present basis of the charter as a reason and basis for negotiation. One sees that against the background of the Government's 10-year campaign against the introduction of all kinds of social standards in the EC—their failure fully to implement the equal pay and equal treatment directive; their evasion of the transfer of undertakings directive; their blocking of all progress on the fifth directive; their blocking of the Vredeling directive; and their opposition to the Commission's proposals for protection in such areas as hazards including for example, benzene and carcinogens. One cannot understand that approach unless one sees it in the Government's terms; in other words, in terms of a large part of the legislation which they have put through the House.
Much as we should like to do so, we cannot believe that, if further modifications were made—and significant modifications were made at Madrid in an attempt to get the Government on board—the Government, under the Prime Minister, will reverse their policy of the past 10 years and accept any form of social regulation in the EC as a consequence of 1992.
So I come to the second observation that I want to make briefly in this House; namely, to define the position of the Opposition. I should like to make four points very quickly. First of all, we favour Britain adopting similar industrial rights, both individually and collectively, to those which at present apply in the best of EC countries. In other words, we believe in a levelling up and not a levelling down. We would rather follow the higher standards of countries in Europe than the lower standards.
Secondly, we do not accept—certainly the Government pray in aid no evidence—that the employment consequences of social justice, which is what it comes to, are so coercive, especially in 1992, that not only can we make no advances but, if we adopt the Government's policy, we must have continued deregulation.
52
Thirdly, in the case of collective rights—I hope that other speakers on this side of the House will have more time to develop this topic than I have—it is not so much a case of the social charter as the action programme. There is very little in the action programme which pertains to collective rights. Certainly there is very little which pertains to collective rights in a legally enforceable way. Therefore if one talks about collective rights in terms of the action programme, one has to look for a benchmark toward the standards of the ILO rather than to the standards of the action programme.
Finally, we believe that an across-the-board, community-wide approach is absolutely vital in this field. Given the existence of a single market, there has to be pressure toward a single structure of labour costs. There is bound to be pressure toward a single structure of labour costs. Without some commitment to common minimum standards, however slowly and however subject to local variation, that pressure will be downwards. Therefore, to us the alternative to social dumping is social regulation and if it is a choice between social dumping and social regulation we go for social regulation.
With a few moments to spare I come to the question of the closed shop. Whenever that matter is debated noble Lords opposite and Members in another place seem to be particularly concerned that the Labour Party should find time to explain its position on the closed shop. I must therefore beg leave of the House to spend a few moments on this matter.
It seems to me that the argument concerning trade union membership as a condition of employment is entering a third phase. The first phase began in effect with the Mogul case at the turn of the century and ended in 1971. Then the argument was that since the House of Lords had said that an employer's closed shop was perfectly lawful, that employers could discriminate, keep out, refuse entry and expel so long as they were motivated by the desire to defend their trading interests, then what was right for employers was right for unions and what was needed by employers was needed by working men and working women. That was the position and our position until the 1971 Industrial Relations Act when a previous Conservative Government introduced the concept of unfair dismissal.
The issue then was whether unfair dismissal should cover dismissal on grounds of union membership. At that time and indeed until the entry into office of this Government the general position was that under certain conditions dismissal on grounds of refusal to belong to a trade union would be fair. If certain arrangements were made for conscientious objection, we might argue about the extent of that. If certain alternatives were offered, perhaps an agency shop, we might argue about that. But the position of the major political parties from 1971 to 1979 was that within that general framework union non-membership was a ground for fair dismissal. That was the position until the present Government sought to undermine it in what we regarded as a partisan way.
We would argue that that two-act drama—if drama it be—has now been changed by the

53
emergence of the social charter. The social charter offers workers a series of individual and collective rights: the right to collective bargaining, the right to recognition and the right not to be refused a job on grounds of being a trade unionist, not merely on grounds of not being a trade unionist. Yet Section 11 of the social charter says quite simply that "freedom to join or not to join" has to be protected and must not be visited with "any personal or occupational damage". Of course it does say—as the Government do not like to be reminded—that it is not only freedom to join or not to join a trade union but freedom to join or not to join a professional association. That is something which the Government do not mention. They do not and have not included it in their Bill in another place.
We have taken the view that the social charter is not an à la carte menu; it is table d'hôte. If one accepts the social charter in general, one has to accept each one of the headings. If the social charter gives freedom to join or not to join without any personal or occupational damage, then that must be accepted. That is the position of our party. Therefore we say that so long as it applies to trade unions and professional associations, so long as the rights on both sides are genuinely equal, so long as they cover trade union activists as well as trade unionists and so long as they cover blacklists on both sides, then the direct justification of membership or non-employment is no longer possible under the terms of the social charter.
In conclusion, I should have thought that there is a degree of flexibility which the Government would welcome. No doubt the Minister would welcome a more flexible position if he were able to adopt it. No doubt he would like nothing better. His problem of course is the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister still believes that the social charter is the final expression of Marxism and he is stuck with the consequences.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I was interested but not altogether convinced by the exposition of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy—or should I call it perhaps a rationalisation—of the Labour Party's position on the closed shop. But I do not propose to follow him down that road except to say that the opposition of my party, particularly to the pre-entry closed shop, is well known. I think there is no need for me to elaborate on it now.
The opinion of Sub-Committee C, on which I had the honour to serve during this inquiry, has been so well explained by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, that there is little that I need add on the general position. Perhaps I may simply support most strongly the proposition that this country should adopt a positive approach to the charter by seeking through negotiation to adapt it to industrial conditions in this country. In my view the pace at which political and economic change in Eastern Europe has occurred since the report was published makes it all the more desirable that the United Kingdom should demonstrate its commitment to the development of the Community in this way.
54
The part of the charter on which I wish to speak is Section 17, dealing with information, consultation and participation for workers. In that section the key paragraph reads:
"Information, consultation and participation for workers must be developed along appropriate lines, taking account of the practices in force in the various Member States".
That phrase stems from the Fifth Company Law Directive. It is significant that it is also reflected in the proposal for a Council directive complementing the European Company Statute which is now being considered by an ad hoc sub-committee of your Lordships' European Communities Committee.
Under Article 6 of that directive one of the possible options that could in certain circumstances become available to any European companies that might be formed is what is called a standard model of participation, which must be,
"in conformity with the most advanced national practices".
That is a concept that I welcome. It has long seemed to me that in the field of employee involvement our aim should be to improve this country's international competitiveness by building on the practices already operating, if not in European companies, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, seemed to be saying, at least in our own more progressive companies.
To that end, in 1982 I was privileged to introduce an amendment to the Employment Bill of that year which was accepted in principle by the Government and eventually became Section 1 of the Employment Act 1982. Your Lordships will recall that that is the section which makes it a statutory requirement for any company employing more than 250 people in the UK to include in its annual report a statement describing the action that it has taken during the financial year to develop arrangements aimed broadly at providing employees with informtion on matters of concern to them, consulting employees or their representatives so that their views can be taken into account in making decisions affecting their interest and encouraging the involvement of employees in the company's performance through a share scheme or other means.
Just before the section came into force on 1st January 1984 the then Secretary of State declared that he would be watching developments closely and would be profoundly disappointed if it appeared that even a minority of employers appeared to be willing, by inactivity, to provide ammunition for those who agreed that prescriptive legislation such as that which would be imposed by the draft Vredeling and Fifth Company Law Directives was the only way of achieving progress. Yet according to a report published by the British Institute of Management last year, there is now general agreement that the requirement to make such statements has had little practical effect. Surely the time has come to make it obligatory that at the very least in all UK companies employing more than a certain number of people there should be consultative bodies of some kind.
Against that background I find it depressing to learn from the evidence of Mr. Tim Eggar, the Minister of State for Employment, to Sub-Committee C that the Government are still

55
averse to any further legislation in this field. In its evidence earlier this month to the sub-committee inquiring into the proposed European Company Statute and Council Directive, the CBI also stated that it was still its view that arrangements for employee involvement were best left to voluntary agreement between employers and employees.
Fortunately not all employers are so slow moving in their attitude. I have been encouraged to learn, for example, that the British Institute of Management has proposed what it calls a UK option under which public companies employing more than 1,000 people would give influence at board level by granting the same right as shareholders collectively by means of a trust which would be deemed to have sufficient equity to call an extraordinary general meeting or to put items on the agenda for an AGM. For this purpose, the deemed level of equity would be that defined in the fifth directive as 5 per cent. of subscribed capital or 100,000 ecu. The Involvement and Participation Association has suggested a somewhat similar equity option under which measures to encourage significant employee share ownership would be supplemented by a legal provision that an employee share trust which owned 5 per cent. of a company would have the right to nominate a non-executive director for election at a general meeting.
The association has further drawn attention to the code concerning employee involvement, which received praise from the Government when it was produced jointly by the IPA and the Institute of Personnel Management in 1983. At that time the Government declined to give the code statutory backing. When he replies to the debate, I shall be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will tell us—and I have given him notice of this question—whether he agrees with the IPA that seven years after 1983 it is time for government to reconsider the idea of introducing enabling legislation to strengthen that code.
Those are some of the ways in which the Government could demonstrate their willingness to make progress in this field, if only, as the report that we are debating recommends, they would accept the draft charter as a basis for negotiation.
6.7 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, first I should like to apologise for the fact that I shall not be able to stay until the end of the debate. Unfortunately I have a long-standing engagement and I shall have to leave early. I am very sorry for that because I think that it will be a very interesting debate.
I was a member of Sub-committee C whose report on the Community social charter is now before your Lordships. I welcome the opportunity to speak from the Back-Benches on the report. The committee worked very quickly and very thoroughly in an endeavour to produce its report in advance of the Strasbourg Conference last year. Of course we were seeking to influence the Government prior to that conference. We do not appear to have done so. I believe that that is a great pity.
56
The principles involved in the social charter are surely entirely admirable. Indeed, almost all the witnesses we saw, whether or not they agreed with the charter in its entirety, agreed with the objectives. The idea is that all citizens should feel that they have a stake in the Community and will gain some benefit from it. Indeed, that is seen as essential for sustained economic growth.
Moreover, all, including the UK Government, are agreed that priority must be given to job creation. Disagreement arises as to the means by which this objective is to be achieved. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who chaired the committee, has already outlined the reasons for the committee's report and has explained the categories of fundamental social rights to which it refers. As he has explained, these include freedom of movement, provisions for workers to receive fair remuneration, social protection, training, equal treatment for men and women, basic health and safety provisions, and so on. Much of this is apparently acceptable to the Government. However, it seems that the provisions concerning freedom of association, collective bargaining and the right to organise in trade unions worry the Government.
In the time at my disposal, I should like to concentrate on employment although the charter covers a great deal more than that. There was a time when the UK led the world in providing legislation giving rights at work. The UK Government have ratified—and indeed the present Government have not denounced—International Labour Office Conventions 87 and 98 which are concerned with freedom of association and the right to organise and bargain collectively. As my noble friend Lord McCarthy, has explained, they are in similar terms to the provisions of the charter.
However, since 1979 rights of employment have been eroded. We no longer have the fair wages resolution which was first introduced in 1945 and was supported by all governments until the present administration. Other protective legislation has also disappeared with amendments to the Employment Protection Act. Sections of that Act allowing unions to go to arbitration in low wage cases, and also to refer to the Advisory Conciliation and Arbritration Service cases where trade union recognition has been refused, have disappeared. Wages councils have had their powers eroded and some of them have also disappeared. We have no minimum wage provisions outside the remaining wages councils and they no longer cover young people.
The employment legislation introduced by this Government has concentrated almost entirely on restricting union freedoms. The right to belong to a trade union has been removed from employees at GCHQ, even though there is no evidence that the ordinary employees formerly covered by union agreements were in any way a security risk. The Government's attitude to employment rights is that employees have to be protected from their unions rather than from unscrupulous employers. To me—and I have spent a lifetime working in the trade union movement—that attitude to employment issues is absolutely bizarre.

57
It is quite clear that that attitude is not shared by those responsible for drafting the social charter. They believe that unions do have rights—not privileges but rights—and that they must be protected; as must the individual right to belong or not to belong to a trade union. That is supported by the Trade Union Congress which has stated that it accepts the social charter in its entirety. However, it believes in an even-handed approach and complains that the Government appear to give much greater weight to the right not to belong to a union than to the right to belong.
The social charter also includes the right to take collective action; that is, the right to strike. That also appears to cause problems for the Government. It is maintained that that is contrary to British tradition and practice where it has always been possible for employers to dismiss employees who strike because strike action involves breach of the contract of employment. The right to strike in Britain has been provided by a system of trade union immunities. However, those immunities are constantly being eroded as a result of successive pieces of legislation.
When members of the committee met representatives of the TUC we questioned them about the difference in practice between this and other EC countries where the contract of employment is merely suspended during a strike and not terminated as in Britain. Of course, it is now incumbent upon unions to inform their members on the ballot paper that the proposed action could mean that their contract of employment could be terminated.
The TUC responded that its prime aim was that a system should be established which protects from dismissal workers participating in industrial action. Changes to the law since 1979 have, it states, weakened the rights of individuals taking industrial action and encouraged employers to adopt a heavy-handed attitude to disputes. For example, the TUC states that, despite widespread public concern about safety standards in ferries, P&O sacked over 1,000 employees who were in dispute about the company's arbitrary imposition of worsened terms and conditions of employment. It states that it cannot be right for workers to be treated in that way.
Another aspect of the social charter that appears to cause the Government concern is the proposition about remuneration for workers. As my noble friend Lord McCarthy has pointed out, the Government appeared to express the view that what was envisaged was a minimum wage across the entire Community. However, the charter refers to a decent wage and, apparently, that is to be achieved in accordance with the traditions of the various member states. That was made clear when Mrs. Papandreou, the EC Commissioner for Employment and Social Affairs, met the Select Committee on Employment in the other place. It is a bland, even pious, statement and perhaps does not go as far as some of us would like. However, that is what is stated in the charter.
Mrs. Papandreou also dealt in some detail with the charge that the charter would have the effect of lessening competitiveness and thus reduce jobs and job opportunities. She said:
58
"In the Charter we do make a reference to the employment problems in that we give priority to job creation. I do not think that the creation of new jobs should be at the expense of the working and living conditions of the people. It is not, according to my opinion, a straight line between job creation and the standards of living and working conditions for the workers. On the contrary, what we see in many countries is that the level of employment goes in parallel with the standard of living and working conditions, with higher standards in health and safety and with participation and with more involvement of the workers. I do not think that the implementation of the Charter is going to have a negative effect on job creation".
As has already been pointed out, the original draft of the charter has been watered down quite substantially in an attempt to gain the support of the UK Government. For example, it has been made clear that the section covering information, consultation and participation of workers—indeed, the whole subject of worker participation—could be developed in such a way as to take account of existing traditions. That covers the attitude of the UK Government that employees should participate via wider employee share ownership.
Moreover, the principle of subsidiarity means that each country will develop its own commitment to the charter via its own national institutions. Only some of the measures will be the subject of directives; others will not be the subject of Community legislation. Surely it is right that that statement of laudable aims—a fair standard of living, reasonable working hours, good working conditions, freedom of association, good standards of health and safety, and so forth—should receive support.
There is nothing particularly new about that. The idea of a social dimension can be traced back to the Treaty of Rome in 1957. Article 118 of the treaty lists a number of areas in which the Commission should have the task of promoting close co-operation between members states. They cover employment, labour law and working conditions, social security, health and safety, and the right of association and collective bargaining. Other articles deal with equal pay, freedom of movement, vocational training, and so forth. Therefore, the aims are not new. What is new is the desire to make some progress as a result of the Single European Act.
For all those reasons, and for others set out in the report, the committee, of which I had the honour to be a member, urged the Government to emphasise their willingness to endorse a Community social charter; to acknowledge the substantial amendments already made to meet their objections; and to concentrate on persuading the European Council to do more to carry into the text principles contained in the preamble. I am sure that the committee—which was unanimous in its view—was right to reach that conclusion and I commend it to your Lordships.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I wish to explain at the outset that, although I was a member of the Select Committee and fully endorse its report, I was not a member of the sub-committee which wrote that document and the remarks which I am about to make are entirely personal.
The Minister of State for Employment told the sub-committee that the Government did not object

59
to the charter in toto but to the current version of it. Nevertheless, I detect that the Government's reaction is one of considerable reserve, even scepticism, to the idea of a social charter. Such a general feeling appears to lie behind the Government's decision not to participate in the vote at the Strasbourg European Council. I may be wrong, but the impression created is that the notion of a charter dealing with social issues in the European Community is unwelcome to the Government, who find it an inappropriate way of addressing the subject. Such broad declarations of principle are thought to be vague, uncertain and risky—a rather un-British way of proceeding. That general attitude is the subject of what I have to say and it is that to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention.
I do not find the idea of a social charter unjustified or inappropriate. After all, charters have a long history in this country. As the Prime Minister reminded us in her reflections on the bi-centenary of the French Revolution in Paris last year, our own rights and liberties can be traced back to the greatest charter of them all—the Magna Carta of 1215. The Bill of Rights is the charter which has framed our constitutional evolution. In the last century the Chartist movement embodied the political aspirations of a mass of people for a generation. Most of those objectives have since been enacted by statute. When Churchill and Roosevelt wrote their statement of war aims, the result was called the Atlantic Charter.
Therefore, when it is hinted that broad statements of principle in political matters with legislative effect are alien to our law-making, we do not need take such objections too seriously. Indeed, one may criticise some of our own legislation for its excessive particularity and detail. Perhaps we should write better laws if we included in them fuller statements of principle. They might be more widely understood and more readily interpreted. At any rate, I do not believe that it is sensible to criticise the social charter on those grounds, as some have done.
My second reason for regretting the Government's reaction to that proposal to date is the effect which it has produced on the other member states of the Community. The Government seem to have created the impression by that and other actions that Britain is back to its old hobbyhorse—the creation not of a real community but of a mere free trade area, with a minimal institutional framework and few supporting policies in other fields. I do not believe that to be the Government's view. It would be quite inconsistent with the terms of the Treaty of Rome and of the Single European Act. However, I believe that that impression now prevails in some other Community countries and what has been said about the social charter has contributed to that result.
When we consider the current political context in Europe, it is clearly not a good moment to fall out unnecessarily with our Community partners. We are in the middle of a major programme of work—the creation of a single European market and the adoption of the many measures necessary for that end. The events in Eastern Europe create fresh problems but enormous opportunities for the future.
60
In such circumstances it is surely wise to show sympathy and understanding whenever we can for the aspirations of our partners and to express our open support for their entirely praiseworthy objectives in the area of social policy, even if we have reservations on detail. Trench warfare from immobile, fixed and hostile positions is not likely to lead to victory in this campaign. On the contrary, the position can easily be outflanked.
There is a third reason, nearer home, for doubting whether the Government's attitude towards the social charter is altogether wise. I refer to the position of our trade union movement. The TUC and many of its most powerful unions were among the most strenuous opponents of our entry to the Community. I find it one of the most welcome recent developments of our political life that that policy has changed and that, broadly speaking, most British trade unions now accept our membership of the Community as a fact of life.
This Community initiative—the social charter—is approved by trade unionists in large measure in this country not, I suggest, because of a narrow calculation that that might give them some privileges which they could not obtain from our own Government but because it justifies the view which they have taken of our future in the Community as a whole. I believe that it is very much in the interests of this country that the trade union movement should be encouraged to continue the policy which it has adopted. For that reason also I regret the Government's reserve and non-participation in the Strasbourg decision.
My suggestion is that in order to see that proposal correctly we need a broader angle and a longer perspective than the Government have yet offered us. I find no difficulty in supporting wholeheartedly the conclusion in paragraph 38 of the committee's report. That seems to me to be a very fair and fully justified recommendation. I hope that in the detailed negotiations which will now follow the Government will be able to adopt a more forthcoming and rather more far-sighted attitude. I fully support the terms in which my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale introduced this Motion.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, the most depressing feature of the debate about the social charter is the Government's hostility to social objectives which are broadly uncontroversial in the rest of Europe and if adopted would create no more than a reasonable expectation that the workforces within the single market will share equitably in the benefits intended to flow from it.
The Government's response to the whole concept of the charter affords yet further grounds for our Community partners to be deeply doubtful about our European credentials. I make a selection from the press notices emanating from the Department of Employment, giving extracts from recent speeches by Government Ministers. They add up to a crescendo of hostility to the charter.

61
On 26th April 1989 the then Employment Secretary, Mr. Fowler, said:
"What we do not accept are measures which impose unnecessary regulations and costs on employers, measures which will destroy jobs".
On 28th September he was even more explicit:
"We believe that the draft social charter points in the wrong direction—towards a Europe of greater regulation and additional restrictions on business growth and not towards a Europe of increased employment opportunities and falling unemployment".
On 3rd October the Minister of State, Mr. Eggar, was even more condemnatory. He said:
"The European social charter is ill-conceived and bad for small firms… It will not create a single job. What it will do is create more red tape and further regulations which will directly harm the growth and development of the small business sector".
Lord Strathclyde: Hear, hear!
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, he went on to declaim:
"Why should Brussels make it impossible for youngsters under sixteen to do paper rounds and take on Saturday jobs?"
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who is fulsome with his "Hear, hears"—and not for what I say but for the quotations from the Government Ministers—will abstain from "Hear, hearing" on that point because that at least is a heresy which has since been repudiated by the European Commission. Indeed, that was something to which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred to at the outset when he opened this debate.
On 18th October Mr. Eggar revealed,
"that the UK Government has considerable reservations about the whole concept of a Social Charter. Our approach, our traditions, lead us to believe that one is not needed. What we are firmly against, however, is the existing draft of the Social Charter".
On 7th November Mr. Fowler was no less hostile. In an address to a CBI seminar he attacked the charter as calculated to increase costs and destroy jobs. All that was preceded by statements by the Prime Minister herself of the character to which my noble friend Lord McCarthy referred.
In reality the Government's position is that any enhancement of workers' rights which could conceivably be said to be likely to increase employers' costs is to be rejected on that ground alone because it is said that increased costs necessarily lead to job losses. Of course, that is pure assertion. The proposition that a workforce which is fairly dealt with and better trained is likely to be more productive is ignored. The proposition that a homogeneous floor of workers' rights is a corollary of the very concept of the single market, necessary if there is to be popular enthusiasm for it, is ignored. The argument for social justice within the single market goes by default. There is a depressing similarity between the Government's response to the concept of a social charter and its record of securing for workers in this country the rights that they are already guaranteed under European law. I pass over altogether the diminution of rights of individual employees which this Government have imposed in domestic law. I confine myself to the European dimension.
62
In practice, the Government's policy has been to do as little as possible, as late as possible, and to delay as long as they can in securing for workers in this country the rights that they are guaranteed under European law. A good example of that situation is The European Commission v. United Kingdom Government in 1982. Legislation providing for equal pay for work of equal value, the Equal Value Amendment Regulations 1983, was introduced because the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg ruled that United Kingdom law was inadequate to protect workers' rights under Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome. The Government resisted to the last ditch. The Commission made a formal finding that the UK Government were in default. The Government did not respond to diplomatic pressure; they fought the reference to the court, all the way to inevitable defeat.
The story is the same in regard to efforts for women to be protected against discriminatory retirement ages, basically 65 for men and 60 for women. That was the Marshall case which was brought not by the Commission but by the individual concerned. The Government had resisted demands for equal retirement ages for men and women for many years and only acted when their hand was forced. The result was the equal retirement age provisions of the Sex Discimination Act 1986. I could offer other such examples, but I abstain in the name of economy.
Much of the Government's antagonism to the social charter stems from an inability or unwillingness to come to terms with the existing obligations of the United Kingdom under European law. To that extent their stance is that of the ostrich. When it comes to the charter, the Government single out for special attack the provision of Article 5 that all employment shall be fairly remunerated. However, as I understand that article, it does not require any particular minimum level of income or minimum conditions but only that employees be remunerated fairly according to national circumstances. That situation is confirmed by the Commission's action programme, as we were told by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale.
The spectre has been raised by Ministers many times that the charter will make part-time and temporary work more expensive and that that will cost jobs. However, already the equal treatment directive of 1976, as interpreted by the European Court, extends the general protection against discrimination in pay on the grounds of sex to part-time workers. In Britain 85 per cent. of such workers are women, which is much the same percentage as for the Community as a whole. They are already entitled to be treated equally pro rata to the hours they work, unless there are objective commercial reasons for the difference in treatment. The charter does not affect that situation.
The charter recognises the right to join or not to join a trade union. I do not understand the Government's concern about Article 11. Already in this country employees cannot be dismissed for being or not being trade unionists. The new Employment Bill, which is passing through another place, extends the same protection to job applicants. That was

63
not Mr. Fowler's original intention. His original intention was to outlaw discrimination in recruitment only where the reason for it was that the applicant was not a member of a trade union. The Government were subsequently persuaded, by pressure from my party, to outlaw discrimination in recruitment also on the ground that an employee or prospective employee was a member of a trade union. Therefore on that point we are coming into line with the proposed charter.
Under Article 13 the right to strike is given,
"subject to the obligations arising under national regulations and collective agreements".
Therefore the charter has no impact on the right of the United Kingdom to decide the limits of lawful strike action in the United Kingdom. It leaves untouched all the legal requirements as to ballots, restrictions on political strikes, secondary action and picketing under United Kingdom law.
I wonder whether the Government truly fear, from this part of the charter, nothing other than that, under it, employers may be unable to continue the unfairest aspect of our current labour legislation. My noble friend Lady Turner referred to the fact that an employer who dismisses the whole of his workforce which is on lawful strike action after a lawful ballot can do so with impunity without having an industrial tribunal decide whether it was fair or reasonable for the employer to do so. I doubt if there are many who would think that this is an employer's right for which the Government should go to the wall in resisting the charter.
It may be that Article 16—equal treatment for men and women—is not to the Government's liking, despite the Community law to which we are already subject in this area. Article 16 provides that, for instance, measures should be developed that would enable men and women to reconcile their vocational and family obligations. That will mean in practice career breaks, family leave, parental leave, including parental leave for men, and flexible working arrangements allowing a worker to come back on a more flexible basis; for example, part time after childbirth.
An increasing number of major employers in this country, particularly in the banking and financial sector and the retail sector, are making arrangements of that kind for good commercial reasons; otherwise they will not be able to recruit sufficient skilled workers in the 1990s. Surely not to encourage this trend will severely reduce our ability to compete within the single market.
Lastly I should like to refer to Article 15 under which every EC worker must be able to have access to vocational training and have access to that training throughout his working life. Surely it would be folly to deny our employees a right to training that will be accorded by our competitors within the single market. The statistics are well known and discouraging. Only 30 per cent. of our workforce have recognised qualifications equivalent to one O-level, compared to at least 70 per cent. in Germany. Only 40 per cent. of our engineers have recognised qualifications, compared to 70 per cent.
64
in Germany. The number of apprenticeships in Britain is down by half since 1979.
I am sure that it would be of interest to the House if the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, when he makes his contribution for the Government to this debate, would say what the Government's reaction is to the obligations to provide vocational training as proposed in the social charter. We await with keen interest the noble Lord's contribution to this debate. There is no member of his party other than he who has chosen to contribute to this debate. The Benches behind him are empty. We are entitled to infer from this total want of contribution to the debate from the Government Benches that either there is no Member on those Benches who is sufficiently interested to contribute to this important subject, which is unlikely; or, more likely, that there is no one from the noble Lord's Benches who is willing to defend the stance that his Government are adopting to the dismay of the rest of Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, anticipated in opening this debate that it would prove to be one-sided, but only by the choice of the Government Benches.
I am as confident that the conclusion of the Select Committee's report in paragraph 38 is right as I am pessimistic that the Government will pay any attention. This is a Government who are not for learning. Their rooted inability to free themselves of their prejudices to workers' rights means that yet again we are likely to be sidelined in Europe, reduced to a querulous irrelevance, refusing unless compelled to do what everyone else, by agreement, is enthusiastically putting into practice.
If I may be so bold as to offer a modest postscript to the Select Committee's advice to the Government in paragraph 38, it is this: make a careful analysis of what are this country's obligations under European law already, together with existing workers' rights under United Kingdom domestic law; then one will find that much in the charter is not new at all and that what is new can surely be justified in terms of economic efficiency, deriving from a better trained and more flexible workforce, operating upon a homogenous floor of basic workers' rights. That in the long term is essential for that popular enthusiasm of the single market upon which its ultimate success must depend.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I spent the weekend reading the report and much of the evidence. I thought, not for the first time, that the Government need look no further than a report of a Select Committee of your Lordships' House for the material for an act of statemanship. It is contained in that report. The committee's opinions are expressed clearly, sympathetically and wisely as to what opportunity lies before this country at present on this, among other matters, related to our membership of the EC. But, unfortunately, governments can scarcely wait to hear from Select Committees before they begin to rubbish their conclusions.
I see the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, in his place. He was a chairman of a Select Committee some years ago. Its report was received with acclaim as a

65
document of foresight and wisdom and a close analysis of the unpleasant side of Britain's future. He was roughly handled by the Government at the time. They feared the Select Committee's conclusions. They thought that they were damaging to the Government and might harm their reputation for being what they are not. That seems to be likely in the present case.
Of course when we have a chairman of Select Committee of the experience and skill of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, we have a first division civil servant at work, and the imprint of a permanent secretary, and an admirable one too, is to be found on the report.
In my reading over the weekend, I read a comment to the effect that Europe does not exist; it is merely a collection of mistakes. There is a lot of truth in that. Europe is a collection of mistakes. Unless we are careful, a few more will be made in the near future. One thing is pretty clear now. If the EC cracks up, Europe will turn into a Balkanised collection of states, which would be a tragic development out of the present upheaval in Europe. We are leaving Mr. Gorbachev to say all the things that are worth saying about the future of Europe. We should have a contribution of our own to make.
The value of the report and of the draft Community social charter lies in the fact that something is beginning to be put into the Community which it does not yet have—a sense of purpose which will attract the interest and support of the common people of our continent. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, in an admirable speech, referred to what the Government's approach to Europe appears to be: a free trade area with as little institutional machinery around it as possible. That is just what is wrong with it. People do not feel that the European concept has any substance. It does not get down far enough. It gets lost in the common agricultural policy. There are issues that Europe could now be expressing in human terms which would make a great difference to our attitude towards the European Community. We want more people in the European Community. We have something than can form the nucleus of a new and wider concept of Europe.
I know that a document of this kind can be criticised for being woolly. An old term has been resurrected for government use—"mish-mash". Are we so clever at expressing ourselves that we scorn such a document, comprehensive in general terms, and probably written in language which it would be difficult to construe in legislative terms? The charter provides the substance of what everyone wants out of life in the European Community. It is a reflection of our European standards and hopes. If we can put that document on its way towards implementation, we can try to get right our priorities and to look at the possibilities and disappointments which may lay ahead.
I am not enthusiastic about giving terms to such documents which we may never be able to live up to. To describe the charter as a collection of fundamental social rights frightens me a little, because there are many rights floating about the world at present but not enough are settling in
66
different parts of the world. Human rights have been widened considerably in the past 30 or 40 years; but we can see how far we still have to go before they will be real to those for whom they are placed as safeguards and aspirations.
Why do we carp all the time about Europe? I sometimes wonder whether we genuinely intend to get there. I reflect upon my experience of the difficulties of party policy on the adherence to the European idea and I must say that that experience was disagreeable. Prime Minister Heath got the European Communities Bill through the other place on the votes of 60 dissidents from a Labour Party three-line Whip who were led by me. I was immediately challenged by the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party for dissenting from a three-line Whip; but the Government had not done much better. They had given the Conservative Party in the other place a free vote which suggested that they did not have the courage of their convictions, if convictions they had, to ask their supporters to rally around and give them a good entry into the Common Market.
We had to have a referendum after that. What happened? No one seemed to want to go into Europe. It was going to be given to the public to decide. The referendum was an emphatic endorsement of our then provisional membership of the European Community. What happened after that? The voice of the people was pretty well sabotaged by every government who came thereafter because there was no enthusiasm for what the Government had a mandate to do. I shall not dwell on that point. It is in the past. However, it does not provide the foundation for the right spirit today, because, looking back on the history of our association with Europe, there is not much that inspires those who today are being asked to adopt an adherence to the European idea.
We want to generate a good deal more enthusiasm for membership of Europe. We are saying all the right things in your Lordships' House just now, but the trouble is that not enough people are saying them. We still have to have a voluntary body called the European Movement to try to stimulate the spirit of Europe and a vision of the future. While everybody is grubbing around with the economic detail, someone must look with a vision of the future.
There is no future for Britain outside partnership with our European friends—none. We all know that we do not have the resources. Small nations must merge, federate, ally or join in partnership with others. There must be enough between them to enable a concerted effort to be made to replace in a novel form of association of separate nations the economic and political power of those who in the past have gathered under the American or Russian flags in the great land masses in attempts to get consolidated political opinion. A lot of that is now breaking up.
I welcome the opportunity of pledging myself as far as the future is concerned. I have never wavered in this regard. I have believed for years that Britain's destiny is in Europe. We are slow to realise that. I wish that we had a Prime Minister with a greater sense of historical purpose and vision. What an

67
opportunity for leadership there is now, with the world in turmoil. But every utterance that comes from No. 10 Downing Street about events in Europe is one of caution and withdrawal. I thought yesterday that the Prime Minister was about to resign her membership of Europe altogether because something that she thought should not happen and was not on the agenda is now inevitable. That is not the spirit in which to enter Europe.
We should see that if we do not keep close to our European friends they will go ahead of us. We need them a great deal more than they need us. We should realise that. I hope something will go out from this debate. We should have more of them in order to foresee what may be happening in Europe which could provide the opportunity to avert some of the graver mistakes that may lie ahead. We have opportunities but in my view we are in serious danger in the turmoil of events which are now flashing through Europe with amazing speed.
6.53 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, as a Member of Sub-Committee C, which undertook this inquiry, I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for the way in which he introduced the report and for outlining the reasons behind the committee's approach and recommendations. The charter is not a binding document; it is largely a statement of intent on broad principles relating to the social rights of workers within the Community.
At the time of the inquiry the action programme was not available. It now is and I suggest that the two should be seen together. Had the action programme been available during the inquiry, some of the fears expressed by some of the witnesses might have been removed or at any rate mitigated. It certainly clearly sets out the responsibilities of the Commission, the national government and the two sides of industry in a way that the charter did not.
As the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said, and as the report indicates on page 13, paragraph 30, negotiations on the charter became symbolic as a measure for judging the United Kingdom's commitment to the future development of the Community. It was because of this that the sub-committee urged the Government to accept the broad principles of the charter and then negotiate the details through the action programme and through the subsequent draft Community legislation.
The committee regretted that the Government appeared to be so intransigent, because, as we state on page 13, paragraph 33,
"the latest text of the Charter has gone a long way towards meeting the United Kingdom's objections".
Moreover, the action programme has taken aboard even more of the Government's concerns. So it seems a pity that by our public stance the UK appears to be so hostile to Europe. Yet simultaneously it also appears that the Government have been negotiating on some of the issues: otherwise we might not have had the changes that are seen in the action programme.
68
Of course the Government cannot expect to win all the time; with 12 countries involved there must inevitably be compromise, and we should gracefully accept that compromise. None of the witnesses who appeared before the committee, with the possible exception of the Engineering Employers' Federation, said that they were opposed to a charter as such. Those who were critical, including Mr. Tim Eggar on behalf of the Government, were opposed to the terms of this particular charter. Fundamentally, their opposition was based on the premise that the Community's concern should be with wealth and job creation and that the workers would, in the normal course of events, benefit from such developments.
They also felt that some of the measures indicated could be a burden and would reduce the Community's competitiveness. This view was vigorously contested by other witnesses. I do not propose to go into the details of that argument. My noble friend on the Front Bench has already done so to a great extent. Nevertheless, it is important to remind ourselves that the single market is about the free movement of people as well as the free movement of goods, services and capital.
As my noble friend Lady Turner indicated, the Community has consistently involved itself with social problems. The Madrid heads of government conference in June last year said in its final communique:
"The European Council considered that in the course of the construction of the single European market social aspects should be given the same importance as economic aspects and should accordingly be developed in a balanced fashion".
It seems that by the introduction of the social charter we are attempting to balance the two issues. Nowhere is it suggested in either the charter or the action programme that there should be uniformity of working conditions or of social provisions throughout the Community.
Nevertheless there must be some agreement on the principles on which these are based. The mutual recognition of qualifications is a typical example of the kind of principles that we must have if there is to be free movement. A considerable part of the action programme is concerned with stimulating debate and putting forward opinions as to how these matters can be fairly dealt with. Many of these issues involve my own special field of interest of equal opportunities between the sexes. As my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg has already indicated, the Community has been deeply involved in this issue since its first directive on equal pay in 1974.
The social charter seeks to build on the work already undertaken. Community legislation in this field has complemented national legislation. In all Community countries there have been individual programmes by national governments. Community action has been based on two principles; first, that the resources which women in the Community provide should be sufficiently developed so that they can make a greater contribution to the wellbeing of the Community; and secondly, that, as a human right, women should not be exploited vis-a-vis their male colleagues and that such exploitation should not give one country an unfair advantage over another. From these tenets, the directives on equal

69
access to pay, employment and training and to social security have flowed and have been amplified by action programmes.
The current action programme elaborates on the principles set out in the charter, proposing four initiatives for promoting greater equality between the sexes; first, a third Community programme on equal opportunities for women; secondly, a directive on the protection of pregnant women at work; thirdly, recommendations concerning child care; and, fourthly, recommendations concerning a code of good conduct on the protection of pregnancy. The measures proposed to safeguard the conditions of those involved in what is termed non-traditional work patterns—for example, part-time work—will affect women very considerably.
The action programme also draws attention to the fact that the earlier directives on parental leave, on burden of proof and on retirement age have not yet received Council agreement. It urges a resumption of deliberations on these matters. The main body of opinion among women in this country would fully support that view, particularly in relation to parental leave. Perhaps the Minister will note that point. He might also note the fact that, of the four proposed measures on women's equality, only one would have binding effect on member countries. That one falls within the ambit of health and safety at work, so no doubt the Government will find that acceptable. But this emphasis on recommendation, on opinion and on further discussion is typical of the action programme. Some—I am afraid that I should be one—would regretfully conclude that too little of the programme is to have binding effect. No doubt the Government will be comforted by this. Because of the watered-down nature of the action programme, one might ask what all the fuss has been about. Surely the Government should ask themselves that question. Equally, those who support the charter might ask whether it will, as a consequence, have any effect. Personally, I should have preferred the action programme to be more binding. But I nevertheless think it is to be welcomed. It is a charter, pointing to principles that we need to consider and abide by within the Community. It is also a signpost to Community progress and one to which I suggest your Lordships will return in the very near future.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, one of the difficulties of the debate this afternoon has been the way in which it has taken place. All noble Lords have spoken in support of the social charter but nobody on the Government Benches has been prepared to stand up and argue the case. It is a rather difficult debate to contribute to because there has not been the normal to and fro. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, suggested that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is a volunteer. Given that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is fronting for the Government, I wonder whether he is not a volunteer but a pressed man. However, we shall not think any the worse of him for that.
I thought that I would try to introduce a couple of elements different from those that have been mentioned before. While I support virtually
70
everything previous speakers have said, a number of different elements need to be brought out. First, I should like to refer to the Government's reaction to the social charter. Something that comes to my mind is an experience I had in the company I worked for 20 years ago. A product designed in the United States was being marketed in this country. However, circumstances in the United States were different from those in this country and so the product needed to be developed. Unfortunately, the engineering department was not prepared to devote resources to developing the product. The attitude was "not invented here". It was not the department's baby and so it was not interested in the product. As a result, a very good product for the United Kingdom market with export potential beyond that died on its feet through lack of support.
The Government's attitude to the social charter reminded me of that. Their attitude is that as they have not thought about it they will not support it. They are prepared to let it die on its feet. The social charter is rather more important than that. It is on this point that I diverge from most of the speakers who have contributed to the debate. Most of them have spoken in terms of the employment effects and of the attitude of workers to the single market. My concern is wider than that. I am concerned about the attitude of individuals in society to society at large. If individuals do not feel part of that society and do not believe that it is a positive and constructive society, they will rebel against it.
The message coming from the Government seems to be that they want people to be paid low wages; they want bad pension provisions; they want poor medical services; they want discrimination against the disabled, women and foreigners; they positively want unhealthy and unsafe working practices; they want poor training and above all they want to get out of Europe. That is obviously not what the Government want but it is the impression they give to the rest of the world. They also give that impression to the people of this country. It is wrong. I would hope that it is unfair to the Government but I am, unfortunately, a little doubtful.
Perhaps we should look at what the Government profess. They profess to be in favour of competition. Indeed, I think that we should all like to see a measure of competition. They profess to be in favour of a free market. However, there is no such thing as a free market; it just does not exist. Every market is circumscribed with certain rules and regulations. We have only to look at the market which operates in this country to see that this is so. After 10 years of Thatcherite free market philosophy we still have regulations which prevent publicans from watering the beer. That is just an example. Moreover, we still have the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act which seeks to provide a safe and healthy environment for people at work, albeit not very well enforced. However, it is still on the statute book. Therefore, even our market after 10 years of Thatcherism is circumscribed by certain rules and regulations.
I hope that when we talk about competition we will talk about fair compeition and that we will talk about competition in terms of more effective working together; in other words, teamwork. A

71
company which can engender better teamwork will be more successful than a company which does not enjoy success in that respect. The same applies in terms of knowledge. The company which can use knowledge better than its competitor will win out in the end. That aspect could be summarised as more effective training. Moreover, the companies which use their capital resources more effectively and efficiently and invest better than their competitors will also win out in the end. I think that that is the kind of competition we would all applaud.
However, when the competition leads effectively to poorer living standards, low pay or poverty wages for workers, poorer care for the community and discimination against various people in favour of others, I would argue that that is unfair competition. It is not the sort of competition that the Government seek to promote—at least, I hope that it is not what they are seeking to promote.
There are many elements within the social charter. I shall not list them all because other speakers in today's debate have done so. However, in essence I think thay many of them could be supported by the Government. I hope that they will say that they are in favour of a decent pension provision and that they are in favour of good training provisions. I also hope that they will say that they are opposed to discrimination against disabled people, women and other categories of persons. Perhaps we shall hear something about that from the Minister.
Having discussed certain aspects of the social charter, I should like to return to two points. One relates to domestic social peace. I am thinking now in terms of discrimination, the projection of a society which is fair, which seeks to be fair and which adopts a charter to support that aim. I am thinking also of the problems that we have in Northern Ireland where for years the minority community has felt discriminated against. The Government have taken action in that respect. In my view that is perfectly laudable. However, why can they not embrace the social charter so as to give a wider expression to that action?
Social conflict goes a little wider than just Northern Ireland. During this century we have seen the most enormous social conflict that ever existed in the history of mankind. I refer to the Second World War, the 1939–45 war or the great patriotic war, depending on how you describe it. Millions of people were killed during that time. If we look at the seeds and the kernels which gave rise to such conflict, we can see that they were embedded in the discriminatory attitudes of the German and Japanese establishments before the war.
We are moving into changing times. Since the Government first started pronouncing on the social charter, we have seen amazing changes in Eastern Europe. Those changes will need a reaction. One of the most important mechanisms we have to deal with that changing pattern of international relations is the EC. We have the mechanism in the social charter to speak not only to our own communities—because we have problems there in terms of certain aspects which the charter
72
addresses—but also to communities which will join us or will aspire to do so. It is important that we should have a framework of social cohesion which enables people to work and live together, but which does not contain the seeds of, or the recipe for, conflict for the future.
In my view the Government should change their mind about the way they project their reaction to the social charter. I hope that over the next few weeks and months we may see a change in attitude; that is, not only towards thinking in terms of what the social charter will do for us or against us but also towards thinking about it in more positive terms. In other words: what can it do for our community, the wider community, and not just the EC? We should be thinking in terms of the example it can give to the whole of Europe; that is, the Europe about which Gorbachev has talked, between the Urals and the Atlantic. I hope that the Government will grasp the opportunity and that they will see the social charter as a tool for good and not, as they appear to do at present, as a tool for bad.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I too was a member of Sub-Committee C, which produced this report under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. He skilfully guided us to a unanimous conclusion which has so far received the unanimous support of all speakers in the debate today. Moreover, I suspect that it will receive the support of all those who have yet to speak with the exception of one speaker—the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who will be in exactly the same position in which this Government find themselves again and again in their negotiations with our European colleagues. It is not a comfortable situation and it is not a noble situation.
As the Prime Minister once said, isolation is not leadership. I must say that I have great sympathy with the noble Lord in having to answer this debate because I regard him as a closet European. As such it must go against his instincts to have to adopt this extraordinarily negative attitude to a charter that consists of a series of propositions which to most of us would seem self-evident but which to none of us would seem objectionable. For him to have to dream up plausible and apparently respectable arguments against the charter is indeed a hard task, with so little support as a sounding board behind him.
As I expected, your Lordships have covered the ground extremely thoroughly. Indeed many of the matters that I wished to raise have already been dealt with and dealt with in a much better way that I could have done. As a consequence I shall be able to abbreviate my speech to a relatively short oration. I shall try not to waste your Lordships' time.
It seems to me that the main issues which the report raised were, first and foremost, whether the social charter falls within the competence of the European Community. The matter is covered pretty thoroughly in the body of the report. It was also covered very clearly in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. Therefore, I do not propose to go into that aspect on this occasion.

73
Secondly, the report raises the much wider question of whether the social charter is desirable. I wish to examine that at slightly greater length. The Government's view, as expressed by Mr. Eggar, who spent some time with the committee, was that, while a social charter of principles was desirable in principle, in practice this one was not, primarily because it did not pay sufficient attention to the priorities agreed in the Madrid communiqué of the Council. It did not pay sufficient attention to job creation, though that appears prominently at the beginning of the social charter, to subsidiarity, though that appears again and again in the social charter, or to national traditions, mention of which appears quite frequently in the charter and also in the action programme.
I found that aspect of Mr. Eggar's argument unconvincing, just as I found unconvincing his other suggestion which has been mentioned before and which was supported by the evidence of the Institute of Directors. That evidence, I have to say, must have been written before Lord Shaftesbury was born. It suggested that the idea of a decent wage, always called "a minimum wage", should be Community-wide. There is no suggestion in the social charter that this is so. In addition, another of Mr. Eggar's statements was that it was not so. Nonetheless the suggestion—which almost amounted to misinformation—continued to be made by some people in the evidence that they submitted to us. Mr. Eggar's position raised two questions in my mind. First, were the reasons that he gave the real ones? Secondly, were the British Government's tactics wise and well considered?
Perhaps I may deal with the latter first because in his masterly speech the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, dealt with the tactical problem with extreme skill and unanswerable logic. I also agreed with him profoundly when he said that it appears to outsiders—"outsiders" meaning not only other members of the Community but those who are not members of the Government—as though the Prime Minister hankers after the old free trade area of the late Mr. Reginald Maudling rather than the Treaty of Rome which we signed. It is particularly ironic that this should be her apparent stance since at this moment members of the existing free trade area are queueing up to join the European Community.
However, the tactics seem to me to have been misguided for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, gave. In the evidence submitted to us Mr. Eggar constantly told us how constructive our attitude had been to the negotiations about the social charter. It is a peculiar use of the word "constructive" if we then proceed to vote against the matter which we were being constructive about. However, that was his position and as usual we find ourselves in the "Strathclyde position"—alone against the unanimous belief of our colleagues. That cannot possibly increase our influence. It must be better to say, "Yes, but", in the words of Sir Leon Brittan, rather than, "No, on no account". I cannot understand what lay behind those tactics. I can only say that they seem to be self-defeating.
If we return to the real reasons or what were the real reasons for the Government's posture—which I
74
hope will be described to us later by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—it was noticeable that everyone agreed that a social dimension to the internal market was desirable. However, the great difference which emerged was in the interpretation of the two words "social dimension". Mr. Eggar's interpretation of a social dimension was that the benefits of the completion of the single market flowed through improving the standard of living of the citizens and workers of Europe. Mr. Delors' interpretation was that the internal market should be designed to benefit each and every member of the Community.
It seems to me that the implicit assumption that lies behind the Delors interpretation is that the trickle-down effect may not reach all the groups within the Community and that some intervention is necessary to ensure that each and every member of the Community benefits from increased, growing economic success. The implicit assumption behind the Eggar interpretation was put rather crudely by the Institute of Directors, which said:
"The Internal Market Programme itself … contains a social dimension".
That is, no social intervention is necessary. That seems to me to be the implicit assumption which lies behind the Government's disagreement with the social charter. If that is the case, they should never have agreed to the Madrid communiqué.
In addition, the evidence is that the trickle-down effect in any society does not reach all and every member of the community without some governmental or social intervention. During the past 10 years here in a period of high economic growth the living standards of those on benefit have fallen further behind average living standards. The real increase in the value of welfare payments has been less than in periods of slower economic growth. That indicates that positive action must be taken if we are to give each and every citizen the benefit of increased prosperity.
An even more dramatic illustration than that which I read in the Economist over the weekend is that in the United States the expectation of life for males in Detroit and Harlem is lower than it is in Bangladesh. If that does not make people think, I do not know what will. What we are doing here by deregulation is creating an underclass which the trickle does not reach. All it receives is a drop from the rich man's glass.
I suspect that one of the problems of the social charter lies in a doctrinal difference that exist between Social Democrats and Christian Democrats in the European Community and the Conservative Party over here. The Christian democrats in the European Community accept a responsibility for the social consequences of the market. That is apparently not the case with our Government.
Beyond that, all governments in the European Community believe that a social consensus, as they call it, needs to be built; that it is a condition for economic success; that a social charter provides a balance to the internal market; that this is socially necessary; and that it is the duty of governments to underpin economic and financial success by strengthening the social consensus. I should have thought that that was a pretty self-evident fact. It is

75
a fact, a belief, a view or an acceptance of a government responsibility which I believe every previous Conservative Government in this country would have accepted as a truism. It is an extraordinary and sad state of affairs that this Government do not accept it.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I wish to join the noble Lords who have thanked your Lordships' committee for this report, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for guiding its work and for introducing the debate in the way that he did. We must congratulate the committee, as other noble Lords have said, in the light of its difficulties with the constant amendments to the changing drafts of the charter and of the fact that the Commission's action programme became available to them—as my noble friend Lady Lockwood said—only at the very end. It is to that action programme that I wish to address some of my remarks in the hope that we can obtain further elucidation of government policy on it. This is the first time that the Government have had the chance to put forward their remarks on the action programme as the debate in another place took place only two days after its official publication.
As my noble friends have made clear, we on this side of the Chamber share the view of the committee that the statement of aims in the charter is to be welcomed. The committee stated in its report that it is:
"a statement of the Community's determination to spread the benefits of the Single Market amongst all its citizens".
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred to that in a way that I cannot improve upon. The president of the European Trade Union Confederation said in 1988 that he saw the provision as forging:
"a Europe which links democracy, social justice and economic success".
That is the basis of our position.
As many noble Lords have pointed out—for example, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and my noble friends Lord Houghton and Lord Monkswell—the importance of the social charter and the action programme is growing, not decreasing. The freeing of Eastern Europe from authoritarian control opens up new opportunities for democracy in Europe as a whole. However, with them come new dangers of instability. Those require a united Community with social policies which will prevent the process of liberation from becoming a process of social dumping which would be injurious to the interests of working people both in the East and in the West. At the very least this was hardly the opportune moment for the United Kingdom to stand aside yet again in isolation. What, after all, are the Government's objections to the charter? Some of your Lordships have listed them, but basically I believe they rest upon two propositions. Both those propositions appeared in the speech of the Secretary of State in another place on 29th November, when he said that it would be a terrible irony if the freeing
76
of Eastern Europe from bureaucratic regulations were to be replaced by,
"a flood of new controls from Brussels".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/11/89; col. 726.]
It would be a much worse tragedy if liberation in Eastern Europe was the occasion for jettisoning those very social measures which are the conditions necessary for a society which is both efficient and decent.
Are the Government not detracting a little from that proposition now that they have studied the action programme? I believe my next point has not been made tonight. It is worth noting that the Commission promotes many of the measures in the action programme as suitable for social dialogue, for promoting social solidarity and for strengthening the economic and social cohesion of the Community. Those are purposes to which we are committed under Articles 118b and 130a and 130b of the treaty. On what grounds do the Government resist the measures to which those objectives are attached?
As I have said, we await, perhaps with trepidation but also with some anxiety, the views that the Minister will give us on the action programme. He can be quite frank as he does not have to worry too much about pleasing anyone behind him. The Secretary of State made a comment on the action programme which has already been quoted. He said that it contains:
"43 Community instruments, including 17 legally binding directives".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/11/89; col. 724.]
The first point I have to make on that is an important point and is that 10 of the 17 directives concern themselves with health and safety. The Secretary of State made his position on that quite clear when he said that the Government could accept general health and safety regulations. We must give the Government credit on health and safety. That is one area where, although the problems are not conquered, great success has been achieved in the Community. The record testifies to what can be achieved when all the member states work together. Why are the Government so blind that they cannot see that similar advantages would accrue in other areas if they adopted a similar position in those areas? What is so magical about health and safety that it does not allow the Government to co-operate on workers' welfare?
As regards the other directives, I believe there are four which would have legal effect and there are also six decisions which might have legal effect. I do not know whether the Government object to those, as they concern such matters as disabled workers, the elderly and vocational training for the most part. There are also 15 opinions and recommendations which would have no legal effect, although, as my noble friend Lady Lockwood said, many of them are important, not least that concerned with the child care and maternity programme. There are five instruments which remain rather obscure in the action programme. They concern vocational training, conditions of sub-contracting workers, social clauses in public contracts, profit sharing and procedures on workers' rights to consultation in complex, European-scale undertakings. I hope the Government will tell us which items in that list they

77
object to. The Government do not object to 10 of the 17 objectives. Therefore the number of directives they object to is cut down to seven. Which of the six decisions and which of the instruments do the Government object to and on what grounds? On what grounds are those matters different from health and safety? Those other issues concern matters within the working environment. I say "working environment" advisedly because that is a matter on which majority decisions can be taken, so isolation may not be enough to stop progress on many of those issues.
The Government have also objected to Community action on the grounds of subsidiarity. The principle of subsidiarity means that what can appropriately be done at national level should not be the subject of action at Community level. That is hardly a plea available to the Government. According to their record so far on most of these matters the Government do not wish any action at all at any level. They have defined subsidiarity to mean inactivity. However, having listened to the debate this evening, it seems to me that there is a sad but unavoidable fact which provides the explanation of the Government's isolation on these issues. Simply from an analytical point of view, if one looks comparatively at the social and labour legislation of member states, one finds a chasm. On one side of the chasm stand pretty well all the other member states—one might question one or two—and certainly all the larger member states while on the other side, unhappily, stands the United Kingdom. On that other side there is a common thread which is expressed in a variety of national institutions where the pursuit of flexibility and efficiency in the labour market has been linked with the protection of workers and maintained both by legislation and collective bargaining. A leading Italian author, Professor Giugni, expresses this as building:
"a labour law which suits the needs of our industrial culture and also combines the objectives of social purpose with those of efficiency".
It is the objective of social purpose which the Government do not share. One does not have to look to socialist governments to find such policies at work. I share fully the view suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, on this issue. At European level this is not a party point. It is no wonder that the Conservative Party finds it difficult to find fellows with whom to sit at the European Parliament. This is not a party point. One does not have to look at socialist governments to see this point exemplified. One can look at the Federal Republic of Germany, which has consistently followed this path. The government of the most powerful capitalist society in the Community sustains the strongest system of worker participation in Europe in the structures of co-determination. When they deregulated fixed-term or part-time contracts in 1985 they did not deregulate merely by sweeping away controls. They retained protections for the workers concerned and also for those under the Kapovatz system, which had become an abuse of flexible hours.
In a very different society in Italy one finds exactly the same thread. When legislation was established
78
in 1983 which removed obstacles for employers to part-time work the part-time workers were given priority rights to full-time employment if it was available and full protection in social security matters. One also finds that the part-time work schemes had to be negotiated with trade unions. That is a different balance but there is a very similar aim, clearly on the other side of the divide.
Against that, the United Kingdom's policy of the past 10 years, and more particularly of the past few years—with the exception of health and safety; and let us hear why that is such a great exception—stand out very bleakly. There has been a steady reduction of the social rights and legal protections of both workers and trade unions. The Government tend to rely on the argument that we have heard for so many years that one cannot allow such burdens on business. The Minister murmurs in assent. I invite him to look at employers in the other member states, who are on the other side of the chasm, and see whether that great burden of social legislation prevents them from competing against British firms. They do not find that the cost of workers' rights makes them uncompetitive: in many cases, quite the contrary.
We have been over the ground again and again. If the Government do not want to accept the conclusion that emerges from all the debates—that there is no evidence to support their case that the burdens on business are a reason for excluding all kinds of social protection—they must stand alone in their isolation. They stand in isolation from the facts. Across the Community as a whole there is no evidence to suggest that the social measures outlined in the charter and in the action programme would lead to loss of jobs. The Commission believes, on the contrary, that they would lead to the development and creation of employment, which is the Commission's priority.
There is one further point. The charter enshrines a package of rights for workers and their unions. Those are the rights to consult and bargain collectively, to join or not to join trade unions, and to strike as part of the right of association. That is a limited right, it is true, as my noble friend Lord Irvine has pointed out. On another occasion no doubt we can debate those limits. That is a package of rights. The action programme suggests that there will not be Community legislation on the matter. Therefore the subsidiarity argument is met. The European Trade Union Confederation is very critical of that decision. It wants basic Community legislation, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy said, as part of building a floor of labour relations throughout the Community.
The Minister must remember, as his right honourable friend mentioned in his speech in another place, that it is a package of rights which hangs together. We are in favour of it as a package, but it cannot be shredded into bits and pieces as the Government always want to do. The Minister cannot pick and choose the fundamental right to join or not to join a union, to bargain, strike, and so on. He cannot put his thumb into the charter, pick out a right-not-to-join plum and say what a good European

79
am I. That is not the way it works. The charter has an inherent logic, which we support. It cannot be shredded.
Both the charter and the action programme take for granted a level of collective consultation, collective bargaining and negotiation between the social partners which is not to the Government's liking. I found it sad to see that the Confederation of British Industry in its evidence (on page 20 of the evidence) also suggested that the charter,
"would potentially disrupt industrial relations, requiring companies to decide a wide range of issues through collective bargaining rather than individually with employees".
That was the first time that I was aware of that view from the CBI. I hope that it will not persist in that view. That is also the Government's view.
Perhaps I may make one small criticism of the report of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Allen. The international sources set out in the table to the report did not include the conventions of the International Labour Organisation. The minimum standards of the ILO are those most widely recognised in the world. One reason for including them in the report is that the preamble to the charter itself states that it draws inspiration from the ILO conventions. I do not suggest that is why the committee omitted the conventions, but the Government must be pleased that they were not included.
Not only have the Government abrogated four major ILO conventions since they came to power, but in its report of 28th April 1989 the ILO Committee of Experts—a body respected throughout the world as independent experts—held that the condition of our laws on trade union rights, the dismissal of strikers and sympathetic action contravenes the minimum levels laid down by the Convention on Freedom of Association. To that must be added the fact that the ILO has condemned the banning of collective bargaining for teachers and the infringement of union rights at GCHQ as breaches of our international obligations. It is therefore relevant to look at the ILO standards which we should like our labour laws to meet.
Finally, it is astonishing to find the Minister, Mr. Eggar—who has been much in evidence tonight and for whom the noble Lord will have to answer—putting it to the committee that positive rights for workers in this country to organise, to bargain, to participate or to strike in place of the traditional immunities could not be supported because that would mean,
"upsetting the balance of industrial relations legislation",
and,
"changing something that has been unchanged since 1906".
As my noble friend Lady Turner suggested, it is the Government's own legislation which has upset the traditional balance by smashing the traditions which grew out of 1906 and led to levels falling below minimum international standards.
The truth is that the Government prefer individualised employment relations. I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is their position. That is why they are cut off from the very broad
80
philosophy which appears in the charter. They abhor tripartism. They either reduce the number of trade unionists or eliminate trade unionists from public bodies wherever they can. No other state in the Community has changed the direction of its social policy in that way. Perhaps tonight the Minister will give us not the old recording about burdens on business but a new number, one that acknowledges that even at this late hour, having had time to absorb the contents of the action programme, at least the Government will not obstruct the fulfilment of the social dimension which is needed for the Community to play its full role in Western Europe, and indeed in the whole of Europe.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will allow me to intervene. He suggested that the Government, whom I support, were dedicated to the elimination of trade unionists. Does the noble Lord realise that it was largely the trade union vote which put them in office?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his question. I think that we should both read Hansard. I said that the Government had tried to to get rid of trade union representation on a number of tripartite bodies. So far as concerns trade unionists, the Government want to get rid of those rights—and have done so in a certain respects—which make trade unions effective.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with respect, that is not what the noble Lord said. Perhaps he will consult Hansard.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this has been a useful debate on a very interesting report from the Select Committee on the European Communities. The committee has carried out a detailed and thorough examination and deserves praise for putting the report together in such a short space of time. I believe that the essential aims of the Government and of the committee are very close. We are all firmly committed to the principle that the single market must serve the interests of everybody in the Community. In particular, it must create the climate for job creation and development.
I want to respond to as many of the detailed points which have been raised this evening as possible. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has left us. I should say that I have grown accustomed to her face on the other side of the Dispatch Box. However, it has been a joy tonight to see the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, instead.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, criticised the Government Back-Benchers for not being here to hear me speak. I believe that there are two reasons that that. First, they support the Government's view concerning the social charter. Secondly, they probably have every confidence in my ability to reply to the accusations of noble Lords opposite.
I should respond to the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, that the critics of

81
the charter, by whom I understand he means the Government, did not respond constructively to the amendments agreed in negotiations. I must tell the House that we were a part of that process of negotiation.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, if the Minister is replying to me, perhaps he will get the facts right. I commented that it was perhaps what the French presidency and the supporters of the charter concluded. I did not say that it was the reaction in this country.
Lord Strathclyde: Fair enough, my Lords. I must have misunderstood the noble Lord. However, the point remains that we took a full part in the process of negotiation. We participated constructively in the discussions and supported a number of the changes that were made, but those changes did not go far enough for us to accept the full charter.
The Government's position was summed up by the Prime Minister in her Statement in another place following the Strasbourg meeting of the European Council in December. There were three main concerns. The first was the effect of the Commission's proposals on jobs and unemployment. There can be no doubt that the charter would lead to more legislation, more rules and more regulations. There is ample evidence for that in the Commission's action programme of measures necessary to implement the charter. Of the 43 new initiatives in the action programme, almost half involve legally binding proposals. The general thrust of the Commission's intentions is therefore regulatory.
Yet the Government have pursued a very successful policy in their 10 years in office of getting rid of unnecessary rules and regulations and encouraging greater flexibility in the labour market. Much of our success in bringing down unemployment is due to our policy of deregulation. Noble Lords should look more carefully at the results. We now have an unemployment rate of 5–9 per cent., the lowest level since September 1980 and well below the average for the Community as a whole of 8–9 per cent. Those are OECD figures.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the Minister not admit that even on the OECD figures, since the Government have made 30 changes in the way in which they calculate those figures, one must add 30 per cent. to achieve the proper figure?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that that is not true. If he listens a little longer he will hear some further proof.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said that increased costs do not necessarily mean lost jobs, but what about the effect on international competition, not just within the European Community, but with Japan, the USA and the rest of the world? We do not need reports and studies to see how successful we have been. We can see the results. In the 1980s this country grew faster than any other European country, in stark contrast to the previous two decades when we were at the bottom of the league table. We have changed the pattern.
82
There are more people in employment than ever before. That is social progress. There is now wider choice and more jobs.
The Community already agreed at the summit in Madrid last June that completion of the single market offered the best chance of improving living and working standards and that in moving towards that goal in 1992 job creation and development should have top priority. In the Government's view the effect of the charter and some of the proposals in the action programme will be to reduce labour market flexibility, add to employers' costs, damage the competitiveness of Europe's firms, particularly in world markets, and have an adverse effect on employment prospects.
Our second main concern about the social charter was the question of subsidiarity. We have heard a good deal about that this evening. Let us be clear as to its meaning. It means that action should be taken at Community level only where the desired objectives cannot be achieved by action within member states, either at national or local level. Both the charter and the action programme include statements about the need to respect the principle of subsidiarity. However, despite those statements there are a number of proposals in the action programme with regard to which we do not see any need for Community involvement.
Let us take, for example, holiday entitlements, working hours and pay for part-time workers. Those matters are best dealt with in free negotiation between employers and employees.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, mentioned a number of articles of the social charter to which he implied that the Government were opposed. He referred to articles about the right to belong to a trade union, about equal treatment and particularly about access to training. The Government have never said that they are opposed to those provisions. They are parts of the charter that we could support. The Government have made it clear that they are committed to improved training by setting up TECs. In terms of records on training, the Government have done far more than the last Labour Government ever even imagined possible. A sum of £3 billion is now being spent compared with £500 million then.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, pointed out that the action programme does not set out a minimum wage. However, it proposes an opinion on a decent wage. There are two points to be made in that respect. How can member states implement an opinion on decent wages unless there is a regulation of some kind of the negotiation of wage levels? If there is, what business has the Community to pronounce on that subject? Surely the principle of subsidiarity is that there are some areas in which the Community has no role at all. I believe that this is one of them.
It is important to recall that we are not alone in our concern about subsidiarity. This too was an issue on which there was unanimous agreement at the Madrid summit.
Our third main concern was about the extent to which social and labour market policies need to be

83
harmonised and standardised. Again this was an issue on which all heads of government reached agreement at Madrid. They agreed that where action is taken at Community level it must respect national practice and tradition. The Community embraces a wide variety of social systems and practices. That very diversity has enabled each country to make progress in its own way and at its own pace.
I have said enough to show why we were disappointed with the charter. It was out of step with important criteria which we and the Community hold dear.
I now come to detailed points. First, let me address the points made by the Committee in its report on the charter. It is gratifying to note that a number of points that it made supported the Government's position; for example, the fact that in many places the charter confuses principle and detail and lacks a clear division of responsibility for implementation between the Community, national governments and local agreements. However, I must say that I find it surprising that the committee should have reached the conclusion that we should have accepted the draft charter as a basis for negotiation. That displays a misunderstanding of the significance of the social charter and its effect on the future developments of social policy within the Community.
Specifically, the committee took the view that the charter should be a statement of generally accepted principles contained in existing law or in international agreements. That would make it merely a restatement of commitment to the social dimension of the Community. If the charter had simply been such a document, the Government would have had considerably less difficulty with it. That was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. We are not opposed to those kinds of statement.
We argued precisely those points during the course of the detailed negotiations. In a debate in another place on 29th November, my colleague, the Minister of State for Employment, Tim Eggar, whose name has been mentioned a great deal this evening, made clear that we could have contemplated a short declaratory statement, setting out broad objectives, taking account of the Madrid conclusions, particularly the conclusion that gave priority to job creation, respecting the principle of subsidiarity and taking account of the diversity of national practice.
I must also say something about what has been portrayed as an inconsistency between our refusal to adopt the charter despite the fact that it repeats a number of commitments which we have already accepted in other international agreements. Appendix 3 of the committee's report sets out those commitments in the form of a table.
There is a good deal of difference between those other international agreements and the commitment that we would have made in the social charter. In the case of other international objections, the key word is flexibility. The Government can choose in the first place whether or not to ratify a particular agreement. If they choose to ratify, they have flexibility in the method in which they meet the
84
new obligations. In most cases there is scope for withdrawing agreement to a particular commitment where it is no longer thought to be appropriate.
There is no guarantee of flexibility in agreements reached at Community level. Member states may be challenged before the European Court of Justice, which may dictate a particular formula for implementation.
Moreover, the charter was not simply a consolidating document drawing together all relevant international commitments and giving them a Community seal of approval. The charter invited the Commission to bring forward an action programme of measures to implement the charter and, as I have already mentioned, the action programme contains no fewer than 43 different new initiatives, of which almost half are for legally binding instruments.
With regard to the committee's recommendation on the issue of subsidiarity, in paragraph 36 of its report it criticises the charter for its lack of a clear division of responsibility for implementation as between the Community, national governments and local agreements. It recognises that supporting the charter could be taken as support for Community action in areas where national or local action would be more appropriate. Again, it is gratifying to find support for the Government's view in the report. But the committee goes on to underline the fact that the text acknowledges the general need for subsidiarity and respect for national practices. It concludes that the appropriate place for debate about the level at which action should be taken is in the context of the detailed negotiations on individual proposals.
I hear the point that the committee makes, but it seems to me to be unrealistic. The committee seems to be saying that all the Government's concerns about subsidiarity were justified but that there were nevertheless sufficient safeguards already written into the document to enable us to sign up and argue about the details later. I regard that as negotiating within an air of mendacity. That is also an imprudent way of proceeding, particularly when it was quite clear from the Commission's action programme that in a number of areas the Commission was intent on pushing for Community standards whereas the UK's view was that matters should be left to member states.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, suggested that only those directives dealing with health and safety would be dealt with by qualified majority voting. We do not know that. We shall have to see what the Commission proposes. We cannot be sure that it will not bring forward as many proposals as it can in addition to those dealing with health and safety on a qualified majority legal basis.
The main point is that this Government do not sign up and argue the details later as perhaps some noble Lords opposite would like us to do. The draft social charter was a flawed document. To have signed it would have committed us to taking steps to implement the rights contained in it; and our adoption of it would have made it very difficult, if not impossible, to argue against what we had agreed

85
to in the charter. That is the difficulty that some other member states will be faced with as the detailed negotiations on specific proposals in the action programme get under way. That is why I have to say that the committee's recommendation that the UK should have accepted the charter as a basis for negotiation was misjudged. Such an approach would have served only to weaken our negotiating position and not strengthen it.
We have not turned our backs on social Europe as some have alleged. We fully support the single market programme—indeed we have a record second only to Denmark when it comes to implementation of the single market measures. That is hardly anti-communautaire. We share the view of the Community as a whole that completion of the single market offers the best chance to improve living and working conditions throughout the Community.
We reject the notion that the single market is uniquely for business, as though business interests were in some way separate from those of ordinary people. We must free business to create wealth, which alone can permit the improvements in living and working conditions that all of us seek.
Our approach assumes some basic social protection. We believe that everyone has a right to effective and easily available social protection. This should cover pensions, sickness and unemployment benefits; it should provide an adequate income to everyone.
The state has a massive commitment to social security, accounting for £51 billion or nearly one-third of public expenditure. Add to that extensive occupational and private pensions. We have a comprehensive social assistance scheme that provides adequate income for all groups living permanently in the country, whatever their nationality. But we believe firmly that further economic progress is the essential prerequisite of further advances on the social front. Only by making economic progress is it possible to maintain and strengthen our high levels of social protection. That is precisely the view that the committee took in paragraph 31 of its report when it said:
"a social dimension to the Community will have to fall into step behind wealth and job creation".
Members of the House may have seen a recent article in the Spectator by Tim Congdon. It was essentially about the issue of fiscal harmonisation. He argued that by sticking to a low tax policy, the UK would encourage foreign investment and improve incentives and that this would lead on to higher growth. There are parallels here with the Government's deregulation policy. By getting rid of unnecessary rules and regulations we have encouraged enterprise and initiative and this in turn has led to more jobs and greater prosperity. We cannot afford to undermine this progress by adopting proposals which will add to the sum of regulation. Other European governments spend more and more of their wealth. This Government have reduced the proportion of government spending. That has been excellent for growth and that is why, if there is to be a two-speed Europe, Great Britain will be in the fast stream.
86
There are areas where the Community has a necessary role: the achievement of the single market requires the agreement of all member states since no single member country can make it work. There also need to be some general principles by which we should all abide. I refer in the employment field to such items as the freedom for workers to move around within the Community, freedom to engage in an occupation, freedom of establishment, mutual recognition of qualifications, equal pay and equal treatment for men and women, the importance of training and a healthy and safe working environment wherever people are in the Community.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, drew attention to those measures in the action programme for women. We are committed to equal opportunities for men and women, as she recognises. We have the second highest participation rates for women within the Community and women's contributions will be even more vital in the 1990s. But more legislation is not necessarily the key to greater equality of opportunity. Can regulation help to create jobs? Indeed, I believe, and the noble Baroness heard me say so earlier, that only businesses can do that and if we curb businesses our opportunities will diminish.
Let me take for an example worker participation, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. Many countries within the Community attach great importance to legal requirements governing worker participation. They are right to follow the paths which are best suited to their conditions and circumstances. We in Britain are also committed to employee involvement. We have recently issued a booklet People and Companies, which reports what we believe to be one of the major success stories of British industry in recent years. But unlike the report referred to by the noble Lord, we believe that the success has been based not on legislation but on voluntary co-operation and diversity. The key to success has been to allow companies to develop their own approach to these issues.
Making rules is always the easy part. What counts is implementation. As I said, the United Kingdom's record is one of the best among the 12 member states. What we sign up to we bring into effect. I do not accept the claim made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that the United Kingdom is dragging its feet. The Commission presented a report on implementation to the internal market council on 21st December which confirms the United Kingdom's excellent record. We have implemented more measures of the single market than all others bar one. In fact our record is even better than the latest report would suggest and, as Mr. Delors himself said, our record is as good as any.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said that the Prime Minister thought that this was a Marxist document. The Prime Minister and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, know a lot more about Marxism than I do. I am quite happy to take the view of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, also spent some time talking about the closed shop. I shall have to read Hansard very carefully tomorrow because I am

87
not quite sure whether at the end of it all he came down for or against the pre-entry closed shop. No doubt that is something that we shall be able to discuss at considerable length in the summer when we have the Employment Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, asked what proposals we can accept. We still await detailed proposals of the proposed action programme. Subject to careful scrutiny of the detailed proposals I believe that there will be a considerable number of measures that we shall be able to support, in particular health and safety and freedom of movement. I have to say that some pose real difficulties for the United Kingdom and justify our reservation over the package as a whole, since we cannot see how they contribute to economic growth or justify a role for the Community as a whole.
The noble Lord was also quite right to point to changes in Europe, especially in Eastern Europe. I believe that these developments vindicate our caution. We believe in a strong Europe but not a fortress Europe. It must be better able to compete with the international market. For this we need flexibility. The worst policy today would be to tie ourselves to particular models belonging to yesterday's world, and I refer in particular to worker participation and the regulation of hours.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said that the Opposition wanted to accept the practice of other European countries. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, echoed that sentiment, although not in the same words, when he said that we should acpept the traditions normal on the Continent. I may have exaggerated his words but that was the gist of them. I have to ask noble Lords these questions. Do they really want the Community to dictate how we manage our affairs? Do they really want other countries and their traditions forced upon us? That is important. In France, one cannot do more than seven hours' overtime a week without special permission. In Germany, weekend working is strictly controlled. In Belgium, according to the Commission's own study, women can work at night only by special royal decree. In Greece, night work is forbidden with few exceptions for all female employees in industrial enterprises. This Government are not pressing for excessive overtime and unsocial hours. We are saying that the people are perfectly able to decide for themselves what hours they work. Such matters are best left to free negotiations at the workplace.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree with this: He knows very well that we never said any of those things. Can he answer the question put to him by my noble friend? What is so special about health and safety? He does not want regulations on working hours, wages or protection of children because they raise costs. Yet he does not abolish all the legislation on health and safety. Surely that adds to cost also. What is so special about that?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, what an extraordinary question for the noble Lord to ask. Is
88
he suggesting that any future Labour Government would do away with health and safety legislation? That is the way his question came across to me. It seems quite obvious to me why we have health and safety legislation in this country and why we seek to increase it where it has proved necessary.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord knows very well what I am saying. If the Government were consistent in their position, they would abolish health and safety legislation. If they do not, they are inconsistent.
Lord Mottistone: Nonsense, my Lords!
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, precisely.
The noble Lords, Lord Houghton of Sowerby and Lord Monkswell, mentioned Eastern Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was particularly refreshing on the subject. He talked about the lack of vision in this country and in particular within the Community. But the Community already has a sense of purpose: that is, the free market and 1992; the free movement of people, of goods, of capital—the free market which basically means freedom. A CAP is not a good example where the European Community has been successful in instituting its policies. With 1992, we now have an opportunity to see whether all the countries that want to see greater European integration can produce it before we become involved in other issues such as the social charter.
This Government do not wish to go on carping about Europe, or even to be seen as carping about Europe, because we believe that we are genuine Europeans. We want the remainder of Europe to accept our policies for growth. It is the Conservative Party that has always had the vision on Europe.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord really must withdraw that. The Conservative Party fought election after election on the basis that if we joined Europe it would be the ruin—I remember one slogan—of farmers, farm workers and farming throughout the land. For the noble Lord to say that the Conservative Party has been the leader in this field is a travesty.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I bow to the noble Lord's greater knowledge because I know that his party has been proponents of the idea ever since the beginning. But it was a Conservative Prime Minister who brought this country into Europe. It was under a Conservative Government that the idea of 1992 was conceived. It was a Conservative Government who brought in the Single European Act. And where was the Labour Party in all that time? We all know that even in 1983 it had a manifesto commitment to bring us out of the European Community. Yet here the members are all exhorting us to accept a social Europe. There is one reason for this sudden contradiction.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, dare the noble Lord bring to his lips the name of the Conservative Prime Minister who brought us into Europe?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have no difficulty with that, but the noble Lord is missing my point. I am talking about the Labour Party and how it has changed. The reason it has changed is that after nearly 11 years out of office, and with the pathetic opposition that it has provided over the past 11 years, it sees the only effective opposition to this Government's policies is with the red dawn rising over Brussels. That is the truth. This Government are keen to look ahead. The social charter is now passed. It was a political declaration but one which we believe also commits the signatories to a package implementing measures many of which we have not had sight of. We must now move to the next stage.
The Commission has now published its action programme setting out its stall. We await detailed proposals of the action programme. Subject to careful scrutiny of detailed proposals, I believe that there will be a considerable number of measures that we shall be able to support. Some pose real difficulties for the UK and justify our reservation over the package as a whole since we cannot see how they contribute to economic growth or justify a role for the Community as a whole.
However, we shall be considering each and every measure in the action programme. We shall not be sulking in our tents. We intend to participate fully and constructively in all negotiations. We shall be listening to what the Commission and other member states have to say, and we shall be applying the criteria that they and we have agreed; namely, will the measures create jobs and are they best undertaken by the Community or best left to member states? Far from hindering our ability to negotiate, we believe our stance on the charter has left our hands free to explore each and every proposal as it comes forward. Noble Lords can be sure that in doing so we have at heart the interests of everybody in this country and in the Community at large.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate. As I said at the beginning, it has been one-sided although in the past half-hour we have seen the government spokesman doing his best. I was very anxious that this should not develop into a party political struggle. I was particularly pleased to have the support of a fellow Cross-Bencher in the admirable speech of my noble friend Lord Bridges.
I was a little disappointed but not in the slightest degree surprised by what the Minister said. I realise that his hands are tied. However, he said some rather strange things; for example, about the attitude of the Commission and the effect of the opinion the Commission proffers on wages. I do not think it is appropriate for me to go into detail at this stage on the various points that he made. He completely failed to convince me that the committee was wrong in thinking that it would have been better, for a number of reasons, for this country to join the social charter and to have got in so that not only could it argue about the charter but could give the impression that it was really concerned with the future of the Community and with the social dimension—matters
90
on which I am afraid the Minister's speech still leaves us in some doubt.
However, he went at such a rate in his 30 minutes' reading that I should like to leave the matter there, in particular since I have another speech to make later this evening. Like other noble Lords, I shall study what he said in Hansard. However, I hope that the Government will study in Hansard what other people have said and note some very helpful and constructive points which have been made in the course of the debate. I commend the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Trade Union Act 1984 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
8.20 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before moving that the Bill do now pass to succumb to its destiny of infant mortality in another place, I wish to say a brief word of thanks to noble Lords on all sides of the House for their support and attendance on so many occasions and at great personal inconvenience. They did so to seek to meet by reason the Government's objections and to convince them that there was a problem.
As yet the Government see no problem and regard the Bill as a tiresome, otiose misconception. But there is always hope: the matter will be kept under review; perhaps amendments to the Employment Bill now before another place will be introduced. If not, in accordance with my undertaking to your Lordships, I shall introduce an amendment in this House in the summer, if necessary, when the opinion of your Lordships may be taken for the third time of asking.
In conclusion, I wish to thank in particular my noble friend the Minister for the exemplary conduct of his part in the affair and for his good offices in so far as it was possible for him to render them. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, on behalf of those who supported him I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for taking the lead. Throughout he has been indefatigable, persuasive, flexible and reasonable. Like so many others who have been indefatigable, persuasive, flexible and reasonable he has met his reward.
The noble Lord has also isolated the Government. He was not alone in doing so; he was not present earlier but the Government were similarly isolated this evening. The difference is that his supporters on his side of the House turned up and they argued very well on his behalf. We thank the noble Lord greatly for what he has done so far and for saying that he will continue the fight. We wish him the best of luck.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches I support the Motion that the Bill do now pass and renew my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, on having obtained support for it from all sides of the House. Like him and like the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, I hope that the objective of the Bill can be met by an amendment to the Employment Bill, now in Standing Committee in another place, when it comes to this House.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I wish simply to put on record for old times' sake my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. As I have told him, rightly or wrongly, I received advice that the debates which took place during the earlier stages of the Bill were not ones in which I ought to participate. However, I wish to put on record my congratulations to him on getting the Bill to this point.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful, my Lords.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Civil Aviation Authority (Borrowing Powers) Bill
8.24 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to be able to present to your Lordships' a short and straightforward Bill which contains only two clauses. However, its purpose is threefold. First, it increases the total amount that the Civil Aviation Authority is permitted to borrow from the current limit of £200 million to a new limit of £500 million. Secondly, it allows the Secretary of State to agree further increases in the borrowing limit up to a maximum of £750 million, subject to affirmative resolution. Thirdly, it allows the Civil Aviation Authority to borrow funds denominated in units of account such as European currency units in addition to conventional currencies.
I turn first to the £300 million increase in the borrowing limit. It is vital if the authority is to be able to raise the finance it needs for the large capital investment programme now under way which will cost about £600 million over the next 10 years. The authority's borrowing limit was last increased in 1980 when the current limit of £200 million was set and the CAA's borrowing projections indicate that the £200 million ceiling will be reached this year. Therefore, we need to agree a new limit now so that the authority can press on with its investment programme.
Many of the capital projects being implemented by the CAA are long term. The authority will not be able to start to recover the cost from the airlines through user charges until the new equipment is fully operational later in the 1990s. Therefore, the authority will have to borrow the necessary finance.
The authority's investment plans reflect the vigour with which it is going about its task; it covers a very wide range of equipment and systems which are
92
designed to increase the amount of traffic which can be handled, and, above all, handled safely, in the skies over Britain. I am sure that those of your Lordships who have experienced frustrating airport delays, particularly at holiday times, will agree that money spent on increasing airspace capacity—with no short cuts on safety—will indeed be well spent.
Perhaps I might quote a few examples of projects in the pipeline. The latest single project within the £600 million programme is the new en-route centre which will cost some £200 million. This will be a new control centre for all traffic which is en route over England and Wales. It is expected to increase capacity by about 40 per cent. when it becomes fully operational in 1996.
Another major project is the so-called central control function, also known as the tunnels in the sky concept. It involves a major restructuring of the airspace over South-East England and will increase capacity in the terminal manoeuvring area over the South-East by at least 30 per cent. when it is fully in place in 1995. It will cost about £30 million.
There are also other projects; for example, the new computer at the West Drayton Control Centre which will be operational this year, new radar installations in Scotland, new oceanic and Scottish en-route centres and many more. I mention these to give your Lordships an idea of the kind of projects which the CAA has in hand to increase capacity, to maintain safety and to help solve the problems of delays which have become all too familiar in recent years.
I believe that the present capital programme represents a full and proper response by the CAA to the growth in demand for flying. It will also—and I stress this again—enable the CAA to maintain the safety standards which are already at a very high level and which I am sure all your Lordshps will agree must stay that way. But, as I have already emphasised, the authority will be unable to keep up the momentum of these and other vital projects unless Parliament agrees to increase the limit on its borrowing from £200 million to £500 million.
I now turn to increases in the limit beyond £500 million. The Bill requires that when the £500 million limit is reached, which we anticipate will be towards the end of 1995, it can be increased only by affirmative resolution. Therefore, Parliament will have the opportunity to review the matter again at that time. The Bill also sets an upper limit of £750 million, beyond which further primary legislation will be required. This figure was set as being sufficiently high to give the authority the flexibility it would need to accommodate its projected borrowings without being so high as to postpone unduly the time when Parliament would have the opportunity to debate the CAA's borrowing limit again in a new Bill.
The third aspect of the Bill is to make it quite clear that the authority's existing power to borrow funds in currencies other than sterling includes the power to borrow units of account. Your Lordships might wonder why we have thought it necessary to include this apparently obscure measure in the Bill so I shall explain.

93
Some noble Lords may remember that towards the end of 1988 we introduced the Civil Aviation (Air Navigation Charges) Bill. Its purpose was to clarify that existing legislation—Section 73 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982—gave the Secretary of State the power to prescribe that charges for air navigation services levied on airlines by Eurocontrol could be denominated in units of account. We have a similar problem of interpretation with Section 10 of the 1982 Act (which this Bill is amending) as it gives the CAA the power to borrow in sterling and other currencies but it does not specifically mention units of account.
As a result of the Civil Aviation (Air Navigation Charges) Act 1989, the CAA will soon start to receive the bulk of its revenue in European currency units instead of US dollars. Therefore, at some date in the future the authority may wish to borrow money in the form of ecus. For example, the CAA might wish to borrow ecus for working capital to match ecu debtors in the balance sheet. At the moment the authority has no plans to take out ecu-denominated loans, but we feel that this added flexibility should be made available in case it is needed.
I hope I have said enough to convince your Lordships of the need for this short but important, Bill. It reflects what the CAA is doing to improve services and maintain safety for us all as travellers. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Viscount Davidson.)
8.30 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for outlining the purpose of this Bill and for doing that so quickly in the light of the debate which is to follow dealing with transport and the disabled. In reading the speeches from the other place I believe that there was only one critical speech. I do not intend to make a critical speech. I also noted that numerous other opportunities were taken in the other place to comment on the work of the CAA. I do not propose to do that except to refer to one or two items which I believe are relevant to this Bill.
Naturally, we appreciate the purposes of the Bill; that is, to alleviate aircraft delays, to give some easement of congestion and to assist air safety. I was very pleased to notice the emphasis of the Bill, to which the noble Viscount referred, that, should it be required to go beyond the £500 million limit up to a maximum of £750 million, then there must be an affirmative resolution. That will give a rare opportunity to the House to discuss the work of the CAA.
It has been made clear that the CAA's financial objective is to recover the whole of its costs—and this is in general—and to achieve a reasonable return on capital, which we are told is a target of 8 per cent. over the next three years to be met by charges levied on users of services such as airlines. An investment programme, to which reference has been made, is to be spread over 10 years. Is it therefore intended to levy charges on a variable basis year by year?
94
In connection with that, I understand that the CAA undertakes regular consultation with those who pay for its services. The CAA handbook states that it is done:
"so that frank discussion about the cost and quality of services can take place and the consequent level of charges can be reviewed".
In the light of the definite projects for which the borrowing and investment programme is intended, I ask the noble Viscount whether such discussions have taken place.
The noble Viscount also referred to two particular projects: a £30 million project to increase capacity in the terminal manoeuvring area in South-East England, which he said will increase capacity by 30 per cent.; and the en route centre at an expenditure of £200 million, which will increase capacity by 40 per cent. On 5th May in your Lordships' House in reply to a Question on air space capacity, the noble Viscount reminded us that the CAA is to advise this summer on the adequacy of UK air space and airport capacity up to the year 2000. Until that advice is received—and I believe that that will be during the summer—how definite is the estimate of 30 and 40 per cent. to which the noble Viscount referred and to which I have just drawn attention?
I should refer here to a comment in the CAA's current annual report. I shall not give the actual wording but it states that air space is a finite resource. It cannot be extended but can only be used more intensely. For that purpose, it can only be dealt with by the use of sophisticated technology. That is one reason why we support the purposes for which the increased borrowing is required. However, it is perhaps pertinent to repeat the statement—and I am not permitted to quote it—of a Conservative Member in the debate on the money resolution. He said that while there may be provision for extra planes in the sky, the problem is having adequate controls to enable aircraft to take off and land.
In the light of that observation and the encouraging reply given by the noble Viscount to my Question on 5th February as to whether the CAA advice would include the role which regional airports will play, I was very pleased to note that Mr. Patrick McLougnlin, Minister for Aviation and Shipping, said in the money resolution debate on 17th January:
"The Government place great emphasis on the role of regional airports in serving their localities. It seems nonsense that people have to travel from Leeds, Bradford or Derbyshire to London to get the flight that they require. The Government would like to see regional airports take up as many opportunities as possible". [Official Report, House of Commons, 17/1/90; col. 369.]
That may seem irrelevant to the discussion on the Bill but as that was an observation made by a Minister in the other place, I believe that it is good to have it on record in your Lordships' House. In fact, almost those precise words were repeated by Mr. McLoughlin in the Third Reading debate in the other place on 1st February, at col. 540.
I ask how much of the required borrowing will be needed for work in connection with recruitment and training of additional air traffic controllers. It is generally agreed that it is on such officers that the easing of aircraft congestion and the assurance of safety depends. Does not the noble Viscount agree that there has been some backwardness in the CAA

95
making such preparation for the future? Did the authority underestimate in the past few years the need to increase the number of air traffic controllers?
That leads to views expressed in debates in the other place regarding the efficiency of the CAA. We must keep in mind in that direction that the airlines paid some £200 million in air traffic charges alone to the CAA last year. We know that the effectiveness of the CAA was considered by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1983, a report being presented in November of that year. And yet an announcement was made six years later, on 12th December, that there was to be another reference of the CAA ' to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It has been suggested in some quarters that that reference is intended only to look into the national air traffic services, which, for abbreviation purposes, I shall refer to as NATS. That provides the navigation services on which something like 80 per cent. of the CAA staff are engaged. I believe that we agree that inquiries into public undertakings are always desired but it seems strange that after only six years the CAA should again be referred to the MMC.
It has been suggested that the reference is confined only to NATS. Will the Minister confirm that position, because I have read carefully—or at least I hope I have—the Written Answer to Mr. Haselhurst given by Mr. Redwood, the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs at the DTI, from which it would appear that the reference is to investigate the efficiency of the Civil Aviation Authority and in particular the navigation and air traffic control services. If only those are to be investigated, then my reading of that reply is wrong. If my interpretation is wrong, I must ask why it is only the affairs of NATS which are to be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
This is a very important matter because, during consideration of the Bill in another place, references were made to the possibility of NATS being separated from the CAA. The opposition spokesman, Mr. Peter Snape, made it quite clear that any such proposal would need to be examined with the utmost care. That would require the most careful investigation not only of NATS but of the work of the CAA.
I understand that it is proposed to transfer the West Drayton Air Traffic Control Centre to another site. Reference was made in the other place to the transfer being made to a 30-acre greenfield site in Hampshire. The Minister replied in the other place that that is only one of several sites under consideration, but he added that outline planning permission had been given. I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether planning permission has been obtained for the other sites under consideration and whether the transfer to the greenfield site in Hampshire is more definite than has been indicated? How much of the proposed borrowing would be involved in the transfer of the air traffic centre?
I hope that the Minister can answer those questions. I wish the Bill well. We fully agree with its purposes.
8.42 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I should like to thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. I stated on an earlier occasion in your Lordships' House that at party conferences this year the CAA were good enough to bring a display which I found extremely impressive and totally confusing. It gave some conception of the kind of problems that an air traffic controller would experience in dealing with the area around London. Blips appeared on the screen to indicate the amount of traffic that they had to deal with during the cycle of a day's operations.
It is quite clear that there is a need for further sophistication of the systems underlying air traffic control in this country, because our airspace is becoming extremely congested. I wonder how long we can continue to increase the amount of air traffic coming into this part of the world. I know that there are those in your Lordships' House who would wish us to take any aircraft that cared to come into our area at any time in the future, lest it should go by mistake to Charles de Gaulle or to Amsterdam. I do not necessarily share that view.
There are three areas on which I should like to touch in regard to the CAA. The first concerns the question of Eurocontrol. The ultimate aim so far as Europe is concerned is to have a much more integrated control system than we have at the moment. How far will the plans being put forward by the CAA integrate or conflict with that kind of plan? What we do on our own little patch is insignificant compared with what happens in Europe as a whole.
The second item concerns regional airports, a subject which has been mentioned in another place. One constantly worries about the fact that regional airports, although they are doing better than they were a few years ago, still seem to be constrained by bilateral agreements with other countries. One hopes that the Government will continue in their liberalisation policy—if that is not a word to which they object too strongly—and that more international flights will fly into regional airports up and down the country.
The noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, will not be surprised if I raise the question of the amount of airspace used by our defences. It has been suggested on many occasions that that space could be handed over to civil flying, in particular the east coast routes. I hope that the noble Lord has something to say to us on that subject tonight. There is no doubt that if the east coast routes were made available, it would ease the position of aircraft exiting from the London traffic control area and would eliminate the congestion which now occurs somewhere over the Midlands.
I support the Bill. There is no doubt that the Civil Aviation Authority has a very important task to perform on behalf of everybody involved in flying. I wish it well and I hope that the money will be as wisely spent as it has been in the past.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, for good or ill, we find ourselves under the most intensively used piece

97
of airspace in Europe. On the one hand there are purely domestic flights from London to the North, flying at a low level. However most Air Force bases are in eastern England and many training areas are over Wales, and therefore one has a conflict approximately over Daventry. Apart from the conflict between domestic aviation and defence requirements there is the fact that a great number of transatlantic flights from the Continent go out over Britain. They fly from south to north. Therefore we find ourselves with a very substantial air traffic control problem which is not entirely of our own making.
I have welcomed this Bill certainly once and possibly twice during discussions on other issues in this House. The Bill authorises a very competent capital expenditure programme which gives us, for want of a better expression, a Rolls-Royce in terms of air traffic control, not only in terms of what it is seeking to do in London and Manchester but what it is seeking to do with all the airspace above us.
The CAA must be congratulated. They have pushed on to produce an air traffic control system which will be valid in 20 years' time. The noble Viscount is to be strongly supported for introducing this Bill. However, I can see two problems which have not been touched on more than remotely this evening. One is the problem of the provincial airports. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned them in his speech. I part company with him in that I feel that he mentioned them for the wrong reason. If people do not wish to fly from provincial airports, then I do not think that we should use investment, or in this case an air traffic control system, to force them to do so. That is an issue over which we have crossed swords in this House on a number of occasions over the years. I stick to my commitment. An air traffic control system must reflect the requirements of the consumer, not the disciplines set upon the consumer. It should also, quite rightly, make the consumer pay—and that is what we are discussing tonight.
I mentioned that we are getting a Rolls-Royce of an air traffic control system. However, one problem that occurs to me is that the road ends at Dover. This programme may never be complete because it will develop to take account of consumer needs and we shall have a very good air traffic control system for the UK. What will happen, however, when a plane crosses the Channel and sets off to continental Europe? We know that flow control has been discussed. We, with our colleagues on the Continent, are looking, if not at an integrated system, at an interface system that makes the process as simple as possible. If it is simple, whilst preserving security it will also be cost effective.
Flow control—the noble Viscount mentioned tunnels in the sky—puts a plane down nearly every 10 minutes. The railways ran on that basis in the 1840s. It was called train separation. Is that the way ahead? I do not believe it is, and so will the noble Viscount tell me how we are getting on with our European colleagues? We know that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, fought hard for a better system, not just for Britain, which is what we are discussing tonight, but for Europe as a whole. It
98
is no good shipping an aeroplane out of Gatwick, Heathrow, Manchester or Glasgow if, as I say, when it reaches the barrier, somewhere over the Channel, between the CAA's area of control and the rest of Europe, the aeroplane has to turn back, hang about or go round in circles. In fact the aeroplane does none of those things, because it is not dispatched from a British airport until it has a slot.
Will the noble Viscount tell us what our European colleagues are doing? Will any of the money that we are "authorising" tonight be devoted to obtaining a better deal for the British air traveller when he goes into continental Europe?
The last question I should like to ask, which I have touched upon briefly, is: does the expenditure plan, which we are in a sense agreeing at arm's length, take account of the outcome of the Lowlands Airport Review for Scotland? If it does, why are we being kept waiting to hear the outcome of that review?
8.52 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the general welcome given by your Lordships to the Bill. I appreciate that whenever the chance to debate civil aviation arises your Lordships make the most of the opportunity to raise related subjects which are felt to be important. Some of the subjects that have been raised tonight may be outside the Bill's purview. Nevertheless, I shall try briefly to answer all the questions which have been put to me. If I fail to do so, I shall write to noble Lords.
Perhaps I may start by reminding the House, in view of what has been said, what the CAA is looking at in its review. It is considering the adequacy of United Kingdom airport capacity in the longer term. That involves producing forecasts of airport and air space capacity, considering the role of the regional airports, seeking to assess the case for deferring the construction of additional runway capacity in the South-East until capacity elsewhere is taken up, examining alternative methods of managing demand, including the use of price mechanisms, and considering air traffic control implications of locating additional runway capacity at different sites in and near the South-East, and the results of all that work are, as noble Lords are aware, due this summer in the form of advice to the Secretary of State.
I shall enlarge on the regional airport situation which the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, mentioned. It would be wrong of me to try to predict the findings at this stage, but I emphasise and repeat that the Government of course encourage regional airports to cater for as much local demand as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked whether it is intended to raise charges on a variable basis and whether discussions on charges with users have taken place. The CAA reviews its charges annually and they are varied as necessary after consultations with users of its services. The noble Lord also asked about the MMC reference. The MMC reference recently announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is essentially concerned with navigation and air traffic control services, but it will look in particular at the

99
management of the CAA's investment programme and the CAA's system for improving efficiency, and so it is in line with the Bill's objectives to facilitate efficient investment for the benefit of air users.
The noble Lord also asked whether some of the CAA's increased borrowing is to be spent on more training of air traffic control staff and on their employment. The increase in borrowing powers under the Bill is to allow the CAA to raise the finance for capital projects and not for running costs such as staff salaries. However, the CAA is increasing the recruitment of air traffic controllers. It is up from 80 in 1988 to 200 this year and will be 240 annually from 1991.
The noble Lord also asked about planning permission being granted for a new en-route centre in Hampshire. The CAA has identified a number of possible sites for the new en-route air traffic control centre. Two possible sites near Fareham in Hampshire have been announced but no decision has yet been taken. Planning conditions for both sites are being discussed with the local council.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned air traffic congestion. Delays in 1989 were no worse than those of 1988, although traffic was up by 7 per cent. The average air traffic control delay from United Kingdom airports last summer was about 14 minutes. Admittedly, there were delays of about three hours at weekends and that was of course worse during the French air traffic engineers' strikes, but the CAA is making capital investment to deal with that position and hence the Bill. European air traffic control authorities, including the CAA, are co-ordinating well to keep delays to a minimum.
The noble Lord also, surprisingly, asked about releasing military air space for civil use to relieve air space congestion. I must apologise to him because I misheard him the other day. I now have an answer which I believe will satisfy him better than the one which I gave him on that occasion. Air space along the east coast is kept continually under review by the National Air Traffic Services. One of the two east coast military training areas was permanently closed last year and part of the remaining one will be removed this year for the planned extension of upper air routes over the North Sea. A trial will start in March in which a limited number of scheduled services betweeen Heathrow and Aberdeen, Teesside and Newcastle Airports will fly through east coast air space outside the existing regulated route structure. Air traffic services will be provided jointly by the civil and military agencies.
Civil aircraft are allowed to fly over firing ranges and other danger areas along the east coast when they are not being used. The size and operational hours of those areas are kept under review. Elsewhere in the country aircraft from the north heading to Spain, Portugal and beyond now have permanent access to military air space over Wales and the West Country.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, asked about the current review of Scottish Lowland airports policy. All I can tell him at this stage is that it would be wrong to view the outcome of the review as a
100
foregone conclusion. The review is intended to bring out arguments on both sides and the Government will be announcing a decision when all responses have been fully considered, which will be in the near future.
The noble Lord also asked what our European colleagues are doing and whether any of the money would be spent in Europe. The United Kingdom and its European colleagues are planning to harmonise and, probably in the next century, integrate air traffic control in Europe. Flow management is being integrated and none of the money will be spent in Europe.
If I have not answered all the questions I shall of course read Hansard and I undertake to write to noble Lords. I hope that I have answered most of the questions. I therefore ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) (Amendment) Regulations 1990
8.58 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 31st January be approved—[8th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these draft regulations, which apply to Great Britain, further amend the Hill Livestock (Compensatory Alowances) Regulations 1984. Comparable regulations have also been made in Northern Ireland. They bring into effect the increased rate of hill livestock compensatory allowance (HLCA) for hardy breed ewes in the severely disadvantaged parts of our less favoured areas, to be paid under the 1990 scheme which the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced in a statement in another place on 30th January.
Your Lordships will be familiar with the system whereby financial support in the form of headage payments on beef cows and ewes is given to livestock producers in our less favoured areas. It is a long-standing one, dating back to the 1940s. Since 1976 that assistance has operated under European Community legislation, currently the EC Structures Regulation 797/85. These payments are designed to compensate for the permanent natural handicap affecting farming activity in the less favoured areas, the objective being to ensure the continuation of livestock farming in the hill and upland areas with a view to preserving the rural fabric by keeping people in the less favoured areas and conserving the countryside. The European Community contributes 25 per cent. of eligible expenditure.
The agriculture departments traditionally carry out each autumn a thorough-going review of economic conditions in the hills and uplands in conjunction with representatives of farming interests. The 1989 review showed that average net farm incomes of livestock producers in our hill and upland areas are forecast to fall in 1989–90 in real

101
terms though this followed an increase in real terms in 1988–89. This year's forecasts suggest that in particular incomes for specialist sheep producers in the high hill areas will come under pressure and, as noble Lords will know, there is very little scope for diversification into other activities in these areas. The particular difficulties currently being faced by the specialist sheep producers in the high hills, we believe, justify an increase in the rate of compensatory allowance.
The draft regulations now before the House will increase the level of allowance paid for hardy breed sheep kept on severely disadvantaged land by 75p from £6.75 to £7.50 per animal. All other HLCA rates and conditions will remain unchanged for 1990. The increased rate will cost an extra £5.2 million in a full year. This will bring total HLCA payments up to a figure of some £125 million a year—a very substantial figure—which clearly demonstrates the Government's full and continuing commitment to support the livestock sector in the less favoured areas.
Finally, I should refer to some significant changes to the HLCA rules stemming from the decision by the Council of Ministers last November to amend the EC structures regulation. These changes will not take effect until 1st January 1991 and are not therefore of immediate relevance to the regulations before the House today. If I might summarise, the purpose of these regulations is to give extra assistance to livestock producers in the most disadvantaged parts of the less favoured areas where farming conditions are very difficult and where government assistance is of crucial importance if we are to maintain a farmed landscape in the areas concerned. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 31 st January be approved.—[8th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister both for explaining the regulations and for the welcome announcement of an increase of 11 per cent. in money terms in the HLCAs for ewes on the higher hills. As the noble Earl said, the income of these farmers has been quite severely depressed in recent years. They face very hard farming conditions. There will be a review in autumn 1990 and the noble Earl can be assured that we shall all be watching it very carefully to ensure that the full needs of the farmers in the LFAs will be met by the increase next year.
As the noble Earl will know, there is a problem for beef and sheep producers even in the disadvantaged areas and not the LFAs. It is a pity that no action has been taken to assist these very hard-pressed farmers. With that proviso, I am very glad from these Benches to repeat the welcome for this announcement.
Earl Peel: My Lords, while fully accepting the principle of the HLCA payments as laid out by my noble friend, for the purpose principally of
102
supporting the social structure of farming communities within the less favoured areas, I must express my deep concern as to what effect such a system has had, and perhaps more importantly is still having, on the upland environment. There is no doubt that the use of headage payments—I stress the word headage—simple though these may be to administer, has resulted in the loss of many thousands of acres of heather moorland and consequently valuable wildlife habitat.
This has occurred either directly through the specific increase in sheep numbers or indirectly through certain farming practices which have evolved since the war when the present subsidy system, as we know it, started. But whichever way we look at it, headage payments are supporting a system which in this day and age is, in my view, unacceptable and totally incompatible with environmental requirements. Despite the registration of ewe numbers under the Commons Registration Act 1965, huge amounts of heather have been and are still being eaten out on common land and elsewhere.
The statistics are innumerable. The NCC has calculated that 70 per cent. of the heather coverage has now disappeared in Cumbria; 40 to 50 per cent. in the North Yorkshire Moors and 40 per cent. in the Yorkshire Dales. I believe the situation is even worse in Northumberland. Another figure which I recently read and which I find quite astonishing is that the RSPB has calculated that 1–75 million acres of heather have disappeared in the United Kingdom since the war. More importantly, that disappearance is continuing. In addition to that, between the years 1980 and 1989, 2 million sheep have appeard as regular stock ewes in the less favoured areas.
Furthermore, with the proposal—my noble friend on the Front Bench made reference to this—to phase out the variable premium in favour of increasing the ewe premium and the HLCA payment, the problem is likely to get considerably worse. I realise that there are suggestions that there should be a limit of a thousand ewes per holding, but that is fairly meaningless as most flocks are well under that. Even so, I am sure that there will be ways in which most people will be able to circumnavigate that problem through partnerships, and so forth.
As I said earlier, I fully accept the need to provide some type of support within the less favoured areas. There is no doubt about that. We must maintain the social structure, but at the same time I believe that support must work more closely with the kinds of operations that we now see under the ESA, the environmentally sensitive areas system, where payments are made more on acreage than on a headage basis and there is a firm commitment to environmental objectives. That is crucial. I urge the Government, who have done so much recently to help restore the balance between agricultural output and conservation, to look again at this most unsatisfactory and outdated system of headage payments within less favoured areas. Public money cannot continue to be seen to be aiding and abetting

103
severe environmental damage. There are alternative systems. We must start implementing them immediately.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I should like briefly to support my noble friend Lord Peel. None of us wants to see hill farmers with their backs to the wall. They are, it is fair to say, the salt of the earth in many cases. The last thing I should like to see is their having a bad living and starving. The effect of what my noble friend has said about the disppearance of the heather moorland is that instead of sheep farms we see forestry. Once the land has been overgrazed by sheep, it becomes sick, and there is then no alternative but to plant trees.
Forestry, with all respect, does not employ local people as much as farming. Therefore it is in the interests of hill farmers themselves that a more sensible system than this should be worked out. My noble friend on the Front Bench said that this had been going on since 1940; that is, for 50 years. Surely after 50 years it is time to look at the matter more sensibly and try to make it work more in line with conservation.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, we have had a short and useful debate on these draft regulations and I am grateful for the comments that have been made. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for his contribution and I shall attempt to reply to my noble friends Lord Swinton and Lord Peel.
I have listened with great interest to what noble Lords have had to say about the need for action to maintain and indeed restore our heather moorlands. There is no doubt that there have been substantial losses in heather moorland, the causes of which have been explained so forcefully today. Of course ecological overgrazing by sheep in the uplands has played its part. Air pollution and the wider use of the countryside by urban populations have also contributed in certain areas. I well understand the calls for action to arrest the decline and specifically for some redirection of the agricultural support regime in the uplands with that objective.
There are wider pressures for encouragement to farmers to pursue agricultural practices which are beneficial to the environment. The Government have responded positively to those pressures in recent schemes. I mention the environmentally sensitive areas, the farming and conservation grants and the farm woodlands schemes, all of which have these objectives in mind. A further possibility for action specifically directed at the uplands has been secured only very recently through the amendment to the EC legal provisions which will allow member states to take account of environmental requirements in the HLCA scheme. The Minister has already made clear his intention to consider these possibilities very carefully over the months ahead. I do not think that I can say more this evening.
As I acknowledged in my opening speech, the specialist sheep producers in the high hill areas are experiencing particular difficulties at this time. I
104
believe that the additional assistance the Government are now proposing to give them is fully justified.
Earl Peel: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, he said earlier that he regarded air pollution as one of the reasons for the disappearance of heather. I think that this is perhaps a rather far-fetched argument. To my knowledge there is no evidence to substantiate it. From what I have seen, it is certainly not the case.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Disabled Transport
9.7 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what further steps they are taking to meet the transport needs of disabled people.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking those who have put down their names to speak in this short debate even at this advanced hour. I have to confess that when I was thinking about what I might say this evening, I felt, to begin with, a trifle discouraged. I could not help recalling that when the Government spent millions and millions of pounds on new headquarters for, of all departments, the Department of Health, they evidently clean forgot to provide any facilities for wheelchair users, as we discovered when some of us took part in a deputation soon after Richmond House was commissioned.
The other day at Question Time, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, made it clear that of all the topics in which the Department of the Environment was not interested, the plight of the disabled at Oxford bus and railway stations stood high on the list. But further reflection reminded me that the Department of Transport has quite a good record of endeavour in the topic we are now discussing, especially through its disability unit, which makes up in energy what it lacks in size. The Secretary of State has, for example, a statutory responsibility to issue guidance about making access to public transport vehicles easier for the disabled. He is assisted by the Disabled Persons' Transport Advisory Committee, appointed under the Transport Act 1985. This is an opportunity to pay tribute to the sterling work put in by the committee, many members of which are themselves disabled. It submits excellent reports which are laid before Parliament, though they are not printed and published.
One of the difficulties is that not nearly enough is known to the public about what is done, what is in contemplation and what are the the problems. The inability to make people realise what is possible and to affect public attitudes towards achieving it, and also to instil more confidence into the disabled themselves, is a theme which runs through much of what I have to say.
In this country—and we are not unique in this respect—about 12 per cent. of the population, some 6 million people, can use the available means of transport only with difficulty or not at all. That 12

105
per cent. has to be seen in the context of there being now only about 36 per cent. of households which are without a car. Modifications to present forms of public transport to make it possible for an appreciable proportion of the 6 million who cannot or dare not use the system would represent a potential source of extra custom on a scale nowhere in sight from any other source. I need not rub in the point that the cost to society of a person who is immobile and who has to be cared for is high, bearing in mind the fact that he or she may have to live and be maintained in a home, or, if housebound, may be dependent upon carers coming in. For the individual, mobility is perhaps the biggest single factor in achieving an independent life.
When we talk about disabled people, we are talking about people with widely varying forms of disability and widely varying needs. One has to be very cautious about talking of the "disabled" as though they were some collective entity of misfortune. The needs of those who cannot walk, who cannot see or hear properly, who cannot grip or lift or who have difficulty in understanding must all be met in different ways.
Perhaps I may now touch upon some of what has been achieved. I begin by recalling that there is a statutory duty on transport authorities, including that in respect of the Channel Tunnel—that is, if one is ever built—to include the needs of the disabled when making their plans. Many local authorities have concessionary bus fares for, among others, the disabled. British Rail has equipped its Inter City service so that it is possible, if you know how to set about it, for a person confined to a wheelchair to travel. A bus service linking the main London stations can take passengers in wheelchairs—that is, again, if you know how to find where it starts—as can the Airbus vehicles plying between London and Heathrow. Moreover, new taxis in London, and in some other places, will not be licensed unless they can take a passenger in a wheelchair. The two British manufacturers now build no other type of taxi, to the benefit, I believe, of their export trade.
The Department of Transport has issued guidance about textured pavements which reduce the risks at pedestrian crossings for the blind and for people in wheelchairs. The British Airways fleet has been equipped to cope with passengers in wheelchairs. Four model buses are on constant show, demonstrating how design changes can help to cope with various forms of handicap. Moreover, London Regional Transport has started a programme of incorporating some of those changes in its fleet. Despite various problems, minibuses with volunteer drivers are used on a large scale to provide door-to-door services for the disabled who would otherwise be housebound.
London Regional Transport is experimenting with the design of Underground trains. It is also making plans about stations on the District and Metropolitan lines so as to make them more accessible.
However, I must confess that the possibility of the disabled coping with the new ticket barriers and the escalators which do not work on the ordinary
106
Underground system is fraught with formidable obstacles. The disability unit of the Department of Transport every other year mounts a roadshow demonstrating how cars can be altered and equipped to meet various types of handicap. An information service is available to give advice about adaptations and driving ability. The department and the AA between them have managed to get the facilities at motorway service stations improved.
I should like to mention the efforts made by the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust to launch a scheme to facilitate access for the disabled to arts venues. A good deal of research is going on, as also is consultation with our Common Market friends; consultation in which this country takes a leading part.
That is not a complete list but it is not a bad list so far as it goes. The trouble is that it is only starting to touch the edges of the problem. To begin with, not enough about these various enterprises is widely known. Appreciation of the problems is, to put it kindly, somewhat limited. The thoughtless individuals who park on the pavements so that no wheelchair can get past are, I fear, only symptomatic of a general lack of understanding.
For their part, local authorities have been reluctant even to think about adjusting the priorities in their fare concession schemes. British Rail, although it has certainly done quite a lot, has not really solved the problem of letting disabled people know how they can find out what facilities are available to help them. I know from personal experience that Oxford is not the only new station where there are problems. It may be all right if one knows how to set about it, but there are few things more frustrating for the disabled than to contemplate starting on a journey without being sure what will happen when they get to the other end.
There is still quite a bit more to be done at the airports, but I suppose that the most important area of potential improvement is that of the buses. As I have said, demonstration buses are available which have been adapted or designed to meet the needs of the disabled. In view of the importance of the buses, it is perhaps worth spending a moment on what some of those needs are, especially as quite a number of accidents occur during the stopping and starting of the vehicle. The step height may be too great. The hand-rails may be difficult to grip. For lack of colour contrast, steps or rails cannot easily be seen. The bell push may be out of reach. There may be no visual guidance for the benefit of a deaf person that the bus is stopping and no spoken guidance for the benefit of a blind person.
To design a new bus with the necessary features does not add much to the cost. Adaptation may not be all that expensive either. Whatever extra expense is incurred can well be recovered in a couple of years from the additional passengers attracted to the buses when the handicapped find they can cope with them.
Although there are exceptions, sadly, operators and local authorities continue to be reluctant to use some of these ideas. As the Department of Transport itself puts it, a change in attitude and an increase in understanding are needed to demonstrate to

107
transport operators in a deregulated and commercial climate that providing for the needs of people with mobility handicaps is not a matter of loss-making or charitable activities but can make good business sense.
Then there are the coaches. With the increasing numbers of elderly people these could well be used more and more, but the industry has not been quick to adapt its vehicles to attract more disabled people. As for facilities at bus stations, I can only say that the disabled suffer even more than ordinary passengers, and that is saying something.
I recognise that good things do not make for news, but I wish that the press could find more scope for drawing attention to those providers of public transport who are taking seriously the prospect of enabling at any rate some of the 6 million to enjoy a mobility which has hitherto been denied to them, and who, by persuading them that times are changing, are taking seriously the prospect of doing something to spread confidence among those who have so far been kept away from public transport.
I wish, too, that highway authorities would do more to provide dropped kerbs, to install audible and tactile signs at crossing places and to remove or resite obstructive street furniture. I wish that those concerned with buses could do more to specify vehicles with low floors and other equipment to help the disabled of the type that I have outlined. I wish that local authorities could look at their fare concessionary schemes and consider a wider use of their financial resources, including their statutory powers to make capital grants towards improving public transport vehicles. I wish that local authorities and British Rail could do more to give clear information about the facilities which are being made available on public transport. Finally, I wish that the Department of Transport could be even more vigorous in giving a lead to transport authorities and private operators in carrying out research, in familiarising themselves with the best practices in other countries and in securing more publicity for what is being done, what could be done and why it ought to be done.
I fear that in a short speech on an Unstarred Question it is possible only to dip into some aspects of a far-reaching and complicated subject. I am conscious that I have not, for example, touched on the orange badge scheme, or on facilities at petrol filling stations, or on the design of wheelchairs and other devices, or on the possible effect of the EC Handynet scheme, or on the mobility allowance. The latter topic deserves a speech of its own. I hope that one day it will receive that speech.
I am glad at any rate to have had the chance of raising a topic which is of great concern to some millions of our fellow citizens who because of handicaps of one kind or another have difficulty in leading the independent life which in our civilised society they should be able to enjoy.
9.28 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of
108
Abbeydale, has given us the chance to discuss this subject which is of such importance to people with disabilities. I congratulate him on his masterly and panoramic portrayal of the situation. I should say at this point that my noble friend Lady Kinloss very much wanted to take part in this debate but she is unable to be here.
I wish to home in on one specific aspect of mobility. I am afraid it is not the mobility allowance but the orange badge scheme. That latter topic will receive a speech all of its own from me tonight. It is not really a question of what to do but of when the Government will implement their proposals that were announced last year in Traffic Topics 3. On 25th April 1989 Peter Bottomley, who was then the Minister responsible for roads and traffic, set out the proposals in a Written Answer to Alf Morris. The Minister said that the rate of issue of orange badges had increased rapidly since 1986 from about 800,000 in March 1986 to about I million in March 1988. He commented:
"The scheme is losing the respect of the general public, who see apparently able-bodied people using cars bearing badges. Without changes the scheme will become unworkable".
That statement was made nearly 10 months ago but there have been no changes as yet.
The Department of Transport's proposals would go a long way towards resolving the situation. In particular, the department proposes to tighten up the criteria for eligibility in line with the recommendation of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee that eligibility for badges should be more closely related to eligiblity for mobility allowance. That would concentrate badges on the most severely disabled people who need them most. Much of the problem is caused by too loose an interpretation of the,
"unable to walk or have very considerable difficulty in walking"
criterion under which at least 73 per cent. of orange badges are issued.
Another most useful proposal from the DoT is to issue a new-style badge with a photograph of the user. I am pleased to hear that it will not be on open display. The photograph will be folded under so that identity can be checked when the user appears. That will help clamp down on abuse of the badge and the use of parking facilities when the badge holder is not in the car.
I also urge the Government to set up an appeal procedure which the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled, of which I am a member, thinks will be essential to ensure that those who really need badges are issued with them once the eligibility criteria are more strictly applied. One should be able to have one's appeal heard locally. Therefore a regional appeal committee would be needed, consisting of disabled orange badge holders and an officer from the DVLC.
I also hope that the Government will consider making it an offence even to display the orange badge when the holder is not using the car as well as when parking. That would further help to combat abuse. I reiterate my perennial plea to the Government to do all that they can to encourage

109
the four central London boroughs to recognise the orange badge scheme.
Mushrooming pedestrianisation has made it particularly urgent to ensure that the scheme works well and that it is directed at those who most need it. I suspect that pedestrianisation is spawned rather haphazardly, bit by bit, until one finishes up with a vast pedestrianised area with very limited parking nearby. Some local authorities have resorted to issuing their own badges to various sub-groups to cut down the number of badge holders allowed access. That is a backward step towards the old days when local authorities used to issue their own badges which were valid only for that area. The solution is to tighten the orange badge scheme and issue badges only to those with severe mobility problems, for whom the badge is the essential passport to an otherwise no-go area.
I should like to give a recent example of my own experiences in trying to shop in my local town. I hope that I shall not bore your Lordships, but I believe that my experience is typical of the problem. A second slice of the high street has been pedestrianised. There is very limited parking for orange badge holders at both ends of quite a long street which runs behind the shops parallel to the pedestrianised area. I got a parking ticket before Christmas because I became so desperate waiting for one of the parking spaces to be cleared. Admittedly, I parked with my front wheels in front of the unloading bay of the local chain store. I reckoned that that was a fair cop because although my car was not obstructing the bay it was slightly over the lines marking the bay. The reaction of the van drivers was interesting. They said, "You are not in our way. Most of the people who park in those spaces are not disabled anyway".
On the next occasion the only available space was at the other end of the street. I dutifully parked, got out of the car and into my wheelchair, pushed myself down the street, left a trolley of shopping for collection in my car, and pushed myself back up the street. I then drove back up the street only to find that I could not park near enough to the shop to attract attention. I could not park, so I could not get out of the car. In the end I was so harassed by a man trying to drive down the street behind me that I had to park on the pavement and he yelled, "Try using the car park next time".
Your Lordships may have heard the story of the man who claimed exemption from paying to cross the Severn Bridge. When his attention was drawn to the fact that the name on the orange badge on his car appeared to be that of a female and he was a lone male in the car, he pointed to the back seat on which an urn was resting. He said, "It's all right, it's my wife. She is in there". The story of Mrs. X's last journey is probably apocryphal, but I believe that we need rapid action to restore the good reputation of the scheme, whose value is beyond price to those who really need it.
The DoT's proposals are most welcome. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to say something both positive and encouraging when he comes to reply.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I am sure that the excellent comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), on the important subject of the orange badge have set the pace for us all to follow. However, I should like to mention three areas of concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. I am delighted that he has finally obtained this debate on an Unstarred Question, although it clearly should have been a two-and-a-half hour debate. I should like to have presented my comments in a happier frame of mind. I hope that the noble Lord will not think it a criticism if I say that I found him rather gloomy with regard to a situation which is not all that gloomy.
First, I should like to draw noble Lords' attention to the progress being made to modify our ordinary buses to meet the sensible specifications proposed by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Council which was established as a result of amendments tabled in this House to the Transport Bill 1985. The Act provides for maximum step heights, adequate handrails, easy access to bell pushes and the like. The best time to incorporate those features into a bus—I am talking only about buses—is when it is built as they cost relatively little at that stage. Some enlightened companies—for example, Northumbria Bus, formerly called United Auto, which operates in Northumbria and Tyne and Wear—are among those which buy vehicles that meet or exceed those standards. Some tendering authorities—for instance, London Regional Transport, which has recently won a prize, and Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive—make it a condition of the contract that operators provide vehicles to DPTAC standards. I hope that noble Lords will not mind me repeating those points.
It is to be regretted that some operators still buy new vehicles without those modifications. They save small sums of money but condemn those with any form of mobility handicap to a less comfortable and harder journey for the next 15 or 20 years. Why they do so I do not know. I am sure that other noble Lords do not know either. However, the remedy is in the hands of the Government or, more specifically, of the Department of Transport. The DPTAC requirements can be easily incorporated in the construction and use standards which all new vehicles must meet. No primary legislation is involved, it can be done by order. I am sure that noble Lords would like to know why the department is so slow to move on that point.
Secondly, it has been drawn to my attention that with the approach of 1992 the European Community has more and more influence over vehicle design and standards. One area to which it is turning its attention is step heights. I understand that its proposed standards would result in higher steps than we now have, let alone should have, if DPTAC standards were met. I should be interested to know the Government's views on that issue. After all, if we can have adequate standards without subsidy, I do not see why European laws should not be the same standard as ours. That is a valid point.

111
Thirdly, there is the question of new investment. The light rail schemes of which we have heard a great deal recently must strive to be accessible to those with mobility handicaps. Where they run on-street, that is difficult, but I hope that other authorities will follow Manchester's lead in providing for that. Manchester has ingeniously achieved level access with street running. The department has taken that expenditure into account in giving its grant towards the cost of the project. I am sure that we are all grateful to it for that. It is to be hoped that that will be repeated on all light rail schemes.
However, there is the question of improving access to the conventional rail network which involves access to stations and from stations to trains. British Rail is making progress in providing facilities inside the trains with its new rolling stock. At main-line stations, assistance is made available to help people into the stations and on to the trains, but less is being done at local stations because there are tight restrictions on British Rail, passenger transport authorities and shire counties with regard to capital spending. When that type of expenditure must compete with other expenditure which has a financial return, there is a danger that it will be squeezed out. It is hoped that my noble friend will be able to tell the House that the department is making progress with quantifying the benefits from this important venture in making the capital available for a sustained programme of investment.
In concluding I should like to remind noble Lords that the benefits of improving access to public transport for the disabled are not confined to those with severe mobility handicaps. There are plenty of schemes in other authorities which are doing very well in that area that I should like to have mentioned. The benefits extend to those with less severe handicaps and those who are temporarily handicapped. Moreover, people in charge of young children and those with heavy shopping also benefit from more accessible public transport, especially on vehicles that have a low step. Buses should have low steps. If not, entering them can be very tiresome. Buses should be built with low steps. One might have to go up at the back axle but often able bodied people can climb up. One can get over that problem. That is a very valid point.
Our best practice is ahead of that in many other countries, particularly so far as concerns buses. I hope that by acting on the measures that we have suggested this evening the Government will play their part in keeping us ahead. To sum up, so far as public transport and the disabled are concerned, in schoolmasters' terms on a scale of 10 or whatever we are doing very well but there is probably room for improvement. We must keep ahead and indeed hope that others will catch up with us. One does not want to feel terribly nationalistic. However, we believe that the EC is lagging behind, that this country is ahead and that we must encourage others to follow our lead.
9.42 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, the final point of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, appealed to me very much. Like all noble Lords who have spoken, I am grateful to my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for raising this issue. The subject seems to fall into two sections: infrastructure and awareness. At the end of my remarks I shall come back to the subject of awareness because I believe that that is where we can help the disabled without spending a vast amount of money on infrastructure.
With regard to infrastructure, one must conclude that if one starts now one can produce something that is user-friendly for the disabled. One has only to consider the work done by friends in Tyne and Wear who have produced a very user-friendly underground system. They have made access easy from the pavement through the station to the platform and have gone further in that they have made the platforms the same height as the entry step of the trains.
The same situation applies in the Docklands Light Railway. To get from street level to platform level and then into the train and back again to platform level and out on to the street is a viable proposition for the disabled, be they blind, handicapped in their limbs or deaf. I was particularly interested—and this point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot—in what the Manchester Light Railway is setting out to do in two ways.
First, it has set out to produce a two-level platform, one for the walk-on passenger but with ramp access. It will be at street level so the Manchester Light Railway will be a tramway in the city centre. There will be a second height of platform with ramp access which will produce a simple push-on or walk-on situation for the disabled.
Another extremely positive move is in terms of the penalty fares legislation which some noble Lords raised in this House some five or six years ago. They have said that penalty fares legislation shall not be applicable to the disabled.
If one starts now one can produce a rail based transport system which is very user friendly. Some of our transport systems began far in the past. Your Lordships' Chamber is coming up to its 150th birthday, as is a great deal of British Rail's infrastructure. We cannot produce a decent heating or cooling system for your Lordships' Chamber. Nor can British Rail or London Underground produce a totally user-friendly system for the disabled in terms of what they have inherited. The infrastructure was built a century and a half ago. One therefore comes back to awareness.
British Rail has a unit for dealing with the disabled. I congratulate it on that. I congratulate it on its core network of about 200 stations around the country which will be utterly usable for the blind by means of symbols and for the deaf by means of induction loops so that they can hear better, with special plaform facilities and staff training. If one were to start now one could make proper provision.
When I researched the topic that the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has raised I discovered that Eurotunnel

113
and the shuttles will ask the disabled—howsoever disabled—to identify themselves before they take a Eurotunnel shuttle so that they can be put close to staff who are trained to deal with whatever disability they may have. That applies not only in terms of making the system user-friendly but also in terms of safety, which must at the end of the day be paramount.
If one considers the Eurotunnel, the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said that we are ahead of our continental partners in this matter. The trains that will run from London to Paris and Brussels will jointly be owned by British Rail, the French railway and the Belgian railway. They would not have had any provision for the disabled had it not been for British Rail fighting that particular corner. They now have such provision and that is good. The point that I and the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, are making is that we are ahead of our continental cousins in that respect.
London Regional Transport and British Rail have a training programme. If one joins British Rail today one undergoes a morning of training through videos. British Rail has almost picked up the sentiment of the BBC, "Does he take sugar?" Disabled people are not different; they simply have different requirements of which we must be aware.
I have mentioned the Eurotunnel shuttles and the London Regional Transport training programme, but at the end of the day I should like to come back to awareness. I believe that it is not for the carriers entirely to resolve the problems of giving the disabled, howsoever disabled, the freedom to move throughout this country. It is a matter for the community. As I said five years ago, we must start in the schools. Five years ago I interviewed many of my colleagues who had just left school or university. I asked, "Have you ever been taught about dealing with the disabled?" They said, "No. We might have had a deaf person, a person in a wheelchair or a blind person at school but the school never went out of its way to teach us". I come back to the point again. Surely it is not for the carriers to take on this battle single-handed. It is a much wider issue. We should be aware of the needs of the disabled.
In conclusion, let me give a small example. I live close to Great Portland Street where, as noble Lords know, the RNIB has its head office. Hardly a day goes by without my seeing two or three blind people going about their business, achieving solutions, living a life—to which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred—with their guide dogs. I did not know this fact until I asked a blind lady why she had put the reins of her guide dog flat upon its back. She replied, "That's a symbol. It's a request for help". The guide dog may know that; a member of the staff of the Royal National Institute for the Blind may know it. But I fell upon it by accident and I am sure that most noble Lords did not know that there was such a code.
Our bus companies, rail companies, Eurotunnel, the shipping companies, the airpoirts and airlines do a tremendous job of making a journey simple for the disabled provided that they are given notice. I urge that we start at the bottom in our schools and teach pupils to be aware of the needs of the disabled.
9.50 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Holderness regrets his unavoidable absence from the debate. He is exceptionally well qualified to speak on the subject because, as a result of war wounds, he has been severely disabled for almost half a century. As chairman of the Disablement Services Authority for the past few years, he has been actively engaged in securing a better organisation to meet the short-range transport needs of disabled people in terms of the supply of artificial limbs and wheelchairs. He has been instrumental in galvanising the service throughout the country to look at the total rehabilitation of disabled people in order that they may return rapidly to as normal a life as possible.
He has asked me, as his vice-chairman, to stress a number of points. First, our emphasis has been on complete rehabilitation with the conviction that mobility is of vital importance to disabled people. It is difficult for able-bodied people to imagine just how frustrating it is to be unable to move easily from one place to another. It may interest your Lordships to know that, in order to help the understanding of that problem, we at Guy's Hospital have all the medical students spend a day in a wheelchair—although one at a time, of course. By the end of the day they have a clear idea of exactly how difficult it is to move around in a wheelchair in institutions which are supposed to be actively concerned with the whole problem of disability. I believe that Professor Verna Wright of Leeds first started medical students along that road and the practice ought to be carried out in every medical school.
In terms of short-range mobility the Disablement Services Authority is convinced that powered chairs suitable for use indoors and outdoors should be made available to those who are so severely disabled that they are unable to walk or propel themselves in ordinary wheelchairs and unable to transfer themselves from one chair to another. With that conviction in mind during the past year, we conducted two pilot studies—in Newcastle and Manchester—supplying the powered indoor-outdoor chairs to such people. Needless to say, they were delighted with them and they greatly improved their quality of life in every way. The chairs significantly increased their range of activity, enabling them to leave the house unaccompanied and go for several miles to do their shopping, and so forth.
Many disabled people have no one to wheel them around. Therefore, it is vital to give them such independence. Currently we are working out the cost of extending the supply to the whole country. The signs are that the Government are keen to help and that has been a great encouragement to all concerned with the problem.
A car is a great boon for longer journeys and the mobility allowance helps with the purchase of suitable cars. However, unfortunately the necessary adaptations to the cars can be extremely expensive. It cannot be sufficiently emphasised what an enormous increase to the dimension of a life such a car will

115
bring, enabling many disabled people to return to work.
Driving assessment centres are essential to get such people on the road. There is a growing number of those throughout the country, notably the excellent one in Banstead. There is also one in Crowthorne and another in Newcastle. Clearly we need more of those and we need much more help from the manufacturers to produce a greater range of vehicles. At one centre which I visited recently there was an excellent German car and an excellent Japanese car but no British model.
All those matters require more money. However,
116
of much greater importance is a need for a change in the attitude of British people in all walks of life, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, emphasised so well. In Ripon recently many of the pavements have been repaired but not one has been lowered to allow easy access to wheelchairs. That would not have cost any more money. Improving the transport system in terms of pavements and roads makes life much easier for everyone; For example, lowering of pavements also makes easier access for mothers with prams. Disabled people should not have to fit into the present transport system. The transport system should be designed to suit everyone.
9.56 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who should have had a two-and-a-half hour debate on this matter some time ago but he moved that off the agenda. He was not exactly pressed to do so, but on the balance of the argument it was felt that because there was a similar debate in that period it would be wise to move it to another day. This has been the first opportunity for him to raise this very important matter. It is a pity that it is so late but I assure the noble Lord that, because this is a transport debate, there would have been no more speakers had it been earlier in the day.
Some time ago I came across a report from the Greater London Association for Disabled People. That is known by the short title of the GLAD report. That was a survey carried out in 1985. In terms of awareness, which I believe this debate tonight is really about, it is quite shattering when one considers the total number of people the report is talking about. For example, in London—and this report deals with London—there are something like half a million people handicapped in their use of public transport. At that stage, something like 7 per cent. of Londoners were handicapped in their use of public transport. That has now risen to something like 10 per cent. and it is expected that by the turn of the century something in the order of 14 per cent. of Londoners will be handicapped in their use of public transport.
The effect of that on the isolation of those people is that something like one-third of them—160,000 at that time—lived on their own. Almost all those people had no access to a personal car. Something like 20 per cent. of those handicapped do not go out in any one week. A quarter of them never make a shopping trip and one-third never visit relatives or friends. Therefore, we are talking about very large numbers of people who are severely handicapped by their inability to use transport available to them in their daily lives. Their own personal life is therefore downgraded as a result of that. The majority of those people are not working. Many are living on a pension and most of them cannot afford to travel by taxi.
The London Regional Transport disabled unit has achieved some success since it was founded in 1984 but there is obviously still a lot to be done. It is consulted about new vehicles; for example, buses and trains. We have talked about things that need to be done to vehicles during the course of this debate. There is a great deal of old stock. Buses last for about 15 years and Tube trains last for something like 35 years. At the moment only about 10 per cent. of buses have the kinds of new features to which the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, referred.
There are schemes like Dial-a-Ride, which is a wonderful idea. However, it only reaches a small number of people. Furthermore, it is run by 29 separate voluntary management committees and is not unreminiscent of the curate's egg. If the standards of the bottom third could be raised to the level of the top third, life would be a lot better for many more people. The taxicard system is also a very good scheme. It is funded by individual
118
boroughs which, so far, have done their best to fund it properly. However, with the squeeze on local government resources one wonders how long that situation can continue.
Smaller buses are being run on routes which go closer to people's homes. Unfortunately, smaller buses tend to be harder to get into than larger buses. Mention has been made of drop-floor buses and all kinds of innovations that are being introduced in order to enable access to larger buses. The smaller buses so far do not have this drop-floor facility. One wonders whether the Government can do something in that direction to encourage drop-floor facilities in smaller buses.
I should like to ask the Government what they have in mind for the safety of wheelchair users in terms of the constraints on wheelchairs when in vehicles. I am astonished to discover from figures provided by the Department of Transport that there are 460 different models of wheelchairs and 6,500 variants on those different kinds of wheelchairs. In order for the drop-floor system to mean anything, one must have restraints for 6,500 variants of a wheelchair.
One area of disability which has not been touched upon much tonight is that of visual impairment. I use the term "visually impaired" rather than blind because the majority of people you and I see going around with white canes are not totally blind but are to a varying degree visually impaired. I am advised upon this matter by my daughter, who at the moment is doing a course in order to become a blind rehabilitation officer.
Lord Carter: My Lords, surely she is going to be a rehabilitation officer for the blind.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, that just shows how careful one has to be with the terms one uses when dealing with this subject. She is hoping to be a rehabilitation officer for the blind.
I was struck by the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, about students being put into a wheelchair for a day. He might also consider the possibility of students being blindfolded for a day. In the course of her training my daughter has to spend time blindfolded, cooking, moving about, etc. The people one sees walking around with white sticks or long canes are not all totally blind. As an aside, I should like to say that it is not widely recognised that those canes are not available on the National Health Service. Some local authorities provide canes for the visually handicapped, but many people have to spend a significant amount of money on them because they are not cheap. Whereas one can obtain a Zimmer frame on the NHS, one cannot obtain a long cane.
When it comes to transport, visually handicapped people need reliable transport, especially buses. They need to know when buses are likely to be arriving at the stop. They have great difficulty in dealing with request stops, for instance, because the bus may have passed them before they know that it is there. They

119
have to be trained to ask people what is the number of the bus and where it is going. Signs at bus stops are such that the visually impaired cannot read them. There are few tactile signs at bus stops. Although the general public are, on the whole, willing to help, they do not understand the type of help necessary, which brings us back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans; that we need to increase our awareness of the needs of handicapped people in our schools and general training.
When buses arrive at the bus stop, the doors are not in a uniform position. The steps are not the same in number. They are not of uniform width or height. If one is elderly, suffering from arthritis and visually handicapped, it is difficult if the bus stops at some distance from the bus stop and one has to step out into the road.
Those people who have guide dogs—I have watched the honourable Member in another place, Mr. Blunkett, on the Tube with a most excellent guide dog, which obviously knows which compartment he has to get into and where the steps are when he arrives at the station here—who are going somewhere unfamiliar or who are getting on to a bus which is not the standard type of bus can be in great trouble because, again, the small buses frequently do not have sufficient room to accommodate the guide dog for someone who is visually handicapped.
There is a great need for brighter and more contrasting colours to be used in the seating. There is a great need for continuous hand rails on buses and on the Underground. The types of knobs that hang down from the roofs of Underground trains are not a great deal of use to handicapped people. The continuous rails which are being introduced on the Victoria Line at the moment are much more accessible to handicapped people. There is a great need for the training of bus drivers. It is no great help to a visually handicapped person if the bus stops at the correct stop but the door opens straight into a lamp post. It is no use if the bus driver, in order to be helpful, stops several yards short of the bus stop, because that can be extremely disorienting. Ordinary passengers need to understand the problems of handicapped people.
I gather that one of the great problems is that passengers are frequently sat upon by visually handicapped people who get on to buses and do not realise that there is someone sitting on the seat that they are about to occupy. Again, we all need to understand that it is not rude to say to someone, "Hello, you are about to sit on me", before one is sat upon because that can save a great deal of embarrassment.
I gather that in Birmingham some effort has been made to improve the signs at bus stops by introducing tactile signs. This is the kind of provision which should spread throughout the length and breadth of the country. If it is a slightly political point—this is certainly not a party political discussion at all—it is that bus deregulation has not been of the greatest help in rural areas where bus
120
timetables are changing quite rapidly. In those areas where bus stations are really no-go areas, nobody quite knows to whom they belong. In those areas there are increasing problems for handicapped people. I am told that in particular bus stations are very difficult for handicapped people of all kinds, particularly for the visually impaired.
Railway stations are much better. There is the start of the provision of tactile maps in railway stations. However, the problem is that on some of the more recent rolling stock where one has to press a button to open the doors of a sprinter train and also on some Tube trains, there is no standardisation as to where the button is placed. I observed this fact the other night when I was staggering my way home to Somerset through the floods when we were put on to a new sprinter train. The position of the button outside is quite well illuminated and I imagine that it would not be too difficult for someone who is partially sighted to get on. However, it is much more difficult to get out even for someone who is well sighted because the exit button is cleverly concealed. I can imagine that if you were partially sighted you could very easily get into a panic.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, has said, this matter is all about educating ourselves, organisations, public utilities and local authorities. If this debate tonight has made some small addition to the general knowledge in this very important area, then I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, is to be congratulated on bringing the matter before your Lordships.
10.12 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it is one of the nicer courtesies of this House that we thank noble Lords for bringing forward a subject for debate. I am sure that the House will be particularly grateful this evening to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for giving us the chance to discuss this very important topic, which I believe has not been discussed for some considerable time in your Lordships' House.
It is an important topic because, as has been said by a number of speakers, it is a subject which affects nearly 10 per cent. of the population, or 6 million disabled people. DPTAC, of which we have heard a great deal—the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee—has said that 10 per cent. of the population of Western Europe is without mobility. The fourth report of the OPCS survey, which deals with transport among other subjects, stated that 40 per cent. of the residents of communal establishments for the disabled never go out. This compares with less than 10 per cent. of the disabled who live at home.
This debate is principally about public transport but the fourth report from the OPCS pointed out that of disabled adults living in private households 76 per cent. use or are transported in private cars compared with 57 per cent. who use buses, 23 per cent. who use trains and 27 per cent. who use taxis. I quote these figures to underline the importance of helping with the cost of transport for disabled people

121
and the importance of the mobility allowance, which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale.
The parent of a severely mentally handicapped daughter put it in this way: "A car for Annette and me to use would be very useful, but as things are, you can either buy a car or run one, but not both". A survey conducted by MENCAP of the transport needs of people with profound retardation and multiple handicaps found that 49 per cent. of those surveyed required some financial assistance with the cost of transport. I quote from the same report from GLAD which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned and which deals with London. It found that 80,000 people with handicaps as regards transport were of working age and not in employment. A higher than average proportion of those in employment were in part-time work. It pointed out that 200,000 transport-handicapped people rely totally on state benefits. In addition, it said that 60,000 people over pension age who cannot use buses are not eligible for mobility allowance and that a free bus pass is clearly of no value to them. It concluded:
"There is no consistency in the level of financial concessions offered between one type of transport and another".
We are dealing with the problems of public transport. The proposition is a simple one. Public transport should be available to all those members of the public who wish to use it. But that proposition is hard to achieve in practice. The principles were expressed most succinctly by Sir Peter Baldwin, the chairman of DPTAC, who is listening to the debate this evening. I am sure that we are all glad to pay tribute to the excellent work done by DPTAC. He said:
"People in positions of influence should be coming up with solutions to the following key areas: Who are the people who cannot go anywhere? How can transport be provided and organised so that they can use it? How can those currently unable to travel be given the means and confidence to go out and use facilities that are available?"
The report of DPTAC, entitled Public Transport and the Missing 6 million, sets out the requirements of policy extremely well. It states:
"The effort of establishing understanding must be directed to all those who visualize, regulate, plan, design, equip, finance and manage the system: the vehicles, the roads, the pavements, the precincts, the stopping places and the stations. It must reach all those who operate the system, or parts of it, whether they do so in commerce, in public service or in voluntary or charitable service. So the effort must be made in appropriate form in each of these directions, but consistently between them. The consistency must come from the shared vision that the transport and mobility to be provided is, as near as may be, for the whole population, not as at present for the population less 6 million souls".
As has been pointed out, DPTAC has produced an excellent specification for buses used to operate local services. The specification shows the adaptations required to improve accessibility. The report was produced in June 1988 but the specifications are still voluntary. Will the Government, through the construction and use regulations, make them mandatory? This point was made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and has been pressed on the Government by RADAR and by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. Will the Government legislate to ensure that all new
122
buses are accessible to disabled people? I include wheelchair users, those with sensory handicaps and those who are ambulant.
As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, pointed out, the deregulation of bus services makes the use of mandatory powers extremely important. Section 106 of the Transport Act 1985 gave power to local authorities to give grants to operators and the voluntary sector for the conversion of vehicles to make them much more accessible. However, the lack of funding limits the ability of local authorities to make such grants available. The provisions which protect against the inhibition of competition do not allow local authorities to be selective in their use of the grant. This presents a major stumbling block to the ability of local authorities to make use of the provision in the Act. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that when he replies.
I think it is fair to say that, while British Rail is trying hard to accommodate the needs of disabled people, we know that there is still a long way to go. I know from experience with my own family that British Rail staff are almost invariably extremely helpful to disabled passengers, but BR's policy overall gives rise to problems, particularly as regards unmanned stations. I have been told that in some cases disabled people have been advised to start and finish their journeys at manned stations. The able-bodied public would never tolerate such advice, so why should disabled people have to?
There is a continuing problem for disabled people with the gap between the platform and the train that exists at many stations. That is perhaps understandable as regards older stations; but it is inexcusable in a brand new station such as Stansted. I believe that this also applies in some of the stations on the Thameslink line.
The announcements given on trains are a continual source of complaint, especially from those with problems of hearing and vision. In the first place the announcements are not even available. Secondly, if they are available, they are either inaudible or incomprehensible. Thirdly, if they can be heard, they announce the destination of the train after it has left the station. That is not much help if you are on the wrong train!
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I really must intervene here for just a moment. British Rail takes a tremendous amount of trouble to provide the facility of announcements on trains. The voices of actors are used for the purpose but, of course, this is not done with regional accents. British Rail has tried very hard in this respect. Nevertheless, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I think that one would prefer to hear regional accents because they are easier to understand, and we must encourage British Rail to get this right.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. However, even if you can understand the actor's voice it is not much help if you are on the wrong train to be told the destination after you have left the station of embarkation. Surely the annoucement should be made before the train leaves the station.

123
However, on a slightly lighter note, I turn to the design of British Rail trains. I am not sure whether noble Lords are aware of this, but the design of the emergency button and that of the flush button in the toilets is similar. Moreover, the buttons are situated together. Therefore, this has caused some emergency situations for people with visual handicap.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I should like to point out that British Rail did address itself to the problem. No doubt the noble Lord will go on to say that the disabled toilet which is currently being installed in trains is one which has actually won prizes for its user-friendliness.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord is right; indeed, that was the point I was just about to make. Let us take a simple example of what can be done to assist the disabled. I am told that on the New York Underground the announcement is made as the train enters the station that the door will be on the left of the direction in which the train is travelling. Because the announcement is extremely clear a person with a visual handicap, or someone with a hearing handicap, will know as the train comes into the station which side to find the door. I think that that is extremely important.
When conducting the survey, the OPCS asked the people it surveyed if they had any difficulty in using public transport. I was told by a disabled person that the correct answer would be yes in London but no in New York. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, mentioned the point about students spending a day in a wheelchair. I too was about to point out that it would also be helpful to students if they spent a day blindfolded and, perhaps, a day wearing ear plugs to see how they managed with the full range of sensory impairments.
In conclusion, the answer to all these problems rests in three factors which were set out by DPTAC; namely, consultation, research and example. It means consultation with disabled people in the early design stages of new projects and continuous consultation to improve existing facilities. It means research to find the best and the most effective means of creating accessibility and, of course, linked with research must be training to educate the transport operators in the needs of people with disabilities. Finally, as regards example, it means that we must learn from and build on good experience both in this country and overseas. It is only in this way that we shall be able to ensure that public transport is available to all those who wish to use it. We shall then no longer have to debate the problems of the missing 6 million people.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for providing us with an opportunity today to debate a subject which is profoundly important and yet is one which is all too often overlooked in the public arena. I am also most grateful to the noble Lords who have contributed to the short debate this evening. A great number of important points have been raised
124
in a short space of time and I should like to reassure the House that our consideration of them does not end this evening. I see this debate rather as a starting point for further discussions and perhaps, more importantly, a point from which we can begin to focus attention on the size of the population who have difficulties in using transport and on the ways in which those problems can be solved.
I do not apologise for repeating some of the important points made in this debate if only to show that the Government are as much aware of them as are Members of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, focused by way of the powerful points he made in his speech on the number of people—more than 6 million—who because of disability or mobility problems associated with ageing do not have transport available to them.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord for having stressed this point so clearly. One of the major problems in the past in promoting a better understanding of the needs of people with disabilities in the transport industries has been, I believe, a lack of understanding about the numbers of people so affected and the implications for those people of being denied mobility.
Too many people still think that disability means people in wheelchairs. We do not see many people in wheelchairs about in the high street or at the bus stop so it is very easy to suppose that there is no problem. In fact only between 3 and 4 per cent. of people with disabilities are wheelchair users. That is not to say that their transport needs can be neglected and I shall return to this subject in a few moments. However, it is important to recognise, as many in the transport world are now doing, that there are vast numbers of people who are less severely disabled—most commonly with the mobility problems associated with ageing, arthritic joints, failing sight, loss of hearing and so on—for whom simple low cost changes in design or a little more thought on the part of an operator can make all the difference between mobility and immobility.
Added to that number—and again I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for emphasising this point—is a much larger group of people still who would not in any sense consider themselves disabled but who have what we now describe in the transport world as a mobility handicap. This includes that very large number of public transport users who when they travel have to contend with luggage or the week's shopping or small children and all the encumbrances that go with them: the prams, the baby buggies and so on. For these people too steep steps, lack of handholds and lack of seating space are all at best inconveniences and at worst deterrents from travelling.
The difficulties to which I allude are not confined to any one form of transport. In fact it is in this area above all others that we must concern ourselves with what we sometimes describe as the transport chain. There is little purpose in one part of a transport system that takes full account of the needs of disabled people if the other systems that link with it, and indeed the means to reach those systems for a pedestrian, are not also accessible. It is important

125
therefore to consider this issue on the broadest possible basis. We are concerned with every form of transport—local, national and international—and with every element of moving about between them. We are concerned not only with public transport but also with personal mobility and with the necessary links between private car and public transport.
I should like to devote a few minutes to outlining some of the areas in which progress has been made in this field. Although the noble Lord, Lord Allen, was absolutely right to emphasise the problems and shortcomings that remain, it would be quite wrong if we did not recognise the enormous amount of progress that has already been made across many areas of transport. I should also like, with your Lordships' permission, to outline some of the future developments to which the Department of Transport is committed.
The work of the Department of Transport in this field goes back some 10 years. Throughout that period the department has been working closely with providers of transport—the operators, the local authorities, the manufacturers, the designers and the engineers—to promote and encourage a better understanding of the nature of the need and a greater willingness to meet it. Perhaps most importantly the department has also worked at all times and in every project with disabled people themselves.
The department has been enormously assisted in its work since 1986 by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. This body, set up under the Transport Act 1985, was given the specific remit to advise my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport on the transport needs of people with disabilities. That committee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has already referred, is led by a former Permanent Secretary of the Department of Transport, Sir Peter Baldwin. Under his leadership the 20 members of the committee, the majority of whom have disabilities and also collectively an unparalleled range and depth of expertise across every form of disability and every mode of transport, have worked very closely indeed with the department's disability unit to achieve some of the developments that I would now like to mention.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has already talked about buses, the need for better provision and a better understanding of the needs of people with mobility problems in the bus industry. He has also talked about the contribution which the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee has made in that sphere. That progress has been, I believe, remarkable. The department and the committee worked closely together to draw up a document now known nationwide as the DPTAC spec. That document gives details of the wide range of simple and often low cost modifications that can be made to buses both current and new to make them easier to board and easier to use for a wide range of elderly and disabled people. There is nothing extraordinary or extravagant about the recommendations in that document. They are all simple, commonsense ideas: lower steps, better handrails, clear colour contrasts to help those with poor sight, a bell push that you can reach while still
126
in your seat, a little more leg-room for those with arthritic joints or artificial limbs and a flat non-slip surface inside the vehicle. These are the kinds of features that the DPTAC spec points to.
It has already been clearly established by research sponsored by the Department of Transport that these kinds of changes could make a very significant difference in the ability of a large number of elderly and disabled people to travel. Research has shown us, for example, that the biggest single problem facing elderly and disabled people in using buses is that first step from ground or kerb onto the bus.
There is, however, a world of difference between theory and practice. Although research had proved these factors, we had still to show a commercially minded bus industry that it was not only socially necessary for vehicles to meet these needs but also economically sensible. To achieve this process of information and education the Department of Transport quite literally took the message on the road in the shape of four demonstration vehicles: two adaptations of existing vehicles and two new designs but all to the specifications outlined by the committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said, those four vehicles have toured the country for the past 18 months on free loan to operators and authorities so that they could learn at first hand how their passengers felt about the modifications and how their drivers and engineers felt about them.
The result is that within the space of two years almost every new bus being built in this country now incorporates some or all of the features in that specification. A significant and growing number of operators are not only requiring their new vehicles to meet these standards but are modifying their existing vehicles, in many cases at their own expense as a commercial venture and in other cases with the financial assistance of local authorities.
The economic benefits of providing local public transport that is usable by many who were previously condemned to isolation at home and dependence on social services can be seen in many areas. First, we can see a direct commercial return to the bus operator. There is a large market for bus travel among elderly and disabled people and, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has already emphasised, it is a growing market with demographic trends indicating a significant rise in the proportion of elderly and very elderly people in the country over the coming years.
For local authorities too there are clear economic as well as social benefits. The cost of immobility is high. Immobility means a loss of independence. For somebody who becomes housebound the cost to social services through the domiciliary, domestic and health care that must be provided and ultimately the cost of residential care is considerable. I have concentrated on the wide-ranging and far-reaching improvements that have already been made in bus design.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. In that cost evaluation, how far has consideration been given to

127
the question of single manned buses? There is no doubt that the presence of a conductor on a bus is a great help to disabled persons. How has that been costed in the equation?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord. I do not have the answer to that query but I shall certainly find out whether that has been a factor in the costing. I should imagine that that is a rather difficult arithmetical factor to work out. However, if I have any information on the point I shall certainly pass it on to the noble Lord.
Let me turn now to the next stage in our priorities in this same area. So far we have stopped short of attempting to meet the needs of wheelchair users in ordinary urban bus services. That is not a question of lack of interest or lack of commitment; it is simply a matter of achieving progress by degrees in a way that can be sustained both in operational and economic terms.
The Department of Transport is now working very closely with its colleagues in Europe towards the development of a new generation of buses with low floors that will be able to incorporate access for wheelchair users, as well as being easier for everyone, without enormous extra cost or time penalties in operation. The department is following the same programme that I outlined with the demonstration buses which so successfully promoted the DPTAC spec. It hopes to have the first low-floor wheelchair-accessible demonstration bus available within the next few months.
There have been many calls for legislation to require new generations of buses to provide wheelchair access, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised the point tonight. We are not by any means opposed to legislation where it will serve a useful purpose. There have, however, been too many clear lessons from the United States and elsewhere of the penalties of legislation preceding practicality. We must begin by solving the technical and operational problems. It would be foolish to believe that we can provide a public transport system fully accessible to wheelchair users unless we have sorted out those problems first. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and other noble Lords who have raised the point tonight will be pleased to learn that we hope, with our European colleagues, to move towards legislation over the next few years that is based on sound technical, operational and economic principles.
I have spent some considerable time talking about buses and the bus industry. I make no apology for that emphasis. It is rightly providing a focus for much of our attention in this area.
There have of course been many other encouraging developments. Wheelchair-accessible taxis are becoming a common feature not just in London but in towns and cities up and down the country. Door-to-door special services such as dial-a-ride are flourishing in many areas with local authority support. In London dial-a-ride services are funded by London Regional Transport with a government grant. They are to benefit from an increase of £1 million in 1990–91, bringing total funding to £8–27
128
million. That should allow the service to expand further bringing benefits for all dial-a-ride users. British Rail has made great strides in opening up InterCity services and stations and is now making useful progress in other areas as well.
The pedestrian environment is of course an essential part of every journey. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Allen, made particular reference to the importance of good design and maintenance of streets and pavements. The Department of Transport has worked closely with the Institution of Highways and Transportation to draw up a code of good practice in design and planning so that the pedestrian environment is open for everyone to use with confidence. The department has also pioneered a considerable programme of work to develop tactile surfaces to provide guidance and warning to blind pedestrians without impeding the progress of wheelchair users and others.
Personal mobility is also all important to disabled people. Technical advances in recent years mean that even the most severely disabled people can now drive. The Department of Transport, through its Mobility Advice and Vehicle Information Service, advises many thousands of elderly and disabled people on driving and car choice.
All of those developments are effective only if people with disabilities know about them and know how to use them. That brings me back to another of the important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. Information is now very often the one missing link in enabling disabled people to travel and to travel with confidence. A great deal of work remains to be done in that area and the Department of Transport will be working closely with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee which has adopted that subject as the focus for a public hearing which it will conduct next month. That will be the first step towards a concerted initiative to promote better information systems both to enable people to know what is available and to plan their journeys and also to ensure that the means of communication exist in an appropriate form and at the appropriate time throughout the course of the journey. Without that assurance many elderly and disabled people will still not have the confidence to travel even if the physical means are there to enable them to do so.
I shall now try to reply briefly to specific points raised by noble Lords in the debate, although I believe that I have already answered most ot them. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said that the DPTAC reports were available only to Parliament and are not published. All the DPTAC reports are published and available to the general public.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), asked about the current situation regarding the orange badge scheme proposed by my honourable friend the Minister then responsible for roads and traffic. All I can tell her is that, following wide consultations with disability organisations about improvements to the scheme, the department will shortly consult on draft statutory regulations.

129
My noble friend Lord Teviot raised the question of access to light rail systems. The department is taking steps to ensure that all new light rail systems have access for people with disability designed in at the early stages. He also mentioned the European proposals to set step height standards which are higher than DPTAC standards. There are European proposals for step heights which we consider to be unreasonably high. We are seeking agreement to reconsider that proposal and to introduce step heights in accordance with the DPTAC standards.
My noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich reported on a visit to an assessment centre with no British cars available. The department's assessment centre, MAVIS, has a range of 20 vehicles representing the latest range of British, European and Japanese production models.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, spoke of the difficulties for blind people when using bus services. Many of the features included in the DPTAC specification are specifically designed to help blind and visually handicapped people. The noble Lord also asked about plans for access to small buses. Our proposals for low-floor buses apply to small as well as to large buses.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about effective announcement systems. BR, LRT and others are working to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of announcements. The noble Lord also raised the question of unmanned stations. BR is aware of the concern about unmanned stations and the British Rail Advisory Panel on Disability is looking into that matter.
There has been time this evening only to touch on some of the major points in such a wide-ranging subject. I hope that we may find an opportunity in your Lordships' House to return to a fuller discussion of some of those issues in the not too distant future. I am nonetheless deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen, for having given us an opportunity for this brief airing of some of the major points. Its importance will, I believe, extend far beyond the debate in your Lordships' House this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, stressed the need for a fuller recognition of the subject in the public domain. I hope that our discussion this evening will perhaps encourage the media to look again at an issue that does not just concern a small minority but one that affects more than 6 million people in this country. Across Europe as a whole that means some 50 million people for whom conventional transport is difficult or impossible.
I hope that I have been able to indicate to noble Lords some of the enormous improvements that have already taken place and the areas in which the attention of the Department of Transport will now be focusing. I should like to leave your Lordships with a clear indication that the Department of Transport is firmly committed to continue its work of the past 10 years towards a transport system that is accessible to everyone.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before eleven o'clock.