Lords Sitting of 30 January 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 Worcester.

Community Charge: Arrears in Scotland
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the latest information on non-payment of the community charge (poll tax) in Scotland and in the Strathclyde region.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, while no overall figure is yet available, it would appear that the proportion of people in arrears with their community charge payments is broadly the same as under the rating system last year.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is extremely difficult to compare one rating system with another? Will he confirm that the number of summary warrants issued in Scotland to non-payers of a tax which came into existence in April last year is 400,000? Is he further aware that in the city of Glasgow 22 per cent. of those liable to pay the tax have not paid it? Can he tell me how he proposes to collect that tax in view of the fact that the Scottish banks have indicated that they are unable to handle the number of arrestment notices?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, it is difficult in this case to make comparisons between one year and another. I can confirm that the local authorities have produced certain figures which may be in the region set out by the noble Lord. Strathclyde initiated warrant action against 78,700 non-payers of domestic rates last year —about 18 per cent. of the number of private sector houses in the region.
The noble Lord asked about schemes for recouping losses from those unwilling or unable to pay. Bank arrestment is one such means. Recent meetings between bank representatives and councils allayed many of the banks' initial fears.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that his reply was in such Civil Service jargon that many noble Lords on both sides of the House smiled at it? What action is being taken against people who do not pay the tax?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, there are various ways of recovering debt. Three ways are used in Scotland at the moment. One is poinding or warrant sales; the second is through arrestment of wages; and the third is bank arrestment. These three ways of being able to obtain money from those who default are well known in Scotland and are written into law.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that this administrative nightmare will come south of the Border this year. He may then find a great many objections from his side of the House. Does he realise that many people have a genuine difficulty with the poll tax? Under the old rating system 100 per cent. rebates were available for those on low incomes. That figure has now been reduced to 80 per cent. Each person over 18 will have to pay 20 per cent. of perhaps £400 or £500. That is a severe blow to those who are in receipt of inadequate incomes and is especially hard on old people. The Government would greatly reduce the problem if they could reinstate for that category the 100 per cent. rebate.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I know what the noble Lord is saying because we debated the matter at length when the Bill passed through the House. Income support levels have been enhanced specifically to meet the requirement on recipients to pay 20 per cent. of the community charge. In those circumstances, if a person refuses to pay the charge it is only reasonable that local authorities should be able to recover the debt. I understand what the noble Lord says, but there is a remedy.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does my noble friend judge from the tone of the questions from the other side of the House that they are an encouragement for laggards not to pay or an encouragement to laggards to think again and pay their proper dues?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, it is always unfortunate that those who do not pay, whether it be the business rate or the community charge referred to in the Question, make it more difficult for those who do pay. They have to carry the cost.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, did the Minister see a recent television broadcast which dealt with these problems in Scotland? If he did, how does he explain the position of crofters, who receive no local services? They have no street lighting, no street cleaning, and so on. How does he justify charging those people personal poll taxes?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I did not see the programme. I have special responsibility for the crofters. I do not think that the Government have let down the crofters in general terms, bearing in mind the amount of support provided, especially in the Highlands and islands. If one is poor one can obtain rebates. Why should a crofter be any different from someone who is poor in my area of the Borders?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, will include many people who have moved from one region to another? Strathclyde has not yet developed a sophisticated enough system to track them down. They are probably paying the community charge in another region while Strathclyde is still trying to obtain from them the money which is no longer due.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I know that the whole introduction of this new tax has been a problem for local authorities. However, I am advised that local authorities are responding very well to the difficulties of such a situation. I would not like it to be thought that the Government think in any way that local authorities are not living up to and coping with what is a difficult situation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that noble Lords on this side of the House very much resent the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, which implied that the Labour Party was supporting laggards? It does not support laggards. However, the Labour Party is concerned ——
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Is the noble Lord aware that the Labour Party is concerned about the nightmare —this is not only in Scotland but in the whole of England —which local authorities have in tracing people, getting the bills to them and finally getting the bills paid on time? This is not because people do not want to pay; it is simply because the poll tax is an absurd system which will benefit no one, least of all local authorities.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, we must look at the overall situation. Perhaps I may tell the House that over 90 per cent. of the poll tax has already been paid in two regions of Scotland and in one area the figure nearly reached 98 per cent. I do not think that it is an impossible task but it is a difficult one. Moreover, I am sure that local authorities are facing up to it. While I am interested in the remarks made by the noble Lord, I have no doubt that a return to a property tax, which perhaps his party is thinking about, would not be very helpful to the nation at present.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, since I am the guilty party because I asked the Question, perhaps I may assure the noble Lord that it is no part of the policy of the Social Democratic Party —and I am sure that I may speak for the Liberals in this respect —to encourage people not to pay the tax. However, in view of the figure given of 400,000 summary warrants issued to individuals, is the Minister aware that it not only represents a socially unjust tax but, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, also an administrative nightmare?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, there are always reasons for people paying or not paying tax. I think that that fact will become clear as time goes on. However, perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord, as he was concerned about warrant sales and so on, that as regards the figure I gave for rate warrants issued in Strathclyde last year, out of the 78,000 warrants issued only four or five people actually had to go to warrant sales. That is a measure of the situation. However, we shall obviously keep this under review.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, the Minister mentioned what has been done for the Highlands and Islands and compared that with the situation of people living in the Border country. Can he specify the kind of services at the disposal of the people living on the Isle of Barra and people living in the Border country?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Yes, my Lords, much has been done for the population of the Isle of Barra. Indeed, this year we have instituted the Vatersay Causeway scheme at a cost of £3 million. The number of people living in those outer islands is very small. Of course we recognise that they need help, and they receive this under the crofters' capital grants system, which helps them enormously, and also through the agricultural development programme and so on. I could continue. I hope that noble Lords do not think that those of us on this side of the House do not realise that crofters need support. They need support and they receive it.

Health Policy
2.47 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that their health policy, as declared by the Secretary of State for Health, is consistent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the Government's health policies are fully consistent with our objective, which is to improve the health of the nation while securing maximum effectiveness and efficiency from the resources made available to the caring services.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, would the noble Baroness care to make her contribution to this day of action by clarifying the situation a little? Is she aware that the Secretary of State for Health is widely taken as having said on the BBC television programme "Panorama" that he wanted a two-tier ambulance serice within a two-tier National Health Service? Is she also aware that on the following Friday on Radio Nottingham he denied that he had made that statement? By clarifying the situation the noble Baroness would be making a most valuable contribution.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am always delighted to try to help the noble Lord. I can tell him that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State assures me that he was referring to a two-tier ambulance service within the National Health Service as being the way forward. I see nothing in our National Health Service proposals to suggest otherwise.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, on the much broader question regarding the future of Britain's National Health Service, is the noble Baroness aware that the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Health Visitors' Association and the

161
Confederation of Health Service Employees are all gravely anixous about the future of the health service? Is she further aware that if things carry on as they are the health service created by Aneurin Bevan will ultimately be smashed by this Government?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are all anxious about the future of our health service, which is why the Government are introducing the reforms.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we would obtain a more efficient ambulance service if the Government were now to agree to send the claim to arbitration?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I regret to say that I cannot agree with the noble Lord on that point. There is no provision for independent arbitration in any NHS pay agreements. The NHS management must retain control of the amounts that it pays out in salaries and wages. It has to ensure that pay awards do not divert resources from patient care. Over 96 per cent. of the NHS staff have settled their pay question without recourse to industrial action.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while many people are critical of some aspects of the NHS under all governments, a record amount of money is now being put into it; and that more doctors and nurses are being recruited? While I and others are critical of some aspects of the NHS, recruitment must be considered in context.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble friend is of course correct. Spending on the NHS is now at an all-time high. It is up by 30 per cent. in real terms under this Government. Next year spending will be nearly 44 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1978–79. The proportion of GDP spent on the NHS and per capita spending are both higher than they were 10 years ago. As was made evident in a Question tabled by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing last week, the numbers of medical staff have also increased most encouragingly.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, there has been higher spending on the NHS every year for the past 42 years. Will the Minister report on the success or otherwise of the special cash initiative of 1987 which was designed to reduce the appalling length of waiting lists? Will she confirm a statement made by the general secretary of the National Association of Health Authorities that many health authorities are now using that money to prevent making the service cuts necessary due to funding problems? Secondly, will she confirm that the latest figures from her department show that in March last year there was an increase of 18,000 in the number of patients awaiting surgery compared with when the initiative was launched? The figures have gone up, not down.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the waiting list initiative, which was backed by the £119 million waiting list fund, has been successful in enabling hundreds of thousands of patients on the waiting
162
lists to be treated. In the first year of the fund, waiting lists and times fell in districts and specialties upon which the fund has been targeted compared to a rise elsewhere. The waiting lists are over 6 per cent. lower that the record high of March 1979. It is the time that people have to wait which is important, not the total number of people who are waiting. The latest provisional figures, which are for June 1989, show that the number of people who have been waiting for over a year has been reduced by 3 per cent. over the previous quarter; 22 per cent. more in patients and 69 per cent. more clay cases were treated in 1988–89 than in 1979.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the noble Baroness help me, because the figures that I have received from her department show that the number of people waiting for more than a year rose from 150,000 to 166,000 in the year ended March last, which are the latest figures that we have.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am not sure to which figures the noble Lord is referring. Would they be the figures quoted in the Statistical Bulletin which was issued last week, which does not, so far as I am aware, deal with that point? What is clear is that some regions cope much better than others, so that there is an inconsistent national picture.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, on the matter of the stated increase over the past 42 years, will my noble friend confirm that that was so except for the time when the Labour Party was in opposition, when capital expenditure decreased?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I should be grateful if my noble friend would repeat that question. I am not sure that I caught it.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the Minister agree that whatever arguments may have been advanced about the NHS, that service is in many ways suffering grievously at the moment as a result of the ambulance strike? Will she tell the House what initiatives she and her right honourable friend have to bring that dispute to an end?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I understand it, we shall have an opportunity to debate the subject of the ambulancemen a little more thoroughly in the near future, because an Unstarred Question on the subject has been tabled. The Government's position is that the final pay offer —I do not understand why NUPE and its associated unions keep insisting that the final offer is still only 6·5 per cent. —is of at least 9 per cent. backdated to 1st April. That is the offer which is on the table, and the management side has always shown itself willing to meet to discuss that final offer.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the British public are becoming confused, puzzled and frustrated by the continued reference to figures which are increasingly difficult for them to understand? Would it not be sensible for her right honourable friend the Secretary of State to ask NUPE representatives (Mr. Poole and his

163
colleagues) to meet him for a sensible discussion to bring the dispute to an end?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I have said on previous occasions, it is not the custom for the Secretary of State to become involved in such disputes; it is for the management side to settle with the ambulancemen and their representatives. As I said previously, the management side has always been ready to meet on any occasion. A number of meetings have taken place.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I apologise for getting up again, but it is not good enough for the Minister to say that her right honourable friend cannot be involved when he is involved every day in statements on that very issue in another place, on television and on radio. Will she convey to him the desire of the House —I believe on all sides —that he should, as a Member of the Cabinet and a representative of Her Majesty's Government, take an initiative now which would help to bring the dispute to an end, without waiting for an Unstarred Question in the House?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we believe that there is perfectly adequate negotiating machinery in place and that that machinery should be followed.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the ambulance drivers' representatives have clearly said that the issue should go to ACAS, on the condition that the ambulancemen will agree to whatever ACAS decides, if the Government will? What is her answer to that?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my answer to that is a repetition of my previous answer. The Whitley Council is the machinery for that negotiation.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, why do we have ACAS? Is it the Government's intention to abolish ACAS? I note that there is no answer to that question?
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware ——
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Noble Lords: No, No!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we are all anxious to help her as much as we can, especially if we can help her to persuade her right honourable friend the Secretary of State to settle the dispute? I believe that it is within her power to do so. Will she have a quiet word with him and ask him to be sensible?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have always made it clear that we are anxious to see an end to this unfortunate dispute.

B.Ae and Rover Group: Tax Benefits
3 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate of the value of the tax advantages available to British Aerospace as a result of their acquisition of the Rover Group.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the Government are not in a position to estimate the value to British Aerospace of the tax benefits arising from their acquisition of the Rover Group and available to them under normal UK tax law; such valuations are highly subjective and dependent on assumptions about the future taxable capacity of the enlarged British Aerospace group.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that these tax benefits which have been given to British Aerospace are a use of the taxpayers' money in order to bribe a company that is acceptable to the Conservative Party to take over the Rover Group? Despite what has been said before the Select Committee by the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, this represents a state subsidy to British Aerospace in order to persuade them to take over Rover.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in published correspondence to Mr. Gordon Brown, a member of the noble Lord's party, no particular tax benefits were conferred. Therefore the noble Lord's question does not arise.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in his Answer the noble Lord mentioned normal tax law. Is he aware that Sir Peter Gregson gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee in another place that the arrangement was that the company should have the opportunity to submit to the Inland Revenue its proposals for reorganising its affairs? The arrangement was that before implementing them, the company should obtain clearance from the Inland Revenue under Section 768 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. Under what law or what provision of that Act or what body of any law is such clearance available?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, every commercial enterprise is entitled to make application to the Inland Revenue for whatever provision it thinks it is entitled to. Nothing special applies to British Aerospace in that connection.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord draw my attention to any company in the past 10 years that has received clearance from the Revenue under that section?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord points to the fact that the Inland Revenue is jolly hard to please!
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it not therefore the case that the DTI was, first, advising the company badly; and secondly, prepared to go in for almost any tax fiddle that would get rid of Rover?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Government did not employ any fiddle to get rid of Rover, as the noble Lord suggests. The Rover Group had contingent liabilities upon the Government of something like £1·9 billion. In addition, there was the prospect of the Government having to provide something like another £1 billion. In round figures that made a liability on the public purse of something like £3 billion. I am very happy that that liability has been transferred to the private sector.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is quite clear from the correspondence between his noble friend and British Aerospace that the whole transaction was politically corrupt from the beginning and that there was a deliberate effort to mislead the other place?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I completely reject those quite unfounded allegations.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that had the merger not taken effect, hundreds of thousands of people would have been out of a job? It sounds as though the Opposition could not care less about jobs.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said just now in answer to an earlier question, it is certainly the case that there were substantial financial problems facing the Rover Group. British Aerospace will clearly be in a position to overcome those problems, and I hope that noble Lords on both sides of the House will welcome that.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, may I return the Minister to the Question on the Order Paper, in particular his First Answer? Was he strictly accurate in that reply? He said that he could not give us a figure because it was not known how much British Aerospace would have available under their tax liabilities. Surely he will know how much relief was available under the deal, regardless of how it was to be used?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the position is nothing like as simple as the noble Lord suggests. Furthermore, matters have to be discussed and agreed with the Inland Revenue, as I said earlier. Therefore my original Answer was correct.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, if the noble Lord does not accept that this was a bribe, can he explain to the House what the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry wrote to the commissioner in Brussels about and also the chairman of British Aerospace, giving him three options? They were to help British Aerospace to avoid the attentions either of the commissioner in Brussels or of Parliament here. Can the noble Lord also tell the House whether the deal was put to the whole Cabinet, including the Prime Minister? Can he say whether the Cabinet and the Prime Minister knew of the details before the deal was struck?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the disposal of the Rover Group was an extremely difficult matter. There was not a queue of companies forming up to buy this enterprise. British Aerospace was the only enterprise willing to make an offer for it. British Aerospace fiercely fought the negotiations; indeed, on the day before agreement was reached it nearly walked away. The fact is that the taxpayer has achieved an extraordinarily good deal and I am very pleased about that.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Will the noble Lord think carefully about what he has just said, that British Aerospace was the only company interested in buying Rover? Is it not the case that there were other candidates and that the Government gave exclusivity to British Aerospace? Therefore by definition it was the only company available to bid.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, no bid other than the one from British Aerospace was received for the Rover Group. Some firms have alleged that they were making a bid or were going to make a bid, but none did. I think that the Lonrho Group or some persons purporting to speak for that group have suggested that they made a bid in association with a Japanese company. Apparently the Japanese knew nothing of it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, how on earth can somebody make a bid when exclusivity has been given to somebody else?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there was nothing to prevent anybody else making a bid if they had wished to do so. The Government would have been bound to consider such a bid, had it been received.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that Lonrho is lying?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have made no such suggestion. There may have been a failure of communications within the group.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, on whose side was the failure of communications?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not in a position to answer for the affairs of that or any other company.

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move that the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill be now read a second time.
This is an important measure. I have heard criticism that the provisions in the Bill are in effect too important to be brought together in a miscellaneous provisions Bill. At the same time I am bound to say that those who have ventured that criticism have also expressed the view that it is

167
unfortunate that some important matters have been omitted from the self-same Bill.
Surely it is better to take the opportunity presented by such a Bill rather than await four or five individual Bills containing four or five Second Readings, multiple Committee stages and the subsequent Report stages. The time of your Lordships is valuable and I suggest that it is better served by concentrating on this one all-embracing Bill such as we have today. I know that many miscellaneous provisions Bills contain an enormous variety of minor matters where some correction, amendment, clarification or repeal will improve the law. Individually these matters may be small but the cumulative value of all the reforms is substantial. But this Bill is not like that. It has three major parts and only a few minor provisions. It is therefore something of a self-denying ordinance on the part of Scottish Office Ministers and the Scottish Office, as it seems important that your Lordships should not be distracted by myriad detail from the central purposes of this measure. These are to introduce new arrangements for supervising charities in Scotland, to improve choice in legal services and to make important adjustments to the law on liquor licensing. I shall discuss charities first.
The first part of the Bill makes provision for the establishment of an improved system of supervising charities in Scotland. In July 1988 my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland issued a consultative memorandum The Supervision of Charities in Scotland. The very full response to that consultation confirmed the Government's view that the current arrangements are inadequate for modern needs. My right honourable friend therefore issued in October 1989 a statement setting out his conclusions under the title Charities in Scotland: a Framework for Supervision. The provisions before your Lordships in Part I of the Bill give effect to the proposals in that statement.
It is not often appreciated that Scotland has never had a Charity Commission. This is not in itself a weakness but there have been some unsatisfactory consequences. Bodies which wish to be recognised as charitable in Scotland in order to qualify for tax relief must apply to the Inland Revenue for confirmation that their objects are charitable. The Inland Revenue claims section in Edinburgh which deals with such applications has built up considerable expertise in Scottish charitable matters and great praise for its expertise and helpfulness was given by many of the bodies which responded to my right honourable friend's consultation. However, the Inland Revenue's dealings with charities are in strict confidence and it is not possible for any member of the public, or indeed any official body, to obtain details from the Inland Revenue about whether particular bodies have been recognised by it as charitable. Moreover, if the Inland Revenue discovers instances of wrongdoing by a charity and that wrongdoing is not related to a tax matter, there is no body to which the revenue can report the matter for investigation in the public interest.
It is the Government's belief that if charities are to sustain the important function they play in Scottish
168
society it is essential that they should be able to enjoy the good will of the public on whose support they rely. The best way of maintaining the public's good will is to ensure that every charity is accountable, publicly and openly, for the manner in which it conducts its affairs and that in any rare instances where abuse or serious mismanagement of those affairs occur there should be provision for the affairs of the charity to be investigated and for those responsible to be brought to account.
With these objects in view Clause 1 of the Bill empowers the Inland Revenue to disclose to members of the public the names and addresses of bodies which it has recognised as being charitable and also to pass to myself as Lord Advocate information about any non-charitable activity among such bodies. Thus for the first time in Scotland members of the public will enjoy a facility and a right to be told which Scottish bodies have received recognition as charities. Clause 2 will prevent bodies which have not been recognised as charitable in Scotland by the Inland Revenue —or if they are established in England and Wales by the Charity Commission —from representing themselves as charities to the Scottish public; and it provides that those who do so without having obtained such recognition shall be guilty of an offence.
Clauses 3 and 4 place upon charities in Scotland a duty to keep proper accounts and to make available to members of the public on payment of a reasonable fee copies of such accounts. By these provisions individual members of the public will for the first time be able to discover as respects any charity in Scotland what its purposes are and what it has done to promote these purposes. Ready, direct public access to information about charities is thus the first key aspect of these provisions.
Clauses 5 to 7 make provision enabling me to carry out investigations within Scotland when it appears that the organisers of particular charities have been guilty of mismanagement or other wrongdoings and give me powers to petition the court both for orders remedying or preventing continuance of the abuse and for orders imposing penalties on those responsible.
Under Clauses 8 and 9 we turn to the second key aspect of these reforms. It is possible in Scotland under the doctrine known as cy prés, or approximation, for a public trust whose purposes have failed to petition the Court of Session for approval of a scheme authorising the application of trust funds to a purpose as near as possible to the original purpose. However, unlike the position in England and Wales, the cy prés procedure is in Scotland available only where it is no longer possible to carry out the trust's purposes in the manner prescribed. Clause 8 broadens the concept of cy prés to enable application to be made where the purposes of a trust have become obsolete or lacking in usefulness as distinct from being incapable of being put into effect. Clause 9 provides procedures enabling small public trusts with annual incomes not exceeding £5,000 to reorganise without the necessity of seeking court approval, while Clause 10 enables certain very small trusts no longer capable of

169
achieving the purposes for which they were established to spend capital in order to achieve their charitable purposes. Taken together these provisions should unlock charitable funds and enable them to be applied to good effect in modern society.
I trust that I have said sufficient to indicate the broad purposes of Part I of the Bill. It has been designed to meet the particular needs and circumstances of Scotland. I should like to pay tribute to the helpful co-operation which has been afforded in its development by the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations on behalf of a wide range of Scottish charities and to thank the Charity Commission for England and Wales for the invaluable assistance it has given. I warmly commend the proposals contained in Clauses 1 to 13 to your Lordships' consideration.
I turn now to the second part of the Bill which deals with legal services. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the Scottish legal profession has much of which it can justly be proud. While it is beyond dispute that the advocates and solicitors of Scotland have served the country well for centuries, a fine history does not of itself make further improvement any less desirable. These reforms therefore remove some rigidities affecting the provision of legal services. The reforms to which this part gives effect are based on the Secretary of State's consideration of responses to his consultation papers The Practice of the Solicitor Profession in Scotland and The Legal Profession in Scotland and were announced in October 1989 in his policy statement The Scottish Legal Profession: The Way Forward. The broad purpose is twofold, to widen the choice available to those using legal services and to allow the providers of those services to respond to the demands of clients with innovation and flair to the maximum extent consistent with the interests of justice and the necessary protection of clients' interests.
I shall say briefly why these provisions are being brought before your Lordships. Conveyancing is of vital importance and it should certainly not be open to simply anyone to undertake such business. To permit that would be to jeopardise the quality of our property registers and to put the funds and housing of families at risk. But to insist that only solicitors in private practice should be entitled to provide the service is equally unrealistic. Solicitors who join the employ of, say, a building society do not thereby lose any of their competence in conveyancing. We are providing, as I have said, that safeguards comparable to those required of solicitors should be provided by any conveyancer. Thus conveyancing will continue to be in the hands of competent people who will safeguard clients' funds and who will be subject to discipline for misconduct. The Bill will make it possible both for individuals to qualify as technically competent to undertake the tasks involved in a conveyancing transaction and for individuals and commercial or professional organisations who employ qualified persons as conveyancers to offer services as conveyancing practitioners. This is a significant and positive reform.
Clauses 14 to 19 provide for the removal of certain barriers for prospective providers of conveyancing
170
and confirmation services and contain a structure for the authorisation and regulation of non-lawyers, whether they are large financial institutions or other suitably qualified individuals, who wish to offer these services to the public. At the centre of the structure will be the Scottish Conveyancing and Confirmation Practitioners Board which will be responsible for ensuring that satisfactory standards are maintained by all non-lawyers wishing to offer either conveyancing or confirmation services. The membership of the board will reflect a broad range of interests, including those with knowledge of the services for which the board is to be responsible. The authority of the Law Society of Scotland over its members is of course unaffected.
There is also provision both in the Bill itself and to follow in regulations to create a context for the provision of conveyancing services which is fair to all providers. Regulations will ensure that authorised practitioners offer and bear the cost of the necessary consumer protection measures. By means of a statutory code of practice, practitioners will be required to conduct conveyancing business in a way which gives clients access to suitably qualified professionals. Particular attention will be given in the code to the way in which cost information is presented before clients select their conveyancer. That range of measures will produce a framework which is both competitive and fair.
Clauses 20 to 22 provide for a major expansion in the range of people who may represent clients in court proceedings. I believe that clients requiring supreme court representation should have the opportunity to choose according to their needs whether to instruct a solicitor with rights of audience in those courts or to engage the services of an advocate. Like the conveyancing proposals, that is a significant reform. It recognises that particularly high standards of advocacy and of conduct are required in the supreme courts. The Bill does not therefore confer extended rights of audience on all solicitors. Instead it provides for the Law Society to set the necessary standards, with the approval of the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Secretary of State, and for only those solicitors who meet those standards to have the additional rights of audience.
In that I see no threat to the independent Scottish Bar. Advocates who are confident about the standard of service they provide need not be apprehensive at the prospect of solicitors appearing alongside them before the supreme courts. Experience has shown that there is considerable demand for the services of advocates in the sheriff courts and at tribunals and inquiries, where solicitors share the same rights of audience, and I see no reason why advocates should not continue to command a sizeable proportion of pleading work at all levels of the court structure.
We are of course in quite different circumstances from those which obtain in England and Wales. Scottish solicitors have enjoyed rights of audience in the sheriff courts, with their extensive jurisdiction, including jury trials, for a long time. Nevertheless, the reform opens up new opportunities for solicitors which they have long demanded —at least I thought they had. The rather curious briefing which the Law

171
Society has given to noble Lords leaves in some obscurity whether solicitors still wish for that change. Even if it is not to be made clear to the Government I hope that where the Law Society stands on the matter it will be made clear to its members.
The approach that I have outlined above has been adopted deliberately to ensure that standards of supreme court pleading are in no way diminished. That is a matter to which the Government attach great importance.
The Bill provides for the removal of existing statutory barriers to the formation of multi-disciplinary partnerships including solicitors. In future the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates will be free to make rules in that area. Any such rules which prevent the formation of such partnerships which seek to offer services in relation to court work will require the approval of the Secretary of State for Scotland who will wish to ensure that the interests of justice are in no way compromised. The current prohibitions in law on mixed partnerships are a rigidity which is not conducive to the provision of services in ways that may better meet the needs and preferences of clients.
The Bill will strengthen the mechanisms for handling complaints about the provision of legal services. It provides a statutory duty for the relevant professional bodies to investigate complaints, and to report the findings to the complainer and to the practitioner complained against. I believe that that will assist the development and maintenance of high standards in that area. I attach even more importance to that than to the other reform in that area, the replacement of the curiously titled Lay Observer by a new Ombudsman with a wider jurisdiction.
I have not sought to explain every detail of the provisions in the Bill since given that detail that is a task best left to the Committee. I have, however, attempted to explain the Government's thinking on the broad issues involved and to offer some examples of how that thinking is illustrated. The two major planks of the Bill, the extension of solicitors' rights of audience and the reform of the structure for conveyancing services, with the additional improvements we are making elsewhere in the Bill, will contribute to the efficient and flexible provision of legal services. I believe that that can only be in the best interest of clients.
I turn now to Part III of the Bill which proposes changes to liquor licensing law in Scotland. Your Lordships will recall that the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 introduced a new code of liquor licensing in Scotland, incorporating many of the recommendations made by a committee chaired by Dr. Christopher Clayson. Your Lordships will appreciate that a licensing code can only be effective where it is in close harmony with the social attitudes of the day. The Government's task in reviewing liquor licensing in Scotland some 14 years on has been to assess the effects of changes introduced in 1976 and to ensure that our licensing requirements continue to reflect social attitudes.
Once the 1976 code had been in operation for some time it was considered prudent to monitor its
172
impact. The reforms in Part III accordingly reflect the outcome of two surveys by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and an extensive consultation exercise. Over 2,000 replies were received in response to the consultation and those were carefully analysed before decisions were taken.
The main thrust of the measures in this part of the Bill is threefold: first, to enhance the more civilised regime which has developed in licensed premises since 1976; secondly, to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy in the administration of liquor licensing; and thirdly, to tighten up the law where experience indicates a need for greater restriction.
On the theme of tighter restriction, the Government have been concerned that the proliferation of late night extensions in some areas has been a source of disturbance and distress to local residents and imposed heavy demands on police and medical services. It has been decided accordingly to tighten up the statutory provisions which govern the grant of extensions to permitted hours. Clause 33 requires applicants for extensions to give positive reasons for the grant of an extension and prove to the board's satisfaction that the extension would be of sufficient benefit to the local community as to outweigh any detriment to the neighbourhood. The provision thus seeks to restore the original intention of Parliament in enacting the 1976 Act that late night extensions should become the exception rather than the norm.
The consultative review also revealed widespread and unprompted concern about the problem of under-age drinking. Your Lordships will recall the Government's support for the Bill introduced last Session by the honourable Member for Clydesdale, Mr. Jimmy Hood. It aimed to prevent the sale of alcohol to minors and enjoyed wide support in both Houses. Doubts were expressed, however, in your Lordships' House as to whether the provisions were workable, and since the amending provisions carried by the House came too late in the parliamentary Session, the Bill could not progress. However, I indicated in Committee on 21st July that the Government would consider the amendments moved by your Lordships in the preparation of the licensing legislation. The views of the retail trade, health interests, churches and social work and law enforcement agencies were sought last summer on an acceptable form for controls in off-licences.
On the basis of that consultation and official discussions with the retail trade, it has been decided to introduce a provision based on the amendment moved in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, and agreed by your Lordships. The measure proposed by the noble Baroness represents a compromise between the shop-within-a-shop proposal which would be expensive and onerous for the retail trade and the simple prohibition on unsupervised sales by youngsters which is considered to be of limited effectiveness. The favoured solution is to prohibit the sale of alcohol by under-age persons in off-licences with three or more points of sale and to prohibit unsupervised sale in smaller licensed outlets. I commend to your Lordships these moderate measures which seek to meet the concerns

173
of the licensed retailers and the social work and law enforcement interests.
Clause 31 dispenses with the present requirement for licensed premises to close in the afternoon between 2.30 p.m. and 5 p.m. The afternoon break has ceased to be effective by reason of the widespread grant of afternoon extensions, and the consultative response indicated public acceptance of discretionary week-day opening hours for licensed premises from 11 in the morning to 11 in the evening. We have, however, accepted the clear majority view against any increase in Sunday hours for public houses.
Clause 31 also permits off-sale premises in Scotland to open on Sundays. Sunday opening of off-sales has of course been permitted in England and Wales for some years. The Government do not feel able to maintain the present bar on Sunday opening of off-licences in Scotland and regard as anomalous the present position where off-sales on Sundays from hotels and public houses are lawful but supply by other licensed retailers is an offence.
On the theme of deregulation, Clause 32 seeks to reduce the administrative burdens on licensing boards by removing the need for a separate application for Sunday opening. Research shows that Sunday opening is now widely accepted and there is therefore less need for applications to open on Sunday to be scrutinised separately by boards.
Part III also provides the police with a power to enter registered clubs at any reasonable time without a warrant. The consultative review revealed overwhelming support for a general police right of entry to clubs and we trust that this power will be acceptable as a necessary form of control. It is in the public interest to maintain the standards of clubs and ensure that they are properly regulated.
Turning now to the remaining aspects of the Bill, Clause 39 gives effect to the Government's commitment to improving the non-custodial sentencing options available to the courts and enables the Secretary of State to meet the full cost of probation, social inquiry reports and supervision of released prisoners in accordance with national standards. Clause 40 allows him greater flexibility in the use of prison accommodation.
There are provisions in the Bill to allow an experiment to be carried out into the method of calculating fines with a view to relating them more closely to an offender's ability to pay, thus imposing a more appropriate sanction on the wealthier offender and, it is hoped, reducing the incidence of imprisonment for fine default among those less able to pay.
I now turn to the provisions of the Bill which relate to divorce and matrimonial interdicts. The more substantial of those provisions is based on recommendations made by the Scottish Law Commission. The effect of Clause 43 is to reduce the periods of separation required to establish the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The reduction is from two years to one year where the other party consents to divorce and from five years to two years without the consent of the other party. That reflects the commission's conclusions that the present
174
periods of separation are unnecessarily long and have the effect of causing many divorcing couples to use behaviour or adultery grounds, with all their attendant unpleasantness and hostility, as a means of obtaining an earlier divorce. The Government believe that the modest amendment proposed by the commission, which received substantial public support in Scotland on consultation, will meet much of the criticism of the existing law without going beyond what is generally acceptable to the public.
Clause 45 and Schedule 4 to the Bill will establish a statutory version for use in Scotland of the draft Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. Those provisions will apply to all arbitrations which fall within the definitions of an international commercial arbitration in Schedule 4. In addition, an arbitration agreement can provide that the model law arbitration procedures will apply even though the arbitration is not an international one. The availability of a comprehensive code for efficient arbitration will, I am convinced, be helpful to those wishing to do business in Scotland and will encourage the use of Scotland as a forum for international arbitrations. The provisions implement the recommendation of the Scottish Advisory Committee on Arbitration Law that the model law be adopted into Scots law.
The Bill demonstrates the Government's continuing commitment to the process of law reform and to the maintenance of a vigorous Scottish legal system. In that connection I should mention one further matter which was recently brought to my attention; namely, the absence in Scotland of any provision allowing evidence to be given through live television links from abroad. I am arranging for views to be obtained on this matter since a provision allowing that would, I think, be useful.
This is an extensive and important Bill. I look forward to listening to noble Lords' views and after Second Reading to those more detailed discussions which will necessarily follow at Committee stage. I am arranging for the Notes on Clauses to the Bill to be made available to noble Lords. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
3.35 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, for his detailed introduction to this important piece of legislation affecting many areas of Scottish life. I should say at the outset that I am pleased, as I am sure the House will be, that the topics have attracted a large number of eminent speakers, with no doubt varying viewpoints, including members of the Scottish judiciary and particularly the recently appointed Lord President of the Court of Session, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie. His contribution to the debate, based on his vast experience as a practitioner, judge and administrator in the supreme courts of Scotland is keenly awaited by us all. That is not to say that we

175
shall all necessarily agree with what he says, but we shall treat comments from such an authoritative source with the respect that they deserve.
Before making any comments on the content of the Bill, perhaps I may say that I am not convinced —and I am sure that the House is not convinced —by the explanation tendered by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate as to why the Bill should be in this form. I wish to make a protest about the fact that major issues relating to fundamental matters in Scotland are dealt with by means of the miscellaneous provisions procedure. The subjects raised cover multifarious aspects of Scottish life, ranging from charities to licensing, from divorce to major law reforms, covering rights of audience in the courts, conveyancing and confirmation procedures, judicial appointments and other related topics and reforms of the penal system. One has only to look at the Long Title of the Bill to see that it is absolute nonsense to bring all those matters before the House in one accumulated Bill.
As I understood him, the noble and learned Lord said that it would save noble Lords time in the House. As I see it from this side of the House, it will increase the time required to consider the Bill. I can assure noble Lords that they can look forward —or not look forward as the case may be —to a long and detailed Committee stage in considering the 49 clauses and six schedules, which represent major legislation and can in no way be said to be a tidying up process.
This is wholesale reform to which this type of legislation is completely unsuited. Miscellaneous provisions Bills have their uses, but, in my respectful view, this is an abuse of the system. Miscellaneous provisions Bills are notorious for burying pieces of amending legislation. It makes it extremely difficult not only for lawyers but for members of the public to see where the alterations to the law may be found. I say advisedly that to deal with those substantial issues in such a way is an insult to Scotland, and particularly to the Scottish legal system, which was one of the preserved areas in the Treaty of Union of 1707. The major reform should have been set out in a separate Bill, coupled with full public discussion prior to the publication of the Bill. We have had minimal discussion so far as concerns Scotland, and I ask: if it is good enough for England and Wales to have a Bill of their own, why are we in Scotland deprived of such a Bill when considering major legal reforms?
I do not know why the Government behave in that way. I suspect that it may be brought about by their inability to man Committees dealing with separate Scottish business in another place, so this has all been lumped into one piece, not for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, but for expediency on the Government's part in another place. If that is the reason, it is entirely unacceptable. The people of Scotland are entitled to an explanation of this omnibus approach to the matters covered in the Bill.
This side of your Lordships' House always welcomes any review which brings about beneficial changes. The Bill has parts which will not be opposed
176
in principle but, as is the tradition of this House, will be considered in detail during the Committee and Report stages when it is hoped that persons with an interest in the issues raised by the Bill will have made their views known in more detail. We shall be constructive and not obstructive in the hope that the Bill, like other legislation passed down from the Government for our consideration as a revising chamber, leaves this House in better shape than when it arrived.
Part I of the Bill, which relates to charities, is a forward-looking step with a view to controlling charities, informing the public of their existence and allowing the older and smaller charities, whose purpose is now of no relevance, to be altered or, if appropriate, to have their funds disbursed to a suitable substitute. There have already been suggestions that the charities will not be sufficiently identified and that information about their purposes, their accounts and the names of those involved in management, will not be readily, cheaply and speedily accessible to members of the public at points throughout the country.
There is no requirement on the Inland Revenue to keep a register for public inspection. It is a matter for the Government perhaps to consider whether, with modern computer processes, it would be possible to set up computer points at major centres throughout Scotland where people who wished to get at the information could do so quickly and cheaply. Such a facility should be central to the reform of the charity law. Any law which puts clamps on rogue charities and unsupervised collection of money by those who play on the good will of the public is to be encouraged. It can also be improved. It is to be hoped that reasonable amendments, designed to strengthen public involvement, if not accepted immediately, will be taken away for consideration by the Government. I give as an example the issue of the amount of information that may be made available.
Part II of the Bill deals with legal services. As one might have anticipated, it will provoke the most controversial reaction in view of the consequences for the legal system and, by inference, for the people of Scotland. Normally on this side of the House we should have agreed right away with many of the issues raised in Part II. But the more the changes are considered, the more we tend to the view that a system that might be suited to England and Wales is not suitable for the Scottish system of law. Questions have been posed more than once. Are the proposed changes in the first place necessary? In the second place, are they changes that will improve a system which, as recognised by the Government, has served Scotland well as part of its unique legal system?
Reading through the Bill, some very rich words strike one's eyes: rights of audience; conveyancing practitioners; qualified conveyancers; the Scottish Conveyancing and Confirmation Practitioners Board; confirmation practitioners; and so on. They sound very grand. But where is all that taking the legal system and how will it benefit the public? The answers to those questions are not easy to find. What is wrong with the present system in which solicitors practise in an open and competitive market and still

177
manage to provide the public with sound advice and help in conveyancing to a recognised high standard of integrity and independence—the two keynotes of legal practice not only in Scotland but, one would hope, elsewhere.
Those standards of integrity and independence and that sound advice must not be put under unnecessary threat. It is accepted that there is room for a form of qualified conveyancer who might operate within limited areas but under the supervision of the Law Society of Scotland so that activities are properly supervised.
The process outlined in Part II of the Bill has about it the ring of dilution of the profession which prides itself on the standards that it sets and the protection that it offers to the public. The Bill ignores the detailed educational and practical training which is demanded to qualify as a solicitor and the extra work needed to qualify as an advocate, as well as the penalties which the profession imposes upon itself. It is easy to see from the Bill where the dilution comes in. Having created new categories of person —conveyancers and licensed practitioners —the Government have to cover their backs, so to speak, in Clauses 15(9) and 17(9) by setting out rules of conduct and so on.
The rules of conduct do not have to be brought into the legislation before the practices commence. As I read the Bill, there is no obligation on the Secretary of State to make regulations because it says that he "may" make regulations. If the Government insist on making such regulations, I consider that they must change the word "may" to "shall". Before these diluted practitioners —if I may so call them —are let into the public domain, the public will have to know exactly what standard of conduct and what rules apply to them. Remembering in particular that they are dealing with people's money among other things, the public must not be left to guess what the Secretary of State might bring in at some time.
Time and again we have heard what is behind the Bill —the Office of Fair Trading. I venture to say that what is seen as fair trading between traders is not necessarily the best deal for the consumer. For the Scottish legal system, far from expanding the right of choice, which the noble and learned Lord said was a fundamental point of the legislation, the Bill will narrow the area of choice to both solicitors and members of the Bar. In Clause 21 we read that there will be extensions so that people who are not legally qualified at all can come in and practice, thus opening the door to accountants, surveyors and so on to be authorised to appear before the court.
As I read the Bill once again, it strikes me that one group has been ignored in this legislation; namely, the court. The court is entitled to a high standard of properly legally qualified people to present the legal aspect of the case, based on the evidence given by the experts within their own field. That is just another aspect of dilution.
As regards access to the courts, the same questions arise. Why is the Bill necessary? What will the new rights of audience achieve in improving the quality
178
and efficiency of the courts? How does this fit into the Scottish system? The answers to all those questions are in the negative. Advocates in the supreme courts after rigorous and demanding training and once they have acquired the basic legal qualifications provide a high standard of advocacy fearlessly and without commitment to any personal involvement with a firm or any close client involvement. The art of advocacy so practised by highly qualified practitioners is the best service that the client and the courts can obtain. The system serves Scotland well with the operation of the cab rank rule, which solicitors with offices and business commitments would have great difficulty in carrying out.
The quick and ready availability of counsel is a feature of the system. People who wish to have access to the supreme courts will have little difficulty in joining the Faculty of Advocates in our small country which has just over 250 practitioners in that field. If they want to practise the art of advocacy in the supreme courts, the door is open to them and there is very little obstruction.
In the past few years there has been an increasing number of ex-solicitors entering the Bar in Scotland. They seem quite keen to do so. There is an easy and relatively cheap two-way transfer between the two systems. We are worried about how discipline will be imposed over the members of faculty and over the new advocate solicitors. Is the dean of faculty to have power over both? If so, how will discipline be enforced and under whose rules? It is very difficult to see how that can be said to be an improvement of any kind.
I raise these matters at this stage to make a plea in general to the Government to think again about the provisions for rights of audience on the basis that they are neither relevant nor needed in Scotland. It is highly unlikely that the solicitor advocate, having attained his or her right of audience, will be able to service the courts in a way which will represent an improvement on the present system of servicing the supreme courts. Realistically, and having proceeded this far, we would be very surprised if the Government accepted my plea and took these matters away to think about them again.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, asked about the attitude of solicitors towards this extension of the rights of audience. I can tell him that, from a personal point of view, and after discussing rights of audience with solicitors, it is difficult now to detect the apparent enthusiasm which prevailed when strident calls for the introduction of extended rights of audience were being made by the same people. It is now appreciated by practitioners that the responsibilities of being involved in the regular servicing of the supreme courts, sometimes literally on instant demand, and running an office generating business and so on, are not reconcilable functions.
I ask this question: would a solicitor advocate be guilty of misconduct if he refused to leave his office, because of the pressure of business, when asked to attend the High Court, as an advocate is asked and sometimes instructed to do, by the dean of faculty? If so, who will discipline him and on what basis?

179
Generally speaking, therefore, the rights of audience will not improve the efficiency of the courts.
I turn to the question of multi-disciplinary practices, the licensed conveyancers and the rights of advocates to form partnerships. I said at the beginning that choice was being restricted. All these matters will restrict choice. It appears that the institutions do not really want to be involved in conveyancing. However, once they are given the right it will be hard not to enter that market. Then the institutions, with their persuasive advertising, will inevitably attract house buyers and sellers away from independent solicitors. The commercial and profit motive will be reflected in the attitude of the institutions from time to time in the manner in which they advise clients.
If clients are taken away from the open competitive market of the solicitors, who obtain 40 per cent. of their income from conveyancing, that will not be a good thing for practising solicitors in Scotland. It could have a deleterious effect on many firms, particularly the small firms which have one or two partners. The result may be that some firms will be forced to close down while the institutions take over the conveyancing.
The system that we have in Scotland is too small, particularly as regards the Bar, to have partnerships formed and advocates joining in partnerships with other persons, particularly with other firms. We cannot afford to have a drain on our resources for commercial purposes. I suggest that that is behind the legislation which has been introduced. I do not wish to take up more of your Lordships' time because there are many speakers to follow. I wished however to make certain points with a view to seeing whether the Government will take another look at the proposals.
In a recent article in the Scotsman by a well respected lecturer-professor in law, the Bill has been described as the Scots' Law Abolition Bill. We trust that this is an educated exaggeration. Care will be required to ensure that that is not the effect which the implementation of the Bill will have on a legal system of which we are all justifiably proud.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, it is with an understandable feeling of trepidation and diffidence that I, as a Welsh solicitor practising in England, rise to speak in this debate. Unfortunately, for reasons that I am not aware of, Scotland has been particularly unlucky in having solicitor Peers. Today, I am following such distinguished lawyers as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me and not think that this is a small way for an English solicitor to get his own back on a Scottish Lord Chancellor for what he is trying to do to our English system.
Seriously, however, I believe that we who practice in England, and particularly those of us who concentrate on conveyancing, have a very great deal to learn from the existing Scottish system. Very frequently we hear that we should emulate the
180
Scottish conveyancing system and that it has a great deal to teach us. Attempts have been made to import parts of the Scottish law into the English system. It is on that basis that I speak this afternoon.
I intend to concentrate on Clauses 14 to 19 of the Bill. I am aware that from the outset of the period of consultation, when the Secretary of State for Scotland issued his consultation paper entitled The Legal Profession in Scotland on 13th March 1989, its terms were less positive, and more conducive to real consultation than the consultation paper for England and Wales of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. However, when one reads it, it is becoming clear that the same questions are being asked as were asked by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
In due course the Secretary of State for Scotland issued his White Paper The Way Forward which I submit compared poorly with the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the English consultation paper which is entitled Legal Services: A Framework for the Future. I agree with the strictures made by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, that it is a pity that such important legislation for Scotland should be contained in a miscellaneous provisions Bill.
Though the proposals are in a much shorter form, apart from the restructuring of the work of the English courts, they are remarkably similar for both England and Scotland. I am encouraged by the attitude which has been adopted not only by my own Law Society in England and Wales but also by the Law Society of Scotland in welcoming some of the changes which are proposed. It would be wrong to believe, as many laymen do, that the legal profession opposes any change of any description. There are aspects of both Bills which deserve widespread support. Sadly however, and equally important, there are aspects of both Bills —I am here concerned with the Scottish Bill —which cause me, and I am sure very many others, very real concern.
It is worth while to look back over a period of five years. In 1984 the Government embarked on a consultation exercise and issued a consultative paper in Scotland entitled Conveyancing by Employed Solicitors in Scotland. The thrust of that paper was to consider whether it was appropriate in Scotland for banks and building societies to be entitled to offer conveyancing services to their customers through the medium of employed solicitors. The Law Society of Scotland responded robustly to that consultation paper. It suggested that the interests of the public would not be properly served; there would be inadequate protection and control; there would also be grossly unfair competition. The Law Society also felt that there was more than adequate competition from the then thousand-odd firms of private practitioners in Scotland.
At that time those arguments must have been very persuasive because the Government chose to permit licensed conveyancers in England and Wales as many of us know, and not so much to our cost, but with some regret. Through the Building Societies Act 1986, subject to rules which were never introduced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, banks and building societies were permitted to

181
provide conveyancing services. No such provisions were made for Scotland. Scotland does not have licensed conveyancers, and Scotland is specifically excluded from any provision at the moment relating to solicitors employed by banks and building societies providing services to their customers.
What has changed in the four years that have passed to convince this Government that it is now necessary for banks and building societies to provide conveyancing services?
I have searched in vain for any piece of evidence, public demand or change of circumstance which would justify the proposals set out in this part of the Bill. What has changed is that in Scotland, as in England, the provision of conveyancing services is more competitive than ever. The competition comes from 1,000 firms competing fiercely among themselves to provide a high quality of conveyancing service.
At the time of the Royal Commission which considered the delivery of legal services in Scotland, a survey carried out by that body disclosed, noble Lords may think surprisingly, that 75 per cent. of the public were satisfied with the quality of the services provided by their solicitors. That has now changed. The Scottish Consumer Council recently carried out a survey. The opinion poll showed that 87 per cent. of the public in Scotland were satisfied with the services that they received from solicitors in the conveyancing field.
That does not demonstrate a great need for substantial change. But who wants a change? —apart from the Government, very few people. The consultation process in Scotland produced a wide range of responses from many people and bodies involved in the delivery of legal services. Although I have not read them all, I am advised that only the Building Societies' Association, the Consumers' Association and the National Association of Estate Agents wanted a change in the status quo. However, it is significatnt to note those three bodies are based in England and have based their responses on their English experience and, perhaps one might add, their natural hunger for profits.
The other people and bodies in Scotland who responded almost unanimously supported the idea of the status quo or there was in the interests of choice and competition an admission that there might be a need for licensed conveyancers. I cannot imagine that my friends in the Law Society of Scotland will feel strongly if licensed conveyancers are permitted to enter the field. They have made little impression in England and have found that the competition from solicitors is pretty fierce.
What is most significant is that the Scottish Consumer Council, to which I have alluded, opposed the idea of authorised practitioners because it was concerned about the quality and delivery of service to individuals but, most importantly, the prejudicial effect that banks and building societies undertaking those services might have on the delivery of other legal services in rural areas. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, touched upon that matter earlier.
182
The banks and building societies did not wish to change, although they indicated that they might require to reconsider their position if competition forced them to do so. The Keeper of the Department of Registers in Scotland, a man who I am advised knows more about conveyancing and the quality of services than anyone else, expressed concern and caution on the grounds that conveyancing is not easy. Indeed, it is difficult and he is frightened that less well qualified people may find the whole system difficult and that it may create problems for his department and difficulties for the clients. I was greatly encouraged in my view when I read an article in Scotland on Sunday published on 28th January. It disclosed that not all the banks and building societies in Scotland wished to undertake conveyancing work.
Again I ask the question: who wants the changes? The answer is obvious; the Government want some kind of common practice on both sides of the Border. But the practice of conveyancing in Scotland has always been different from that in England. In the past the Goverment have recognised that fact and have seen fit to distinguish between the systems and not introduce in Scotland licensed conveyancers and even the possibility of banks and building societies undertaking the work. What the Government are now doing appears to be based on dogma rather than on public need.
I am not alone in holding those views because there is widespread satisfaction in Scotland with the services provided by the legal profession. It is significant to learn that the Halifax Building Society, the biggest building society in these islands, has indicated that it had no plans to offer conveyancing services to its customers in Scotland, as opposed to offering them to customers in England. The two biggest Scottish building societies, the Dunfermline and the Scottish, have stated publicly that they do not propose to provide such services for their clients and would rather stick to doing what they do well. I have little doubt that if Scotland on Sunday is to be believed, many other bodies will take a similar view.
Therefore, if there is no demand by the major players, what is the justification for the proposals? The Government would say that it is consumer choice. The consumer is not daft and he is capable of choosing for himself. It has been said before, and doubtless it will be said again, that the man in the street may have difficulty in differentiating between the expensive and expansive advertising of banks and building societies. From experience as a solicitor for many years, I can tell noble Lords that the prospective purchaser wants an assurance that he has funds at his disposal to buy the house and that he will have a good title when he has bought it. He is unable to judge the relative merits of the services of individual banks or building societies. But doubtless with a variety of inducements he will be persuaded that he can obtain a service from the banks and building societies. I suspect that he will not find it equal to that provided by the legal profession with its experience, knowledge and integrity.
In response to the Secretary of State's consultation paper, the Law Society of Scotland has submitted its

183
own response entitled Public Protection: Professional Independence. In Chapter 6 it set out its arguments against conveyancing by banks and building societies and recommends the retention of the status quo. I am happy to support the Scottish Law Society's approach. I commend it for its stance in principle. It is unwilling to accept the inevitable and try to negotiate but it wants to stand up and maintain its present legal position.
In Scotland there is no need for banks and building societies to undertake conveyancing work. The plain fact of the matter is that the institutions do not wish to offer it. In Scotland there are properly trained solicitors and adequate consumer safeguards. Under a recognised and regularly enforced code of conduct they practice in the best interests of the consumer. I believe that that is a good enough reason to reject Clauses 14 to 19 to which I have referred.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Emslie: My Lords, I am deeply conscious of the privilege of rising in your Lordships' House to speak for the first time. I do so with diffidence and, I must confess, a degree of apprehension. I know that I must do my best to be uncontroversial about a subject on which noble Lords will not be surprised to hear I hold strong views.
I hope that the House will scrutinise with special care the provisions in the Bill which cause me anxiety. I have in mind the controversial provisions in Part II of the Bill and in particular those concerned with rights of audience in the Court of Session and the High Court and with partnership among advocates.
In a major way Clauses 20 and 23 innovate upon a system which for centuries has enabled the superior courts of Scotland to maintain high standards of judicial performance not only in the interests of the litigants but in the development of the law. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that a system which is good for the courts is a system which is good for the litigants and for the continuing vitality of the law.
I add to that suggestion a further suggestion that your Lordships' House may well be very slow indeed to permit any change in that system to take place if, as a result, the change would weaken the courts in the proper performance of their judicial function.
The system which I am talking about is that litigation in the Court of Session —I take that court as an example —is conducted within the College of Justice which was established in Scotland in 1532. The judges are the senators of the college and those who plead before those judges have been admitted by the court to the public office of advocate and membership of the college on completion of the final hurdle; namely, the vital training of pupillage, which is full time. Discipline within the college is positive and swift, and your Lordships' House may very well be aware of the important role which the dean of faculty plays in securing the maintenance of that positive and swift discipline in the interests of the court.
The strength of any court is not merely a reflection of the quality of its judges. It is, to a very significant extent, also a reflection on the quality of those who
184
plead before it. The Court of Session in particular—I can speak of that from long experience —is heavily dependent on the quality of its advocates and furthermore upon the mutual respect which exists between Bench and Bar and in the relationships of advocates to each other, relationships which involve a high degree of trust.
Of course, I do not suggest for one moment —and only a fool would —that all advocates measure up to the exacting standards required of them by the Court of Session and the High Court. Some do not or cannot. Those who fall into that category do not usually survive for long in significant practice and indeed will not or at least should not be chosen by sensible solicitors to conduct proceedings on behalf of one of their clients. However, the great majority, by their training, discipline and full-time devotion to the art of advocacy contrive to display a high standard of professional skill, competence and integrity; and (dare I say it?) the best can stand favourable comparison with the outstanding advocates in the common law jurisdiction.
It would be a mistake to assume that there is no material difference between the standard of pleading in the sheriff courts and that in the Court of Session and the High Court. Experience of a lifetime in the law of Scotland at all levels, including the sheriff court, has convinced me that the difference is real and striking. I do not say that in any spirit of criticism of solicitors, for in my opinion no one can really expect to acquire and develop the skills of superior court advocacy by practice in the sheriff court which is, of necessity, part time.
We are concerned with rights of audience. The question is: why are we concerned with rights of audience in this Bill? What is the justification for Clause 20? I am glad to hear that it is not suggested that the system which I have been talking about does not work well. I have not yet heard, although it may still happen, that particular attention has been given to the best interests of the courts. Indeed, the only justification, as far as I can tell, for Clause 20 is that if some solicitors are granted rights of audience in the Court of Session and the High Court, that will give to some clients at least a wider choice of representation. At the moment, your Lordships will understand that a client's choice is an informed choice, on the advice of his solicitor, of the full-time professional advocate who is best equipped or best suited for the conduct of the particular proceedings.
Is it perhaps likely to create a risk, if Clause 20 passes into law, that a litigant may find himself making an uninformed choice by allowing his own solicitor to conduct proceedings in the Court of Session? Your Lordships may feel that there is something in the view that in a matter of such importance an uninformed choice is hardly a choice worth having. Clause 20 envisages that those solicitors who wish to qualify for rights of audience in the superior courts must, among other things, undergo a course of training in superior court pleading and have had certain experience over a period of time in practice in the sheriff court.
A number of questions seem to arise and I shall suggest some of those to your Lordships. Is experience, over however long a period, of part-time

185
sheriff court practice likely to offer a fair basis on which to make a judgment of an individual's competence to plead in the superior courts? Can any academic course of training in advocacy, if such a thing can be imagined, be expected to match in any way the training of pupillage which advocates undergo, conducted as it is in connection with real and live work before the courts?
Does your Lordships' House find it in any way worrying that the Executive are taking so many new powers in relation to matters which hitherto have been within the province of the courts and the Lord President? Are solicitors who qualify —I echo in a sense what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar —for those rights of audience to practise under the same rules of conduct as apply to advocates and are they to be subject to the same discipline?
In this speech all that I can do, since it is a maiden speech, is to suggest some of the questions which I believe must be answered. I shall stoutly resist the temptation to offer the obvious answers which at least commend themselves to me.
I pass over Clauses 21 and 22 and come very briefly to Clause 23, which is of some importance and significance. I wonder what is the justification for it in this Bill. I have always believed that advocacy is the function of a skilled individual answerable for himself alone. What are the implications for the cab rank in Scotland, which is no bigger than it should be, if advocates are able to form partnerships with each other, because, as a matter of law, partners cannot act against each other? What are the implications for the cab rank rule if advocates form partnerships with solicitors? What are the implications for the control of members of the faculty by the faculty if some are partners in solicitors' firms? What are the implications for many of the aspects of the vital and interlinked relationship between Bench and Bar about which I spoke earlier?
Those are just some of the questions posed. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, has mentioned others, but perhaps the most important question of all for your Lordships' House is this. Is the combined effect of Clauses 20 and 23 likely to carry the risk of the disintegration of the College of Justice? If it does, it will be a very sad day for Scotland.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, has been a Member of your Lordships' House since 1980. Thus many of your Lordships have waited for 10 years to hear an example of the wisdom which he has dispensed during his notable term of office as Lord President of the Court of Session. My thoughts are winging, as they often do, to certain rooms along our corridors where is available a certain magical product of Scotland. On certain bottles are the words "10 years old". Those who sip from those bottles invariably want more; we hope, therefore, that we shall hear many more contributions from the noble and learned Lord.
I cannot but regard this Bill as a joint runner with the English Bill which has occupied your Lordships
186
on several nights recently. It is true that the contents of this Bill are more widespread, taking in the parts about charities and licensing, but I am bound to say that I think the contents of Part II are surely of enough importance to merit a Bill on their own when one considers the prestige which the Scottish legal system enjoys. I want to deal with that particular part speaking as one of the many ordinary citizens, clients, consumers or customers, call them what you will, whom the Bill will presumably benefit. In fact I regard mine as the still small voice of the layman amid the heavy artillery of the legal barrage.
With all respect to the noble and learned Lord in what he said and the reservations that he has about solicitors appearing in the Court of Session, I would not take exception to my own solicitor having the right of audience in that court provided that he wishes it and provided that he is approved. Nor would I resent his receiving a judicial appointment to the supreme court, again if he were regarded as qualified. However, I find peculiarly few signs of any demand among solicitors for this. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate has witnessed any ranks of Writers to the Signet marching up the Mound brandishing their quill pens on their way to Parliament House. I am bound to say I have not, though I recognise that, as it often turns out, things may be different in Glasgow.
On that subject one solicitor has written a remarkably sensible letter to me on this subject in which he says:
"We country solicitors would prefer to continue with the existing arrangements where we are the GPs and the advocates are available to us as consultants. Our libraries are limited and it is convenient, and relieves us of a heavy responsibility if we can consult an advocate. So if the proposed reform means that there will be less work for advocates and therefore fewer of them I am not in favour for it will restrict my choice of consultants.
Note that in any case the relationship between solicitors and advocates in Scotland is much less formal and not at all to be compared with the relationship between solicitors and barristers in England".
What worries the solicitors, and country ones in particular, all across Scotland from Peebles to Perth and from Inverness to Ayr, is the invasion of the conveyancing field to which reference has already been made. I immediately ask why. They say, quite frankly, that it is their most profitable line of business. They make no bones about it. I therefore ask whether some competition would be a good thing. On the face of it, it surely would be, but we are talking here of the small firm in a country town where clients do not include the finance houses which rub shoulders in Charlotte Square with the fashionable Writers to the Signet.
A country solicitor's fees from conveyancing, so they say, enable him to cross-subsidise what he spends on making wills and advising on the problems which many individuals bring to him. If this method of financing his business is denied him. I am assured that many country firms will be unable to continue —this at a time when it is my impression that many people find that they get more personal attention from a firm of solicitors such as I have described than from the city firm with its 20 or 30 partners.
Perhaps I may make a further point. A bank or perhaps more likely still a building society will no

187
doubt assure a client that he can place total and absolute reliance on the advice which its solicitor will give him. I am quite certain that that will be said in all good faith, but there cannot but be a conflict of interests in such a circumstance. It would be the same situation which inevitably applies if I as a farmer am advised by a firm with a commercial interest as opposed to the local college of agriculture which has none.
I conclude by venturing to suggest what the client or consumer expects of our legal system. He wants any business which he transacts with his solicitor to be carried out efficiently, expeditiously and at reasonable cost. On the subject of cost, unless solicitors are in a class all on their own, with no experience of bank overdrafts, their costs must be influenced in these days by interest charges. I have been amazed how contented some solicitors seem to be not to send out a request for fees to be paid for months or even years.
Can speed and quality of advice be achieved? A case in which I had a family interest a few years ago involved three firms of solicitors. For once the Inland Revenue, was not involved. That department probably causes the biggest delays in settling legal matters. Documents and letters were sent to the three firms, from one to the other. Each firm kept the letters, before replying, for never less than two months. A resolution was not reached for between eight and nine years. That situation was totally unacceptable to me. I state that quite bluntly. The Law Society of Scotland, whose aid I tried to invoke, found it extremely difficult to help.
In the English Bill greater speed is being claimed by spreading the load more equally between the High Court and the courts below. Was this not done in Scotland some years ago when the sheriff courts were enabled to hear cases which previously had been limited to the Court of Session?
I echo what has already been said. What causes the change? Will it be beneficial? I only hope that the reason for the change is not in order to follow in the wake of English legislation. If that were the reason, I say quite frankly to my noble and learned friend that in these times it would be the most imperial political folly.
Finally I should like to say a word about the ombudsman, who is to have a wider remit than the lay observer. Will the powers be greater? I understand that for some reason they are not to be as great as those given to his or her counterpart in England and Wales. I recall that the first lay observer was Miss Herbison, whom many of us knew in another place. She and the most recent lay observer, on demitting office, both registered their disappointment that so few of their criticisms had been acted upon. I hope that the ombudsman has better luck.
4.33 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to join the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, in offering congratulations to the maiden speaker. It was my privilege in December 1965 to second the nomination of George Emslie to be Dean of the
188
Faculty of Advocates. For the last five years I have served under him as a judge in the Court of Session. No lawyer in Scotland is more distinguished or more knowledgeable than he. He has played a very large part in improving and developing the law of Scotland and in improving the delivery of services by reorganising the courts. We can look forward to his immensely valuable contributions in the course of the Committee stage of this sad and misbegotten Bill.
The Bill contains assorted provisions, some which I approve of and some which I think are quite wrong-headed. As the Chairman of a major national charity in Scotland, the Scottish Association for Mental Health, I welcome most of Part I. As a responsible citizen, I approve of the principle behind Part III, which introduces further controls over liquor licensing. As a supporter of stable social structures, I think that Clause 43, which deals with the periods of time before divorce is allowed, goes much too far. As a judge, I welcome the greater flexibility that is to be given to the courts in relation to probation and community service orders, unit fines and judicial factors.
However, as a Scots lawyer with a great respect and admiration for our distinctive legal system and traditions and the professional structures that we have fashioned over the centuries, I deplore utterly the victory of the competition theologists of the Department of Trade and Industry over that tradition —a victory which is made manifest in Part II of the Bill. As a member of your Lordships' House I am in an impossible position. The Bill is written round no single principle or set of principles which, by voting, I can approve or disapprove. Some of the provisions in Part II are of real constitutional significance. It is constitutionally obnoxious to put them all into one law reform (miscellaneous provisions) Bill.
At Second Reading we are permitted to talk about the Bill, but we are not permitted to vote against it. It may be said that we can come to Committee or Report stage and then vote against parts of the Bill. That is not a practical proposition. We are always told that in Committee we should not move wrecking amendments against the principle of a Bill. In any event, many noble Lords who practise law in Scotland, whether at the Bar, on the Bench or otherwise, are not able to attend a Committee stage in London. We are effectively deprived of our right to register our protest against particular parts of the Bill. It is entirely wrong that a form of Bill that is appropriate only to adjustments or reforms to the law should be used to effect changes in the constitution.
I shall concentrate my observations on Part II of the Bill. It is the most important part and the part which is likely to do real and irreversible damage to the legal system in Scotland. Part II confers on the Secretary of State no fewer than 20 new powers in relation to the legal profession, including the courts. He has powers to appoint people, to dismiss them and to pay them. He has the power to make regulations, to put a veto upon the regulations made by other persons and bodies, regulating the training, the conduct, the professional rules and the structures of those who are to practise in the courts or to

189
practise as lawyers or quasi-lawyers for the public. It confers powers upon the Secretary of State, if he is so minded, to put his own placemen into various boards and other bodies, in particular the Conveyancing Board. If he chooses to do so, he can appoint as temporary judges persons who have practised in the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary for only five years. In my view the new powers amount to a frightening extension of the power of the Executive over the legal profession and the courts. That extension of the power of the Executive in this field is unnecessary, unwarranted and dangerous.
I shall not repeat the objections in principle to the extension of rights of audience which I stated last year when we debated the legal profession in Scotland. I should like to repeat my conviction, which echoes a question that was asked rhetorically by the noble Lord, Lord Stodart. The Secretary of State would never have dreamed up these proposals for Scotland had it not been for the fact that, for reasons that had nothing to do with Scotland, the Government decided to reorganise the English legal profession. We have been sucked into a process which stems from problems and circumstances which are absent from the Scottish legal scene. Neither the White Paper nor the Green Paper referred to any evidence that the problems to which the English proposals were directed existed in Scotland. All that the Secretary of State could say in response to that undeniable fact was this, in a rather pathetic sentence in the White Paper:
"It is the function of Government not merely to respond to complaints or problems but also to take the initiative where there is an opportunity to improve on existing arrangements."
Roughly translated into English, that means: "It is true that nobody wants these changes, but we have decided to make them anyway".
Clause 21 was not mentioned by the Lord Advocate when he introduced the Bill, no doubt because he is deeply ashamed of it. The wrong-headedness of the Government's proposals is most evident in Clause 21. Any professional or other body can apply for rights of audience in any court for any of its members. That applies to the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Scottish Citizens' Advice Bureaux, the Orange Lodge, the Showman's Guild and the Licensed Victuallers Association, all of which are from time to time concerned in litigation in our higher courts. All these bodies and their members are encouraged to think that if they produce a scheme they may be allowed to address not just the district court but the High Court of Justiciary and the Judicial Committee of this noble House.
The Lord President will have solemnly to consider each such scheme, however daft the whole idea may appear to him to be. As the Explanatory Memorandum makes plain, he is to receive no extra resources for this task and no extra staff to assist him in this or any of the other tasks that will be laid upon him. The Lord President has at the moment one personal private secretary, who is not a lawyer but is of the grade of junior executive in the Civil Service. He is assisted part time by two counsel in relation to his rule-making function. He is supposed
190
to undertake all these new responsibilities without additional staff. I want the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to answer two questions when he comes to reply. First, will he confirm that I am right in saying that the Bill does not contemplate making extra resources available to the Lord President? Secondly, have the Government asked the Lord President whether he can perform this function with the resources available to him?
To continue with Clause 21, any decision of the Lord President under the clause is subject to judicial review. It is furthermore subject to veto by the Secretary of State. He can in important respects rewrite any scheme which is produced and approved by the Lord President under that clause. Even within this outstanding piece of folly we find something that goes even further. Laymen may be given the right to practise in the High Court of Justiciary. That is plain from the Bill. Can the Lord Advocate name one lay body in Scotland with non-lawyers as members whose members might suitably be given the right to conduct jury trials in the High Court of Justiciary? I hope that he will answer that question when he comes to reply. I hope that I am still able to be here when he does as I have to catch a plane back to Scotland in order to be able to perform my duties in Edinburgh tomorrow.
Even if accountants, tax consultants and town planners are to be given rights of audience, what will happen when they confine a case to a matter of taxation or town planning but the defenders raise questions of fraud or of prescription which are not within their field of competence? Are they then to continue the litigation, or are they not?
I should like to refer to the Hamlyn lectures given in 1964 by the distinguished American scholar Dean Griswold. He looked at the history of the introduction of laymen into the courts of the United States. When speaking of allowing laymen to plead in those courts, from 1790 through to the 20th century, he said:
"This overzealous democratisation may well be said to be the chief cause of the major problems which have confronted the law and the legal profession in the United States down to the present day".
He quoted another distinguished academic, Dean Pound:
"The harm which this deprofessionalizing of the practice of law did to the law, to legal procedure, to the ethics of practice and to forensic conduct has outlived the era in which it took place and still presents problems to the promoters of more effective administration of justice".
The author finished by saying:
"You are fortunate in the United Kingdom that you have been spared such excesses of democratic zeal".
Alas, my Lords, we are to be spared no longer. The real truth is this. Clause 21, if it is enacted, will never be brought into force. No Secretary of State could be so foolish as to introduce such a provision. I trust that any self-respecting law officer, if the Secretary of State introduced it, would resign.
I have already explained why I disagree with Clause 20, which was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie. What I find particularly distasteful about the scheme in the Bill is that after the Council of the Law Society of Scotland has

191
drafted rules about training, experience, knowledge and conduct required of solicitor advocates, and the Lord President of the Court of Session has then studied and approved those rules, the Secretary of State can veto them after consulting the Director General of Fair Trading. An English lawyer and his fellow DTI civil servant can persuade the officials of the Scottish Home and Health Department to advise the Secretary of State to disapprove the rules which have passed the Council of the Law Society of Scotland and the Lord President of the Court of Session. That is an enormous shift of power from the judiciary and the legal profession to the Executive and to the consumer-oriented officials of the DTI.
I have great respect for Sir Gordon Borrie, whom I have known for many years. He himself delivered the Hamlyn lectures in 1984, entitling them "Bold Spirits and Timorous Souls". When he invited me to Birmingham University some years ago to speak on Scots law, he confessed afterwards that he knew as much about the Scottish legal system as he did about the laws of the Medes and Persians. We in Scotland have always felt that the DTI has displayed an unfamiliarity with, and a kind of hostility to, Scots law. It is a sad day for Scots law when the DTI can get to the Secretary of State's ear after the Lord President and the Council of the Law Society of Scotland have finished their task. The final decision on rights of audience in Scotland's courts, criminal and civil, is given to an elected politician advised by English lawyers and civil servants.
Subsections (9) and (11) of the new Section 25A amount in my view to a constitutional monstrosity. I hope and trust that they will be removed. We do not need Clause 22. I acknowledge that under the common market provisions there are certain reasons why one moves in this direction. But the legal systems north and south of the Border are quite different. It is already difficult in Scotland to preserve opportunities for people to advance both in industry and in the professions and to stay in Scotland. This provision allowing English and Welsh lawyers to practise north of the Border is likely to increase the power of the big London-based legal factories —the big firms—to diminish the range and quality of the work available to those who choose to stay in Scotland. Of course the common market allows German lawyers, French lawyers, Greek lawyers and Italian lawyers to come to Scotland, but they do not come. The English will come, and we will suffer for it. The Scottish legal system will suffer for it and will, through time, be severely wounded by this provision.
There are other matters which I would hope to address in Committee if it is possible for me to come. I should like to say a word about the other important provision mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie. I refer to Clause 23 in relation to partnerships and multi-disciplinary partnerships. I know of no one —if the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate can name anyone I shall be interested to hear it —who wants to see advocates entering into partnership with other advocates, solicitors, accountants, town planners or English
192
solicitors. The Faculty of Advocates put up an extremely powerful argument against this proposal after the Green Paper was published. The Council of the Law Society of Scotland put up similarly powerful arguments against the multi-disciplinary partnership proposal. These arguments have simply been ignored. The Secretary of State says on page 5 of the White Paper that he has considered them and that he rejects them. There is not a word as to why he rejects them.
The structure of Clause 23 is that any rule made by a professional body which prohibits or restricts such a partnership is to be of no effect unless it is positively approved by the Secretary of State. So again he has a veto to override the Lord President and the professional bodies, and again after consulting the Director General of Fair Trading.
Clauses 14 to 18 deal with conveyancing. They are deeply flawed. We are told nothing in the Bill about what has to be done to demonstrate competence, integrity and knowledge in order to prove that one is a fit and proper person, to quote the words of the Bill. The board, which has great powers, is a creature of the Secretary of State. He appoints and dismisses every one of its members. There are no rules in the Bill laying down the minimum or special qualifications for membership of the board. The very bareness of this part of the Bill shows that the matter has not been fully thought through.
In conclusion, perhaps I may say that my distaste for Part II of the Bill rests upon a judgment that it ignores history, tradition and common sense. The arguments of the profession and the conclusions of the Royal Commission —which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will mention in his speech —have been swept aside. The Bill is doctrinaire in the worst possible sense. In my judgment it will do grave and possibly irreversible damage to the legal system. It will confer no discernible benefit upon the public, the profession, the litigant or the house buyer. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State probably know that as well as I do. I regret that the Bill has been presented to the House in such a way that I cannot register my distaste by a vote.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I shall begin by joining the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, and my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey in expressing pleasure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, has broken his silence of the past decade. It is many more years than that since I first met the noble and learned Lord. It was when this House was considering a Scottish provisional order. He appeared for one of the parties arguing against the provisions contained in part of that order. It is perhaps an indication of the quality of his advocacy at that time that the committee in its entirety accepted the views he expressed and that that part of the order was not implemented. I too hope that we shall enjoy the benefit of his experience during the Committee stage of this Bill.

193
When I was a Scottish Office Minister I had the misfortune in three successive years of having to handle a legal miscellaneous provisions Bill. At that time I did not have the advantage of a Scottish law officer in the House. Of course, it would have been quite inappropriate to ask an English law officer to help out, because I have the feeling that had I done so he would probably have known even less than I did about the matter. However, the task was comparatively easy because these were just a ragbag of items, all of which in themselves were worth putting into legislation, but which would never have justified a Bill on their own account.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate justified the Bill as being a proper one, although it contains two major changes in the law of Scotland. I must agree with my noble friend Lord Macaulay of Bragar and other noble Lords who spoke against this type of legislation. My noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey mentioned the Royal Commission of which I was chairman. I do not intend to apologise for quoting from what the report said on two matters. It is upon those matters only that I wish to speak. The first matter is conveyancing and the other is rights of audience. In part I shall be agreeing with my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey, and in part I shall be disagreeing with him. I say that because I am not sure that he agreed with the Royal Commission on conveyancing. However, it is obvious that he, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, and my noble friend Lord Macaulay of Bragar agree entirely with the view of the commission on rights of audience.
However, perhaps I may first refer to what the commission had to say on conveyancing. I shall start by referring to paragraph 9.37. It reads:
"Such information as we have been able to obtain suggests that conveyancing may be for many firms a very profitable part of their business. We see no compelling reason, however, why the buyers and sellers of houses should have to pay legal fees which in effect are subsidising other kinds of legal business. A somewhat different argument that has been advanced to us by the Law Society in oral evidence is that any high profits in conveyancing are made on the more costly houses and that these compensate for the low or nil profit made at the lower end of the market where the purchase of tenement flats, for example, often involves complicated or time-consuming conveyancing".
However, times have changed; even a tenement flat is now not a low price item. Indeed, I had experience of that recently. I had a two-fifths interest in a house which was sold. My share of the sale price was £750; but what I received at the end of the day was £450. Therefore, there was no nil profit in that particular transaction.
The commission went on to say:
"The crux of the matter, however, is whether the public interest would be better served if the conveyancing monopoly were to be broken. The factors that we have examined in the immediately preceding paragraphs do not in our view justify retention of the monopoly. Before finally concluding in this sense, however, we felt it necessary to consider whether the breaking of the monopoly might lead to some legal firms, particularly in rural and relatively remote areas, losing some conveyancing work and thereby being forced out of business. We doubt very much whether this would happen; but even if it did, we would not regard this as a compelling argument in favour of retaining the monopoly. If it were in the public interest that a legal firm should be maintained in a particular area, this could better be secured through a State subsidy rather than by high charges for particular clients".
194
The commission continues in paragraph 9.39 to say:
"Our conclusion is, therefore, that the case for the legal profession retaining the present monopoly has not been established".
Further, paragraph 9.31 states that,
"We considered whether to recommend the establishment of a new profession of conveyancers to share the monopoly with solicitors. Admission to the profession would be conditional on the applicant satisfying prescribed standards of competence or obtaining a prescribed qualification. Members of the profession would, like solicitors, be required to practise independently of any other commercial undertaking. A new profession would, like any other profession, evolve rules about ethics and the handling of complaints as well as meeting requirements for insurance and for safeguarding clients' monies. In a country as small as Scotland, however, it seemed to us that evolution of such a new profession would take many years; and that in any event the end we had in view —the provision of conveyancing at competitive prices—could be more quickly and effectively achieved by other means. We decided, therefore, against recommending the creation of professional non-solicitor conveyancers who could set up in practice on their own account".
Perhaps I may say at this stage that many of the recommendations of the Royal Commission were not directed towards action by government; they required action by the Law Society of Scotland —a body which, up to that point, would not have been entered as a candidate for speedy action in any direction concerning its affairs. However, I must say that when it comes to implementing the commission's recommendations, the Law Society has left the Government standing. Much of the competition which is now available in connection with conveyancing exists because of changes which the Law Society has made in the rules which make possible, for example, advertising by solicitors. There is also a degree of competition.
I remain convinced that the commission's recommendation that the monopoly should be broken is justified because, with their competitive attitude nowadays, solicitors are in a better position to stand up to competition from banks and building societies or any other professional organisation. I forbear from reading other parts of the report because I have given the Royal Commission's main conclusions on that point.
I turn now to rights of audience. The first part that I wish to read states:
"A considerable weight of legal opinion was, however, in favour of extending the rights of audience of solicitors to enable them to appear in the supreme courts".
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said that he was surprised that the Law Society had had a sudden loss of enthusiasm for extending rights of audience. It has now; but in 1979, which is what I am now going to quote:
"We had the unusual experience of the Law Society, on the latter issue, submitting a divided view in their evidence to us; indeed, when they gave oral evidence to us on this topic, they included representatives who argued strongly in favour of extended rights of audience for solicitors, and others who as strongly and sincerely argued that this would be a retrograde step and not in the interests of justice. The majority view, however"—
that is, the majority view of the Law Society —
"was in favour of extended rights of audience for solicitors who wanted it in the Outer House of the Court of Session and also in the High Court of Justiciary".
Then:
"Those representatives of the Law Society who argued in favour of extended rights of audience conceded, as we understood it,

195
that solicitors would not operate the cab rank principle. We are not surprised at this. The nature of solicitors' business might make it impractical for them to do so. We think, however, that competition in the supreme courts between the two branches of the profession, one of which could pick and choose its clients and the other of which could not, might lead to undesirable results".
Further:
"Finally, on this matter, we have considered the end result of extending rights of audience. It is impossible to predict what would happen with any confidence. It may be that very little use would be made of the right, in which case an alternative to the existing system would not be justified by any substantial results. It may be, on the other hand, that the right would be very widely used. If it were, the result would inevitably be some erosion and perhaps the eventual extinction of the Faculty of Advocates".
It is nearly 15 years since the commission was set up and 10 years since it reached its conclusions. If I remember correctly, there was a strong demand, especially from Glasgow solicitors, to have rights of audience. Of course there are even more lawyers in Glasgow than there are in Edinburgh —perhaps that is not so, but they are running neck and neck at worst. I do not know how many practising advocates there are today, but when the Royal Commission met, out of some 300 advocates there were 139 practising in the courts. If some 20 or 30 Glasgow solicitors decided that they wanted to exercise their rights of audience, the advocates' profession would not meet death by a thousand cuts but there would be a sudden diminution of its rights which would inevitably increase as the years went by.
The Royal Commission decided unanimously against fusion. If we are to have fusion of the two branches of the profession it should be done deliberately and not by the accident of the passage of time.
Finally, our conclusions on conveyancing were carried with one dissentient voice; our conclusions on rights of audience were unanimous. The commission's membership included one senator of the College of Justice, one QC, two solicitors, a trade union official who had a Batchelor of Law degree but who did not practise and four laymen. So to have covered those two major subjects with only one dissension in one case and unanimity in the other shows that the long time spent on and the thorough consideration of those two items by the Royal Commission were justified.
5.5 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who was chairman of a distinguised Royal Commission whose quality has been greatly underestimated. I should like to emphasise what the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said. The inclusion of a clause dealing with what I call constitutional issues in a miscellaneous Bill is utter nonsense and unworthy of the Scottish Office. I am sorry that it has been done.
So much wisdom has been spoken today that I can be extremely short. I should like to take up the quotation from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor which has been made before but which I believe is the key to where we stand. He said that the keynote of his movement was to improve access to justice for all concerned. There is no one in the
196
House who does not agree with those words, but what has happened? First, the Royal Commission has been ignored. We have been asked —I put it bluntly —to worship the god of competition. I am not against competition but competition does two things: it reduces price and it reduces quality.
If there is one thing that matters in the administration of justice, it is quality. One may pay too much for it, but that is nothing as compared with a loss of quality of justice. That point is supremely important.
When I thought about that I recalled the words of Hobbes, that strange philosopher during the great revolution, who said:
"Words are wise men's counters, they do but reckon with them. They are the money of fools".
We can easily be led astray by words which sound nice.
It is an embarrassment in some ways when so many distinguished noble Lords have spoken, but I should like to say just a word about the law of Scotland. I remember the late Lord Cooper, who was Lord President after the war. He said that the big difference between Scots law and English law was that English law was based primarily on precedent and Scots law was built on principle. It is generally regarded that the principle is based substantially on Roman-Dutch law. There then come the institutional writers of whom Stair is the leading one, although there are others, who put together a story of enormous importance. We then come to the third stage to which my noble and learned friend Lord Emslie referred: the quality and the discipline of the Court of Session. Those standards have been maintained through some stormy years when the courts in Scotland and elsewhere were regarded with a certain degree of indifference. That is why the quality of discipline and conduct in the Court of Session, in the Inner House especially, is of the utmost importance.
I do not for one moment say that solicitors do not become admirable judges. We all know many who do and whom we greatly respect. There is no reason why they should not. However, one cannot possibly have a court with people with two different standards of discipline pleading in it. That is just not on by any standard whatever, and for that reason alone the matter should be stopped.
We attach importance to our law in Scotland. Indeed, one can find that in the poems of Robert Burns if anybody had any doubts about the extent of the respect with which it is regarded. We acquired three things from the union of Scotland with England and Ireland: our banks, our religion and our law. The banks have been largely subsumed by economic elements, as I understand they are in Australia and in England, but they remain. Religion remains. However, it is in the interests of the whole country that we should retain the standards of Scots law. I shall not quote the amount of legislation copied in England in recent years but there is a long list of matters introduced into English law straight from Scotland. We should not underestimate that fact, but we should recognise that it has happened and I believe that it will go on happening.

197
It has been a great pleasure to hear noble and learned Lords speaking today. It has brought home to the Government something which they will not forget.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: My Lords, first may I apologise to the House for not being present at the outset of the debate, in particular to hear the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. Alas, I was detained on business in another part of the building. It gives me great pleasure to take this opportunity of congratulating my noble and learned friend Lord Emslie on his maiden speech. I have been connected in law with the noble and learned Lord for more than 40 years. I have appeared against him, I have appeared as his junior and I have served under him as a judge in the Court of Session for nine years. The association has always given me great pleasure and I very much hope that his immense experience and wisdom will now be available to your Lordships on frequent occasions in the future. This has been only the beginning of many more speeches
Perhaps I may also commend the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for one or two matters in the Bill. I suspect that he is slightly short of commendations this afternoon, but I commend him first in relation to the retention and extension of the cy pres jurisdiction of the Court of Session under Clause 8. This seems to be admirable.
In addition, I cannot help but feel that the provisions which allow the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk to nominate judges to the Inner House cannot but be for the good and strength of the court. Finally, I wish to congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate on still using that fine old fashioned word "client". It is good to acknowledge that he has not yet been seduced by the honeyed words of the Department of Trade and Industry.
Much of what I proposed to say has already been mentioned by noble Lords, I therefore do not propose to say anything in the nature of a root and branch objection to the proposals. It has been far better said by noble Lords who have already spoken and it would simply be a waste of your Lordships' time if I were to repeat what they have said. However, that does not mean that I am not fully in accord with their views on the subject.
I wish to say a brief word on two matters. One concerns theoretical and practical training; the other, partnerships of advocates. Training is obviously of considerable importance in two respects. It is clearly of importance to the client. It is important that he or she should have a competent and experienced advocate. I use "advocate" in the generic sense now to cover anyone who appears in court to plead his case. It is also, although perhaps less obviously, of importance to the court. I anticipate that when one refers to the court some people will think, "Ah, the benefit of the court is just the benefit of the judges who happen to be sitting there at the time. It will make life easier for them". With respect, that is a complete and utter misconception. It is essential for
198
the administration of justice that the courts should receive the maximum help they can from whomsoever is appearing before them. Not only does this expedite proceedings but it enables the courts to be more likely to reach a correct decision. I need hardly point out that expedition of proceedings means more court time available to other litigants waiting in the queue to have their cases heard. So the interest of the courts in these matters is of great public importance.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Emslie said, to permit solicitors to appear in the High Court of Justiciary is a novel step in the law of Scotland. To permit other persons, whether professionally qualified or not, to do so is also novel, but to date rather more removed from what the courts have been used to.
At the moment advocates have a theoretical training and a practical training which consists of devilling to a practising member of the Bar who instructs them in pleadings, in the presentation of a case, and generally in what to do. If he is a good devill master, he also instructs them in what not do do, which is nearly as important as what to do.
Solicitors have a similar theoretical training, but their practical training is geared to the chamber side of the profession. In my submission, it is extremely important that solicitors who are to be given rights of audience in the higher court, the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary, should have some practical training in those courts. That is to say, they should have some period of attachment to a practitioner in the courts, to learn their ways.
It is perhaps surprising that whereas, under the Bill, the Lord President is to be involved in any rules of conduct for solicitors appearing in the higher courts, as I understand it and if I read the wording correctly, he is not to be concerned in relation to the training. Clause 20(5) referring to the new Section 25A of the 1980 Act empowers the council to make rules dealing with training. As I understand it, those rules do not have effect unless the Secretary of State, after consulting the Director General of Fair Trading, approves them. It appears that the rules do not require to be referred to the Lord President.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate shakes his head. Perhaps I have an out-of-date copy of the Bill. My reading is that the Lord President is concerned with rules of conduct but not with rules in relation to training.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will allow me to intervene, to ask him to look at Clause 20(8) and the reference back to Section 34(2), he will then appreciate the position of the Lord President in the matter.
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. This is a reference back to the Solicitors (Scotland) Act where the rules which he makes are mentioned. I am pleased that that is so; it is clearly a matter of importance. No doubt the Lord President will take these matters into account.

199
Regarding members of professional or other bodies, the problem seems to me much more difficult. Apparently what is envisaged is some form of limited licence for persons to appear in limited categories of cases and in specified courts. If one assumes that a particular type of case —let us say a revenue case —involves only questions of revenue law, it might be simple enough to decide what training should be given to such persons appearing. However, as my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey has already said, that is not the case. Many revenue cases do not involve questions of tax at all, they involve consideration of a general law. Therefore it will be extremely important that persons who are given these limited licences to appear in courts in Scotland should have some appropriate knowledge of the general law, as well as of such specialised fields as they will appear in.
In my view they must have not only a theoretical training in their own field and in the general law, but also they must clearly have some practical training in the practice of the court. It would be almost unthinkable that an accountant should be allowed to appear in the Court of Session, let us say in an exchequer cause, having had absolutely no training whatsoever in advocacy.
I very much hope that in a matter of this kind the Lord President will be consulted, although not as proposed at present, and that he will come in on the ground floor. As I understand the provisions of Clause 21, the Lord President looks at a scheme prepared by an appropriate body with regard to the rules of conduct contained in that scheme, that is to say the code of practice referred to at Clause 21(2)(b)(ii). However, he does not have the opportunity of making observations in relation to the training requirements. He sees the scheme only after the matter has been referred to the Secretary of State. I suggest to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that that is not an appropriate course. The Lord President is far more able to determine the kind of training, both theoretical and practical, that other professionals and non-professionals should undergo than is the Secretary of State and any of his advisers, whoever they may be, even with the assistance of the Director General of Fair Trading if he is consulted.
I say no more about training, but I wish to add a few words to what has already been said about advocates in partnership. I should like to know whom these proposals are intended to benefit. It would not be possible to give a positive answer to that, but it would be very simple to give a negative answer. The negative answer is that the proposals are certainly not intended for the benefit of the client as he will have fewer advocates to choose from, and if those advocates are tied to big solicitors or multinational accountants the client will almost inevitably have to pay more for their services. The client will have to go to such solicitors or accountants in order to employ an advocate in the first place as his own solicitor will not be able to use those advocates unless he abdicates his role in favour of the large firms of solicitors.
All in all, it seems to me that partnerships of advocates, of whom there are only some 250
200
practising in Scotland, can do nothing to assist the client but will merely reduce the number of advocates available for a client, if he requires their services. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will explain to the House precisely why he considers that partnerships among advocates and between advocates and other professionals will be of benefit to the public. If he cannot give a proper explanation of that, I hope he will consider dropping this clause from the Bill.
5.23 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I, like other noble Lords, was fascinated by the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie. I also listened with admiration and interest to the extremely eloquent speeches that other distinguished lawyers made in defence of the status quo of advocates and of the status quo regarding the way in which the courts work. I also listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, in defence of the status quo regarding the way in which solicitors work in relation to conveyancing.
I wish to make some brief general comments on the Bill and then refer to three specific aspects of the proposals for charities, conveyancing and for the sale of alcohol in supermarkets based on my own much more limited experience. First, I shall deal with the criticism voiced mainly by lawyers outside this House and in the debate this afternoon that it is quite wrong to include important changes in the way lawyers work and on the matter of breaking their monopoly on conveyancing in the same Bill as other changes to Scots law, such as the law for charities, the law relating to divorce and the alcohol licensing laws. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, suggested that that was an insult to Scotland. I would simply say that all these are matters of immediate importance to us Scots. Clearly, there is time in each parliamentary Session for only a limited number of Bills. I would rather see the various matters dealt with now in this Bill, even if it is a little difficult for us to handle, than make the people in Scotland wait for one, two, three or more years for several separate Bills. In saying that, there is of course one important proviso; that is, that the business managers allocate reasonable time so that we can consider the Bill properly.
Another criticism which again has come mainly from Scottish lawyers' organisations is that the Bill proposes English solutions to Scottish problems. There is the counter criticism which has come from, for example, the Scottish Consumer Council that the Bill does not go far enough and not as far as the proposals for England and Wales in protecting the public, for example in relation to house buying and selling and in relation to the unscrupulous use of charity law. On that it must be said that the ways in which Scottish lawyers work, the ways we in Scotland buy and sell our houses and the ways charities are regulated in Scotland are very different to the ways those things are done in England. We are all proud of our Scottish legal system. As the noble Lord, Lord Evans, said, our house buying system is the envy of many south of the Border. However, that does not mean that our arrangements are perfect, that they

201
do not need updating as times change and that there is no room for improvement. As we examine this Bill it will be the needs of the people of Scotland and adjustments to our Scottish system that we shall consider, but for goodness sake do not let us fall into the trap of thinking that good ideas for adjusting to change in the modern world cannot ever cross the Border, southwards or northwards.
I shall now turn to Part I of the Bill, which concerns proposals for the regulation of charities. My own experience of working within and alongside charitable organisations in Scotland makes me agree with the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations that the general objective of this part of the Bill is a good one. It is very important that the public should be able to find out more easily what organisations have been accepted by the Revenue as charities and that there should be public confidence that charities are well run and that their status is not abused.
I have two concerns which are shared by the Scottish council. First, will it be enough, as proposed in Clause 1(3) for members of the public simply to be able to obtain from the Revenue the names of charities and their last known addresses? Should there not be more detailed information available, if possible locally, perhaps in public libraries? Secondly, it is desirable, as Clauses 1 and 3 insist, that charities should be required to provide information about themselves, if asked, to keep proper accounts and to publish annually a report and accounts. However, is that sufficient? Surely the information made available should include not just the deed setting the charity up but also the crucial facts about who is in charge and who the trustees, director and senior officers are. The Scottish council is concerned about these matters and we shall doubtless discuss them in Committee.
I have one question for my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench. Clause 1(1)(a) refers to activities and purposes which are not charitable. What is the definition of a charity? Where does the charitable nature of an activity or purpose begin and end in the eyes of the Inland Revenue? I cannot find any definition in the Bill. I should be grateful if my noble and learned friend could help me on that point.
Regarding Part II, I have been much impressed by the trouble taken by the Scottish Law Association, the Faculty of Advocates and other smaller law organisations and by organisations such as the Scottish Consumer Council and the citizens advice bureaux in apprising noble Lords of their views. I have never received higher quality briefing than I have received on the Bill. I am indeed grateful.
At this stage I want to pick up one important point on the proposed new arrangements for conveyancing. I am all for giving Scots more choice of conveyancers when selling a house. In that I follow the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and his Royal Commission. However, I am concerned as to whether people will be sufficiently protected against conveyancers whose interest is not only in the seller of the property but also, directly or indirectly, in
202
who buys the property. The Bill seems imprecise in its definition of who will be allowed to provide conveyancing services. Clauses 15 and 16 say that it must be a "fit and proper person". What is fit and proper? Applicants will be required to make "suitable" procedures and arrangements. What is suitable? Are the Government confident that those definitions will do?
Secondly, and extremely importantly, I am anxious that there is not sufficient assurance on the face of the Bill that conveyancers or their associates will be forbidden to act for both seller and buyer at the same time. I do not believe that the present situation is good enough. I understand that the Solicitors (Scotland) Practice Rules 1986 govern solicitors who are conveyancers. Those rules state, in Paragraph 3, that:
"a solicitor shall not act for 2 or more parties whose interests conflict".
However, those rules do not, apparently, preclude two solicitors in the same firm acting for buyer and seller respectively. In my view that is not good, especially in small rural areas where firms are small and other people's business is news.
The client or customer will be even more vulnerable when there are multi-disciplinary firms and banks, insurance companies, building societies and the like which can do conveyancing. It will indeed be tempting for a conveyancer acting for the seller of a house to advise in certain circumstances that the house be sold to a particular aspiring buyer if that purchaser is likely to bring business to the conveyancer's firm or associates through the provision of a mortgate with associated insurance policies and commission in the future.
On 19th July, in introducing his White Paper for England and Wales, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor made an important statement of principle on those matters. He said at cols. 779 and 780 of Hansard:
"There will be a detailed code of conduct laid clown by statutory instrument by which authorised practitioners will have to abide. Moreover, authorised practitioners will be prohibited from providing conveyancing services to both the seller and buyer in the same transaction (except in very limited circumstances) and from providing estate agency services to the seller and conveyancing services to the buyer in the same transaction. Making the provision of one service conditional upon taking another (so-called 'tying-in') in connection with house purchase will be prohibited. Authorised practitioners will be required to charge for their services on a basis which is not less than the true cost of providing them".
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether the Government stand by those principles for Scotland. I note that Annexe C to the original Scottish consultation paper offers a proposed code of conduct with sections on conflict of interest. Where has that gone? It is not in the Bill. All I can find in Clauses 15(9) and 17(9) is that the Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Director General of Fair Trading, make regulations and such regulations may have respect to conflict of interest.
A representative of the Scottish Law Agents Society took the trouble to fly down from Inverness last week and put that question to me. The Law Society of Scotland and others are also very concerned about it. They have taken the trouble to

203
explain their concern. Can my noble and learned friend tell me whether the Government stand by the Lord Chancellor's statement in so far as concerns Scotland? If so, why is it that the Bill is so noncommittal? Why is there no code of conduct on the face of the Bill?
Linked to that point, I should like to ask whether the Government will consider including in the Bill prohibition of the process known as "churning", a process which is referred to in Paragraph 7.3 of the Government's statement. I shall not spend time on that matter now, but the Law Society believe that it costs house-buyers tens of millions of pounds every year. Is there no way of preventing it in Scotland?
Lastly, I should like to say a word about Clause 37. Here, I am on very familiar ground. The clause makes it mandatory for shop assistants under 18 to be supervised when they sell alcohol in small shops. It provides that no one under 18 should sell alcohol at all in large supermarkets. As my noble and learned friend said, that matter was fully discussed before the Recess under the Private Member's Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, which fell for lack of time. I said then, and I stand by the view, that it is wrong that at supermarket checkouts people under 18 should have to judge whether or not their contemporaries are under age. The Retail Consortium and Marks and Spencer have written to say that they disagree with the Government. I believe that they are wrong. I welcome the clause. I do not believe that it will present insuperable difficulties for shops. I hope that it will pass into law.
With those comments, I commend the Bill for Second Reading.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in Britain today with certain aspects of the law. I applaud the Government for trying to improve matters. My difficulty is that I do not believe that the Bill will improve matters. Indeed, I do not believe that it goes to the root of anxiety about the law.
Most of that anxiety has arisen in England or in connection with English lawyers. I have been astonished lately in this House by the complacency of senior English lawyers about the state of their profession and its standing in the public eye. We have had the Guildford case and the Wright case, and we have noted the contrast between damages for libel and for personal injury. The other day, an experienced merchant banker told me a horrifying story of the expense to which his firm had been put. It was a story of waste of money and delay. At the end of the day he thought that the case had been extremely badly handled.
I emphasise that most of those cases arise in England, but their effect rubs off on Scotland. The ordinary person finds that litigation in this country is far too expensive, uncertain and prolonged. If Scottish law is founded on principle, as we were told by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, we should apply our minds to those principles and try to ensure that they are the objects of the courts. On the other hand, if
204
we look at the procedure of the courts, it appears to be a gladiatorial contest in which the person with the most money starts with a clear advantage. That is why I am in favour of going over to the inquisitorial system. When I last mentioned that point, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey said that it would be even more expensive than the present system. Nevertheless, it would be based on reason and logic and I do not despair of the lawyers succeeding in making it relatively cheap. However, it is beyond the bounds of possibility that the Government would do anything so radical as to change from the present system to the inquisitorial system.
I welcome the idea that audience should be widened. The sheriff's court in Scotland is an extremely effective court, as far as is possible under the present system. In principle, I am not against widening the audience of solicitors to the superior courts, nor do I see that there is necessarily anything wrong in partnerships. I am impressed by the fact that those proposals —both the widening of audience and the proposition that partnerships or memberships of large conglomerations of lawyers or of lawyers and accountants should be allowed —have aroused the antagonism of highly accomplished and respected men in both countries. No one who listened to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, could have failed to be impressed by the fact that those proposals arouse great anxiety.
It is said that, if the proposals were to go through, the cab rank principle would go; the ordinary solicitor who, as has rightly been said, relies upon being able to go to an advocate to obtain advice, would find that much more difficult; the quality of advocacy among those appearing before the courts would deteriorate; and the cream of Scottish legal ability would go down to London or be absorbed in partnerships and memberships of companies and not available to the ordinary litigant. Those are extremely serious criticisms. I do not know whether they are true and I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate does either.
If the Bill is at all essential, it is in England that it is needed. If it were needed in Scotland, I should not support it but I would see the argument for the Government proceeding with it. The Bill would never have seen the light of day but for the English Bill. It is founded purely on the need, as the Government consider it, to do something about England. Its results in Scotland will do nothing to cure the system's faults. On the other hand, if the opinions that I have quoted are right, it will do incomparable damage which will be difficult to rectify.
I therefore suggest to the Government that since the Bill is not a matter of urgency —I do not believe that even the clauses on charities, which on the whole I support, or other parts of this curious rag-bag of a Bill are at all urgent; I have received few complaints about charities in Scotland —they should postpone it, or at any rate the second part of it, watch what happens in England and let the English go forward with their Bill. We shall see what happens to barristers and the general conduct of the courts in England. Although I do not agree with the Bill,

205
if there were any urgency in it, I would see the Government's point in going forward with it, but clearly there is none.
The Bill suffers from the usual defects of much of our legislation: it sets up another quango; it is extremely diffuse without being in the least accurate; it contains pages and pages of stuff which do not shed much light on what will happen; the powers which it gives to various boards are obscure; it is obscure as to who will be appointed to the boards; and it passes over even more power to the Executive. Above all, I must again object to the thread that runs through all these Bills, both in Scotland and in England; namely, that they are promoted by the Department of Trade and Industry. They refer to competition and consumers. I do not consume my lawyer, nor do I consume his advice. As has been pointed out again and again, it is a quite different relationship and it is extremely sinister that it continues to hover around these Bills.
Much of what is harmless in the Bill might be effected much more easily. As I understand it, if a solicitor wishes to appear in the High Court, he may become an advocate. That point was borne out by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. It is not difficult to become an advocate. If the Bill were passed, he could remain with his firm of solicitors. I am not sure whether it is necessary to set up new boards.
In principle I agree that a layman should be allowed to have whatever representation he likes. He might be very unwise, but he should not be debarred from having the advocate that he wishes. The courts-martial system worked well until the lawyers got at it. So long as the courts-martial were left to ordinary soldiers, they came, like most courts, to a conclusion, which was on the whole right, quickly and without much palaver. But when people like Grimond who had been trained in the law came on the scene, the business soon became much more lengthy and all kinds of little tricks were introduced.
I do not know what the phrase a "fit and proper person" means in relation to most of the Bill. I do not know what extra choice will be given to people under the Bill. Perhaps they will have their conveyancing done by a building society, but probably only because of the financial advantages. As my noble friend said, the building societies and banks do not show much enthusiasm for going into conveyancing. As for choice among lawyers, the number of lawyers in Scotland has risen greatly. The number of lawyers in the Inverness faculty, for instance, has more than doubled since the war. Many of them are in government employment, but there is nevertheless plenty of choice among lawyers. I do not think that the addition of building societies will make much difference to the ordinary person. The ordinary person wants a lawyer whom he can trust to advise him on all kinds of matters which are not strictly of a legal kind. I very much doubt whether building societies are suitable bodies to take confirmation. That is a human and personal matter.
It is Clause 2 which causes me most anxiety. I myself do not feel so strongly up against it as some people may feel. I simply do not know what its results may be. But I am influenced by what has
206
been said about the possible consequences of the change in the legal professions which it will bring in.
I finish by saying that the law is of immense importance in Scotland —far more important than it is in England. The law, the Church and education are the last vestiges of our nationhood. They present Scotland. We have no Parliament. They are what people mean when they talk about the Scottish tradition, Scottish customs, and so on. If we were to wreck what is possibly an unsatisfactory but certainly not disastrous method of carrying out the law, we should be very guilty indeed in the light of future generations.
As I said, it will be very difficult indeed to reinstate anything like the present position with the advocates in the courts if we once destroy it. I beg the Government at least to think again and, if this Bill is passed, possibly to postpone the date upon which the Act comes into operation. Let us see whether our forebodings come true. We shall see what happens in England. I do not think that much harm will be done and I believe that a great deal of good would result.
5.51 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I speak with some difficulty on this subject because I am not at all an expert in legal affairs. I shall speak very shortly and not detain the House for any length of time.
Having spent much of my life in charitable work with charitable trusts I should like to say a few words about that aspect of the Bill, which I strongly support. I entirely agree that all information about charitable trusts should be made available, including details of how the money is allocated and whom to approach. Such information is of great importance to those who raise money for good causes. Accurate information is vital so that no wrong action can be taken by anyone involved in an appeal. I think that that is a vital matter.
Such information should also be available to the public. It is available as a right to the secretaries of trusts but sometimes it is not clear who they are. I suggest that it should be available from public libraries and possibly in other reference areas where people can look it up. Perhaps it could be in a public list or report.
The trusts with which I have been associated, such as the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust and the Jubilee Trust, publish annual reports and accounts for everyone to see. That is right. It enables people to know the interests that trustees have. Any person who wants to know about such things should be able to discover them. They should be able readily to find out which bodies are recognised as charities for the purposes of tax relief.
The present Bill proposes to elicit a great deal of such information. I think that it should be followed up. However, there are one or two matters which have been made known to me through the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, of which I was the president for something like 16 or 18 years. That association recommends that, if the Inland Revenue is to be given the powers indicated in the Bill, the

207
Secretary of State should name a person within the Inland Revenue in Scotland as registrar, keeper of records or similar title. The naming of such a post would do much to assist public confidence in the system and allow for a measure of public accountability. I believe that that is a very good proposal and I commend it to the Government.
I feel that there should be a requirement on the Inland Revenue to publish an annual report showing, among other items, the extent and scale of its activities with regard to the matters in this Bill, together with an analysis of the information held. A directory of grant-making trusts based in Scotland should be compiled and published. It would be of great help both to the public and to the Inland Revenue. That is something which the Bill might encourage and that the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations would certainly support. Legislation and arrangements for Scotland should be no less effective than those for England.
The other problem arising from the new Bill concerns the changes proposed for solicitors in Scotland with the introduction of multi-disciplinary practices. Whereas at present conveyancing of houses—buying and selling —is done by solicitors, it can in future be done through banks and building societies. It is suggested that in order to be able to continue to deal with such work solicitors may get together with banks and building societies to form a group practice which will eliminate competition. That is a danger about which we should be concerned.
Moreover, if a person who lives in a rural area wants individual legal advice, he may have to go elsewhere and travel possibly some distance at considerable expense to obtain that legal advice. It may cost him a lot of money and take a long time. That would be very unpopular. This information comes to me from the chief executive of Roxburgh District Council, who is also vice-president of the Scottish Law Agents' Society. I promised that I would mention it today in the debate.
I feel sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has heard these arguments before. I hope that he will forgive me for stressing those points but I had much information sent to me and felt that I had to mention these matters. As the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said, the information is extremely interesting and very well produced. I hope very much that the Government will pay some attention to the criticisms, in that I am one of the people who support the Bill.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, my noble and learned friends have said so much so much better than I can that my speech can be relatively short. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, seemed to think that it was a good idea that what the noble and learned Lord who was sitting on my left when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was speaking referred to as a dog's breakfast should all be in one Bill. Does she remember the Education Reform Act? Does she remember the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act? Each of those pieces of
208
legislation would have passed through this House and, I think, another place much more quickly and much better if they had each consisted of three Bills when going through the House, so that the separate issues could have been separately considered. That is the point that I think she ignores.
Contrast those marathons with the Evidence (Scotland) Act. My recollection is that it went through in a discussion totalling 20 minutes between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, and myself, and that was that. It is no use adding together this collection of bits and pieces, putting a constitutional hat on the mess and hoping that it will be a good Act. I intend to say very little about the various parts.
On divorce, I suggest that the reduced periods are possibly far too short. When people separate it is often a traumatic business. It is necessary that they should be given sufficient time to know exactly what they want and what is best to do. All the modern research suggests that divorce causes serious damage to the children of the marriage that is being split up. Is it really a good thing to leap in this way from two years and five years to one year and two years? I suggest that perhaps periods of two years and three years would be better.
I turn to the subject of charities. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, asked for a definition of charity. As a result of this Bill if it goes through, the answer is fairly easy: buy an English textbook. The Scottish law of charity disappears completely. I see the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate shaking his head. If he refers to various decisions of your Lordships' House made, I believe, in 1953 concerning the Glasgow Police Athletic Association, he will find that there is such a thing as the Scottish law of charity. It is different from the Inland Revenue view of charity based on the law of Elizabeth I.
What of the Scottish law of charity when only the Inland Revenue law of charity remains? This may concern only those who are interested in keeping treaty obligations entered into in 1707 or who are interested in the history and preservation of Scots' law; perhaps it does not amount to very much. The provisions of the Bill are of very little use. According to the Home and Health Department the purpose was to establish a system whereby,
"Any interested person can readily discover which bodies are recognised as charities for the purposes of tax relief and can ascertain the name and address of the charity and the names of the trustees, office bearers and directors".
That is fine; we all agree with it. The difficulty is that the Bill does not say so. If it did, the Bill would be much clearer. Surely, in an era of data processing that should be possible. It is after all what is required. It is necessary to have lists available in major centres where one can see what are the charities dealing with a particular problem such as that of mentally deficient children. There is nothing in the Bill that provides any method of doing so, but that is what is needed.
I have the privilege of being the chairman of a charity, having succeeded in that capacity the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The charity is concerned with children and families. Many

209
charities deal with the disadvantaged. On occasions they require to criticise the policy of government. Sometimes they have to be fairly vociferous on behalf of disadvantaged people. It is a difficult line to establish when a charity is working, in Inland Revenue terms, for charitable purposes only and when it becomes a political pressure group.
Is it right that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, as a member of the Government, should be the person who decides these kinds of issues? I suggest that it is not. I further suggest, as a matter of practical politics, that it does not work very well. It is suggested that eight people are to carry out this work under the supervision of the Lord Advocate. I understand that that happens to be the number of qualified staff vacancies in one procurator fiscal's office in Scotland which the Lord Advocate cannot fill. Is this charities' body to be filled with people who are not very good at prosecuting in district courts and who have to be moved somewhere else? Alternatively, are they to be people who really know something about the law of trusts and charities? I suggest that there is a case for an independent body consisting of people who are interested and knowledgeable regarding public trusts.
There is another major change for charitable trusts and trustees which the noble and learned Lord will no doubt say is deliberate. Until now a gratuitous trustee was only liable for wilful misconduct. The Bill refers not to wilful misconduct but to any misconduct or mismanagement. Has the noble and learned Lord any idea of the difficulties of finding people to fulfil the necessary social job of being a gratuitous trustee in these circumstances? Is it really intended that any mismangement or misconduct is necessary? This contrasts with the person who holds himself out to be a conveyancing practitioner. He is not liable at all unless he wilfully and falsely holds himself out to be a conveyancing practitioner. Why is "wilful" omitted from the mismanagement?
I turn to the legal profession. Here the approach seems, from recollection, similar to the philosophy behind the Financial Services Act. Now that that Act has been in force for some time, I fail to see why anybody should consider such philosophy the correct approach. The effect for the small consumer of financial services has been to reduce competition, to decrease the availability of independent advice and to increase the cost of services. I now apply that to the legal services.
The major users of legal services such as the banks and the insurance companies —organisations of that kind —are not the people who need protection and help. They can pay for whatever they want and sometimes do. It is the ordinary citizen requiring a lawyer perhaps two or three times during his life who needs to have a reasonable expectation that he will be able to obtain good service at reasonable cost. The Bill does nothing at all for the ordinary citizen.
The conveyancing and confirmation services are to be available largely from banks, insurance companies and building societies. If one returns to the Financial Services Act one discovers that bodies such as the SIB, the RPB and the SRO, were all to be financed by levies from members. If the Government
210
believe in the phrase "the level playing field", why does the Law Society, as conveyancers, finance its own body? On the other hand, the building societies, banks and others who are to become certificated practitioners, or whatever they are to be, are to be financed by the Government. Why are the banks and the insurance companies not paying for the service themselves by a levy? Is there some change in the approach or is it that the banks, the insurance companies and the building societies are not interested unless somebody else pays?
The rights of audience provisions have a massive omission. There is one matter of importance which is included. I speak from experience because I have been a solicitor. It is said that the codes have to show that the person has,
"appeared in civil proceedings in the sheriff court over such a period, in such categories of litigation, and with such frequency … as seems to the Council to be appropriate".
I have done that. The effect of having 11 years of practice in the sheriff court is that I was required to unlearn almost all the procedure in order that I would get the Court of Session procedure right. So this provision is based on a complete fallacy.
The other oddity is that there is a code of conduct which advocates require. As a compulsory measure, people becoming advocates are required to pass an examination in that subject. There is not a word about rules of conduct or who is to enforce them in this education system.
When one turns to the question of the appointment of judges, one reaches the height of stupidity. It is proposed that after five years solicitor advocates may become Court of Session judges. How does that fit with the solicitor advocate, or solicitor, or advocate who must serve 10 years before he can be appointed a sheriff or a sheriff principal? How does that fit with a sheriff principal who, having served his 10 years, must serve five years as a sheriff principal before he is competent to be appointed?
It may be that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate will say that we must go back to Clause 19 of the Treaty of Union. He will read there that the clause specifically gives power to Parliament to change the period of time. If the noble and learned Lord goes back to Clause 19, why has he chosen the period of five years for advocates and not 10 years, which is the period for writers to the signet. Does he really believe that five years is adequate for qualification of appointment? What advocate has ever been made a senator of the College of Justice with a five-year qualification? Is it not better to change that provision rather than to have this absurdity?
In my view, the Bill is shockingly and badly drafted. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate should insist that those responsible for the drafting come to the House tomorrow to hear the debate initiated by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, which I regret I shall not be able to hear. They might learn a great deal.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate for

211
the way in which he introduced this miscellaneous provisions Bill. Indeed, it is miscellaneous, as previous speakers have said. When it reaches another place I am sure that less polite but entirely parliamentary descriptions will be given because that is the usual fate of such a Bill.
I shall deal briefly with different subjects in the order in which they appear in the Bill. As regards charities, I welcome the general change that is proposed. As a trustee and officer bearer in charities —some of which are based in Scotland and some in England and Wales, usually dealing with the United Kingdom —I am aware of the different systems. In Scotland the Inland Revenue decides whether there should be charitable status and not the Charity Commissioners who operate only in England and Wales.
My impression is that the Inland Revenue is very efficient and an organisation applying for charitable status receives an answer quickly. I am also certain that organisations which have failed to pass the test are unlikely to avoid paying income tax or other taxes. The Inland Revenue works behind the scenes and therefore it is possible for an organisation in Scotland to pose as a charity and pass itself off to the media and the public as having charitable status when that is not the case. In my opinion, the Bill should improve that situation.
As regards conveyancing, an important change is proposed in the Bill. It is the first move to disturb the solicitors' monopoly on conveyancing in Scotland. For several years licensed conveyancers have existed in England and Wales following the attempt of a Private Members Bill tabled in another place by Mr. Austin Mitchell. It applied only to England and Wales and when he withdrew the Bill the Government committed themselves to bringing forward provisions in their legislation.
A different situation exists in Scotland where traditionally the solicitors carry out a large majority of estate agency business. In recent years it has been as much as 80 per cent. The Bill aims to introduce a system under which properly qualified practitioners can operate without creating conflicts of interest. I suggest that that aim needs careful attention because solicitors in Scotland act as agents for their clients and have been more involved in the buying and selling of houses than have their counterparts south of the Border. Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that the Law Society of Scotland representing solicitors there is strongly opposed to the Government's plan. It believes that banks and building societies will move in on the conveyancing business.
I must declare an interest. During the past 14 years I have worked in one of the largest building societies in the country. I am director on the main board and for some years I have been chairman of its Scottish board. The society carries out a considerably greater proportion of its business in Scotland than the population there within the United Kingdom would suggest. Reflecting the rapid developments which have happened in financial services, the building society is now a large financial services institution.
212
At present we are negotiating the purchase of Girobank. For several years I have also been a vice-president of the Building Societies Association.
With that background, I speak from a personal viewpoint. I do not believe that the large building societies will wish to move quickly or to a great extent into conveyancing in Scotland. Therefore, to that extent I confirm what has already been said in the debate. They will accept the flexibility now proposed and have it in mind if it can help some of their members or the public, to meet their convenience and costs. Although that is only a personal opinion, I hope that it will reassure those who are concerned about the proposed change.
It is interesting to note the attitude of the consumer organisations in Scotland. The Scottish Consumer Council and the Citizens' Advice Bureaux of Scotland, while both approving the proposals in general on the grounds of extending competition, are concerned that solicitors' firms in rural areas may have to close if they lose much of their conveyancing work. That aspect has also worried me and I am glad to see that the champions of competition and the consumers recognise that possibilty.
I turn to the legal profession and the courts. I am not a lawyer and therefore I shall be brief. I have a special interest because as Secretary of State in the Scottish Office I was involved in the reorganisation of the courts in Scotland during the early 1970s through the Scottish Courts Administration. I hope that the Government will listen to the wise words spoken today by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie. During the early 1970s when I was Secretary of State he became Lord President; that is, head of the judiciary in Scotland. Although he has been a Member of the House for several years he has not sought to speak in debate until today, having recently concluded his distinguished tenure. He held the post of Lord President in a most distinguished way for 17 years. Before that time also he made an immense contribution to the legal profession in Scotland. I hope that the Government will heed the points that he has raised. He spoke about important issues contained in Part II of the Bill and with great skill avoided a controversial speech.
Part III of the Bill and its associated schedule seek to make changes and to bring up to date the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. I believe that the Government have presented us today with most of what is needed. I have only two or three points of improvement to suggest. As some noble Lords will remember, my special interest is that I appointed the Clayson Committee in 1971 which reported to me while I was still in office and I was able to start preparing the legislation which eventually became the 1976 Act. I was pleased that the Labour administration which followed in the Scottish Office continued that.
That reform has been vindicated in the survey carried out over the first eight years of its operation by the OPCS. The report found that drinking had become a more civilised pastime in Scotland, which had been the aim; that there was a reduction in drunken excesses and particularly that there were few, if any, people trying to drink as much as possible before an early closing time.

213
The two points which I suggest to my noble and learned friend for consideration at the later stages of the Bill are, first, that the Bill makes it possible for hours to be extended on Sundays until 11 p.m. As far as I can see, that is for every establishment except public houses. I ask the Government to consider whether I am right in thinking that hotels, clubs, off-licences and entertainment premises will be able to do that but public houses will not. That seems to create an anomaly.
Secondly, Section 64 of the Licensing Act 1976 does not allow an appeal to the sheriff from a licensing board's decision. That right exists in similar parts of the Act and it is now, in my opinion, more necessary than ever to bring Section 64 into line with the arrangements in other parts of the Act.
Those and other matters are clearly to be raised during the Committee stage and later stages. I hope that the Government will take into account the views which have been expressed both in this debate and outside your Lordships' House and that they will be flexible at those later stages.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I should like to comment on Clause 43 of the Bill. It is with considerable diffidence that I speak in this debate on Scottish affairs. My chief claim to be connected with Scotland is that I had the honour of serving for nearly 20 years with a Scottish regiment.
As many of your Lordships will be aware, the only ground for divorce in Scotland —and the law is virtually the same in England —is the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. That can be substantiated in the following ways: adultery, intolerable behaviour, desertion, no cohabitation for two years with the other party's consent to divorce or no cohabitation for five years where that consent has not been given. The provisions in Clause 43 would remove the reference to desertion and would reduce the periods of separation to one year with consent and two years without it. Those changes are in line with the recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission Report No. 119.
At this stage I do not wish to comment further on the details of the proposed changes in law. What really concerns me is that any change in the divorce law deals only with symptoms rather than the problem itself which, in this case, is the state of marriage. I should like to be reassured that at the same time as we alter the divorce laws, we do what we can to protect marriage as an institution from the pressures which beset it.
The pressures on marriage are obvious and need no rehearsing. One only has to see how, on television drama, unfaithfulness to one's marriage partner is portrayed as the norm. More and more people, some of them having seen the trauma of their own parents' divorce, are deciding that they will be unable to show the commitment needed to sustain a marriage in the face of those pressures. Those people are shunning marriage and avoiding making promises to their partner.
That would not matter so much were it not for the children affected by the break-up of the
214
relationship. I know that we talk too much about people's rights but I believe that a child has the right to two parents wherever possible, one of either gender committed to each other and to their children. I should add that the words "wherever possible" refer to two parents and not to "one of either gender." For two people to run away from mutual commitment and yet to have children is to indulge in an extreme form of selfishness and irresponsibility. There is a need to reassert the traditional value of marriage as something which, from the beginning of time, has been given to us by God for our mutual benefit.
If we do not do that, marriage will become the exception and family life will be devastated. Parliament and the Government in particular can play a crucial role in developing a sound attitude towards marriage. Recent changes in tax relief on mortgages and taxation changes for married couples coming into force very shortly are steps in the right direction. A further opportunity will come next week on the embryo Bill when we debate whether fertility treatment should be made available only to women who are married.
Whatever the merits of the changes proposed in Clause 43, the shorter period of separation will diminish the public perception of marriage as a serious long-term commitment. That makes action to buttress marriage all the more important. Much was said on that subject in your Lordships' debate on the family on 29th November last year, not least by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester and the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford. They rightly emphasised the need for education on marriage in schools and the importance of marriage preparation by churches. The right reverend Prelate also suggested that similar preparation should be given or offered to those to be married in registry offices. I hope that his suggestion is being looked at.
Furthermore, there is a need to develop improved conciliation and reconciliation services to help those whose marriages are running into difficulty. Those wider aspects of marriage appear to have been outside the scope of the Scottish Law Commission report. However, I hope that I have said enough to underline the fact that piecemeal alterations to the divorce law will do little to solve the basic problem which requires a reassessment and re-establishment of the position of marriage in our society. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for an assurance that those wider aspects are under consideration by the Government as a matter of priority. If not, I fear that Clause 43 will be a relatively pointless and potentially damaging exercise.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, my justification for contributing to this Second Reading debate is perhaps even less than that of the noble Lord who has just spoken. In fact, it hardly bears examination so I shall leave that alone. However, it behoves me to be extremely brief and that, I can assure noble Lords, I will be.
It came as no surprise to me that the Law Society in Scotland, as noble Lords will know from listening

215
to those who agree with its views, supported with enthusiasm all matters in the Bill which did not appear to tilt at the status quo of the provision of legal services in Scotland. Indeed, the burden of the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, whose maiden speech I enjoyed immensely, was simply, "If it ain't broke, don't mend it". However, I believe from a variety of experience that however something may be perceived to be a success, that does not necessarily mean that there cannot be an improved way of going about it.
I believe passionately that that must be right and for that reason I support Her Majesty's Government in particular in regard to Part II of the Bill. The overall responsibility for developing and monitoring the administration of justice to suit modern needs must not lie alone with those who practise the law or who preside over the courts. The Government must always look to the best interests of all those they govern and not just those who practise or administer the law.
Your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that I have ceased to be surprised at the lengths to which some will go to suggest that the interests of justice must, by their nature, run parallel to maintaining the interests of lawyers. If broadening the opportunity of choice for those who seek access to the law means, as some have suggested, inter alia that the riff-raff will be granted rights of audience before the courts, I fail to see that lawyers have anything to fear.
I strongly believe it should not be left to lawyers alone to determine how justice should be administered or found. It is a proper role for government to determine those issues on behalf of and, above all, with the advice of, those whom they govern, ever bearing in mind the interests of justice and that the law is for the people. It is not to be seen —as it is unfortunately so often perceived by ignorant laymen —as nothing other than a plaything for academic and practising lawyers.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am sure other noble Lords will have experienced speaking late on the Second Reading of a Bill having ticked off all the points made by a large number of earlier speakers. Imagine the situation now when not only is that the case but also when the points have been made by some of the best legal brains in Scotland. That makes my task even more difficult. I have no intention of trying to repeat in my own words those of such able advocates.
We were all anxiously awaiting the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie. I do not think anyone was other than delighted to have been here to hear it. He made some very pertinent points about the Bill from his great experience. It is true he managed to be overtly non-controversial, but I do not think anyone can doubt that the real anxiety that people feel about the Bill —an expression used by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond —was present in the speech of the noble and learned Lord.
It is not just a pious hope to say that we look forward to hearing the noble and learned Lord often.
216
I hope especially that he will be able to attend the Committee stage of this Bill as often as possible. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate may not appreciate that there will be a fairly long Committee stage for this Bill. I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, is able to be with us to give his guidance and the benefit of his experience. We all enjoyed hearing his speech.
With regard to the Bill, I merely repeat what everyone has said. It is a hotchpotch; it has everything in it. The legal part is obviously so important that it should be a separate Bill of its own. What worries me about a miscellaneous provisions Bill is that I was always taught as a child that ignorance of the law is no excuse for doing something wrong. How anyone can find their way through Scottish law now, with all the miscellaneous provisions we have had over the last few years, is beyond me.
Some parts of the Bill are good tidying up measures. Charities, as everyone has said, need a lot more definition. I am not however happy about the Charity Commissioner system operating in England; certainly it seems to be underfunded. I believe it is impossible in England to find out whether a charity is still in existence or what the state of it is. There is underfunding and records are in a very bad state. I hope in Scotland we will be able to put into practice all the proposals in the Bill. If so we will easily be able to ascertain where a particular charity stands, its status, its funding and its membership.
The question of legal services has been dealt with very thoroughly; but I should like to hear a great deal more about whether or not conveyancing should be let out to other bodies. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, in an extremely powerful speech, said that the background to it all was inspired by competitive theologists of whom there are one or two on the political side in the Scottish Office.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, spoke pungently about charities. He pointed out that charities occasionally and necessarily tend to be anti-establishment, anti-government and opposed to legislation that is going through. We all agree that charities and pressure groups—because charities have to be pressure groups periodically —naturally tend to lean more on the Opposition than on the Government. Whichever party is in power the Opposition are most likely to hear from them and perhaps put their point of view. Consequently, we should be very grateful to charities. We need them to advocate particular causes. They are specialists in their own fields. Without the briefings that charities give us, I often wonder how well we would get on in this House.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, also referred to divorce. I feel incompetent to speak on the subject because I have had absolutely no representation from the Churches, the women's organisations, marriage guidance counsellors, individuals or even —and I do not decry them —the newspaper agony aunts who receive enormous correspondence. I do not know whether anything will come from those sources: at the moment I prefer to bide my time and take the view of the

217
Government. Perhaps one year and two years as proposed in the Bill are reasonable amounts of time. One must remember that the marriage may have lasted for 20 years before that point, so it is not as though people are not familiar with each other. When the point is reached of an irretrievable breakdown of marriage or a mutual decision to part there may be a case for one year. As I say, I should like to hear more from some of the organisations involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, spoke about the Clayson Report. I was very much involved in another place in the discussion and the arguments on that report. There is no doubt that it was a great step forward in taking away the old image of Scottish drinking. It may not be easy to judge its real effect because the relative cost of alcohol has gone down so much. Looking at the situation pre-Clayson and post-Clayson, one is not on the famous level playing field. However, I believe there is a great deal more civilised drinking in Scotland, though there may be some other kinds of which we are not proud.
A number of points on licensing have been raised by the licensing trades association and by the Retail Consortium. These will require answers by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate when we reach Committee stage. I shall not go into those matters in detail. They have been dealt with by other noble Lords.
There is the question of public houses being particularly restricted on a Sunday, and the question of off-sales. One matter which has more substance is whether there should be an appeal beyond the licensing court. One is on delicate ground in this respect because local licensing courts know their business better than anyone. There must be a method of appeal for someone who wishes to be a licensee and who thinks that he is being discriminated against in some way. That matter should be looked into carefully at Committee stage.
Finally, I should like to speak about the treatment of offenders. As a past chairman of SACRO, that is a matter with which I am particularly concerned. A number of provisions in the Bill take the matter forward. Generally speaking, SACRO and I support those points. The general drift of the Bill is correct, but there is a feeling that the wording is unclear and unduly convoluted. I hope that some amendments will be accepted which would clarify the types of reports that should be obtained from social workers.
The same situation applies to community service orders where it is difficult to understand what powers will be given to the sheriffs in extending the use of community service orders. Having said that, I doubt whether there will be a large change in the number of orders. It may be possible to reword the Bill so that the sheriffs have more liberty to impose community service orders and fines instead of imprisonment.
Those are Committee points. I have found the debate extremely enjoyable. I think that we will have a very serious Committee stage. As one noble Lord who is not a member of my party said to me: "By gum, the Government are going to need a three-line Whip during the whole of this Committee stage". I
218
am pleased that the Leader of the House is sitting here and has heard that comment. It will be a fairly stormy Bill. We can all look forward to it. We can take the good parts of the Bill, and perhaps with a little pressure from very powerful groups who are allied against the Government some important changes may be made.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I should like to join in the compliments that have been paid to the previous Lord President of the Court of Session, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, on his maiden speech. With great skill he avoided breaching the conventions of this House, but it would be unwise of me not to discern opposition on his part to certain provisions in the Bill. I hope that I shall be able to reassure him on one important matter. The noble and learned Lord made a remarkable contribution to the substantive law of Scotland during his time as Lord President, but it is less frequently acknowledged how much he did by way of contribution to the efficient organisation and disposal of work in the Court of Session. He has given us a lasting legacy.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, for his hand-me-down objection on miscellaneous provisions Bills. I am sure that his noble friend is aware that every single miscellaneous provisions Bill has attracted much the same kinds of objection.
I was a little taken aback by the comment made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, from his position as a serving judge on the Cross Benches. I thought that it went beyond what is proper for a serving judge to describe someone whom the Secretary of State nominates as a placeman. If I have misunderstood the limits of the convention, I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord will correct me at a later date.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, has once again made his plea for the introduction of a more inquisitorial system of justice in the United Kingdom, particularly in Scotland. I am intrigued by that plea. The Italian criminal code which, after 24 years' gestation has just seen the light of day, goes out of its way to reduce the inquisitorial character of the procedure that Italy has enjoyed for a long time. I understand that similar movements are under way in Spain and France.
In spite of the last remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael in regard to the character of the Bill, I recognise that there are very strongly held views about Part II and about the matrimonial proposals. There are points that require to be clarified and debated at Committee stage on the other parts, but in substance there were no objections to Part I or Part III. Indeed they were welcomed, along with other parts of the miscellaneous provisions. Accordingly, it is with some apology that I need to find an artificial excuse for introducing a matter that I did not mention in my opening remarks in regard to licensing. Government amendments will be introduced to allow licensees to apply for a special children's certificate and to impose certain restrictions on wholesale dealers in alcoholic liquor. I apologise for my failure to mention that point.

219
I should like to turn to the Scots law of charity, which was a matter raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. We are not touching on Scots law. Whatever this Bill does, it does not alter the definition of a charity; nor will it be for me to decide what is a charity. I am concerned about issues of mismanagement, not with disputes as to whether a matter is a charitable objective or not. Mismanagement is the trigger for me to consider whether or not I need to take issue.
If there was a central theme to the points raised on Part I, it was the exploration of the opportunity that there might be to obtain yet more information from the Inland Revenue about charities that it recognises. Very reasonable points were made concerning issues as to whether there should be a directory and local access points to the Inland Revenue in order to discover these matters, which are clearly of interest to many of us.
The first priority is for a list to be established and the information transferred to microfiche. It may prove possible for copies of the microfiche to be made available at several outlets. The Inland Revenue will be happy to respond to telephone enquiries, as at present. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, suggested that in due course a directory might be produced. It does not follow that that would have to be done by either the Inland Revenue or the Government. The voluntary organisations in Scotland may wish to take that on. There were few points made in regard to the question of charity. I shall listen carefully to any proposals which are made.
I should like to turn to matters of conveyancing. The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, paid a compliment to the practice of conveyancing in Scotland. When I am this side of the Border, the high regard for the Scottish system tends to focus on the fact that we have concluded missives at an earlier stage. Therefore the practice of gazumping is effectively excluded. The conclusion of binding missives between purchaser and seller is not within the monopoly that is allowed for in Scotland and exclusively reserved to solicitors. Anybody can arrange that part of the transaction without breaching any law. He might be ill advised to do so unless he were a good lawyer but there is no necessary rigidity or restriction on him doing that.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, felt that, especially in regard to conveyancing, the Bill did nothing to help the ordinary citizen. While I accept that bodies such as the Scottish Consumers' Council and the Citizens Advice Bureau have their misgivings about the extent to which there is a lay involvement in the conveyancing board and in other areas, I took from their observations that in principle they approved of our arrangements. I accept the concern expressed all over Scotland that it would be undesirable if these changes led to the absence of solicitors in the rural areas of Scotland. I am not convinced that the risk is anything like so great as some have suggested. Even if there were some difficulty, I would say to my noble friend Lord Stodart that if I were a first-time house purchaser living in North Berwick I should not expect what I
220
had paid in conveyancing fees to be used in any way to cross-subsidise the legal services that might be extended to him, if he were to ask his practitioner, living as he does in a rural area, to provide services on agriculture or whatever else it might be. It is important that we do not confuse the matter.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy asked about the prohibition on tying in. This will be prohibited in Scotland by virtue of Clause 72 of the Courts and Legal Services Bill. This is because the matter needs to be covered on both sides of the Border. Furthermore, it is not a matter to be restricted to lawyers alone.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, was anxious that, in regard to the conveyancing board, the test of a fit and proper person was in some respects too wide. The same test is applied in Section 6 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980. The composition requirements for the conveyancing board are to be found in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Act. The greatest point of concern on conveyancing, as has been reflected also in the representations received by noble Lords, arises on the provision of a code of conduct for conveyancing practitioners, which, as Clause 15 makes clear, is to be prescribed in regulations. Clause 16 sets out the areas of practice which such a code will cover, including that of conflict of interest.
While I am aware that some would argue that the code should appear in primary legislation, I am sure that the Law Society of Scotland will recall that during the passage of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 it pressed for certain matters to appear on the face of the Bill. But within months of the Act coming into force it was pressing the Secretary of State to seek to change that by means of regulation. If five years ago one had drawn up primary legislation to include a code of conduct on conveyancing, I doubt very much whether the issue of "churning" would have been addressed. Practices and conduct in carrying out these matters tend to change. It is useful and flexible to leave it to regulation while nevertheless acknowledging that there should indeed be a statutory code to cover these matters.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my noble and learned friend said that there is a list of the various aspects which will be included in the regulations. With respect, the problem is that the Bill says that they "may" be included. Is my noble and learned friend prepared to correct himself on that?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the clause uses the word "may". If these matters are set out as clearly and as separately as they will be, it is to be anticipated that they will be within the code of conduct that emerges. If that fails to happen I have no doubt that my noble friend will be the first person to make the sharpest objection to the Government.
My noble friend specifically referred to churning. I think it will be agreed on both sides of the House that everything should be done to discourage it. However, it is primarily a matter to be dealt with by the Securities and Investment Board under the Financial Services Act 1986. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has already

221
indicated, this matter has been drawn to the board's attention and new rules are being considered to prevent this kind of market abuse.
I turn now to the changes in the legal profession and rights of audience. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench —I take it in the capacity of Front Bench Official Opposition spokesman —indicated that the Opposition are opposed to changes in the rights of audience set out in Part II of the Bill. I confess that I had not appreciated that the Official Opposition had taken such a firm view on this point. I am grateful to him for spelling that out so clearly for us.
As one looks to the extension of rights of audience one is not looking at the issue of fusion. That is not the Government's aim. In my opening speech I went out of my way to say that the continuation of an independent Scots Bar is considered desirable and that I was confident that that independence would be maintained, notwithstanding the changes we propose. I want to reiterate that that remains the Government's view. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, referred to his work on the Royal Commission, which rejected extended rights of audience for all solicitors. With respect to him, our approach of conferring rights of audience only on a particular group of solicitors who have demonstrated by way of training and otherwise that they are fit to appear before the Supreme Court is rather different from the approach set out at the time of the Royal Commission.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, was concerned that there was no cab rank rule equivalent for solicitors. That is right. There is nothing approximating entirely to that shorthand description of the Faculty of Advocates' rule. But the Law Society of Scotland is to make rules to ensure that any person requiring a solicitor in the Supreme Courts does not go unrepresented. The precise mechanism it uses to achieve that will be up to the society.
I hope I satisfied the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, that the Lord President has a part to play in the training regulations, although I accept that it is tucked away somewhat obscurely in that reference to Section 34 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980. It was unfair for the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, to say that the Bill changes the Constitution, with 20 new executive powers for the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can appoint the ombudsman. But I should have thought that the noble and learned Lord would have welcomed the appointment of an independent ombudsman. He can appoint a new board and, as will be appreciated, he appoints members to many boards. There is nothing constitutionally wrong with that. Moreover, he can insist upon consumer safeguards, which does not appear to me to be surprising, and can also arrange for English lawyers to have the same rights in Scotland as French, Italian and Belgian lawyers enjoy in the European Community. Again, that fact may not be welcomed by one and all; but it would scarcely seem to me to be a matter which indicated the wholesale removal of powers from the judiciary to the extent implied.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, did the noble and learned Lord say that the Scottish Office has the right to make rules as regards the conduct of business in the Court of Session?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No, my Lords; the powers which the Lord President has are not altered by the provision. Indeed, in many respects he is brought into the matter to play an important part. In Clause 21, although I appreciate that it is not much liked, it is readily recognised that the Lord President has a critical role to play in the matter of the Court of Session.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will permit me to intervene as he has mentioned me twice. I hope that he will be good enough to read what I have said in Hansard. If he does so, he will discover that what I said was that the Bill gives power to the Secretary of State —and that means any Secretary of State —if he is so minded, to appoint his own placemen to various posts. Is the noble and learned Lord saying that I misunderstood the Bill in that respect?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No, my Lords; that is not what I am saying. However, I think it was mischievous of the noble and learned Lord to suggest that because this wide range of opportunities is being given to the Secretary of State such powers are in some sinister fashion an unacceptable extension of the power of the Executive. I certainly take exception, as I have already indicated, to his use of the word "placemen". However, I may be unduly sensitive in that respect.
So far as concerns Clause 21, I do not envisage that the effect of the clause will allow laymen to act in jury trials in the Court of Session by this most indirect of routes. It would appear to me that we have taken enough bulls by enough horns as regards this particular set of provisions. However, if that had been what we wanted to achieve, we could have done so in a much simpler way. It is seen that there may be circumstances in which restricted groups of people will seek to have rights of audience, but there are provisions in place under Clause 21 to involve the Lord President in the way the scheme is put forward. I should like to qualify that statement by saying that I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, for what he said about the role of the Lord President under that clause. Moreover, I should like to look again at the manner in which he is involved therein.
Finally, on the issue of rights of audience, I should say that if any part of this Bill caused great fury, it was undoubtedly the provisions as regards partnerships under Clause 23. In this respect I address my remarks principally to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Emslie and Lord McCluskey, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, who are clearly very anxious about these provisions.
Perhaps I may approach the matter in this way. Had the Government intended to abolish the rule that now exists in the Faculty of Advocates which states that members cannot form partnerships

223
between themselves, or, indeed, with any other people, the clause could have been drafted simply to abolish that rule. Instead, the clause allows the faculty, if it so wishes, to make a rule against professional partnerships, and the rule will be perfectly valid if the Lord President and —I accept —the Secretary of State approve it. The Secretary of State must first consult the Director General of Fair Trading, but the present director to whom the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, referred —namely, Sir Gordon Borrie —has already publicly supported the idea of an independent Bar without partnerships. In such circumstances, it would seem to me that he was hardly the man to consult if the Government were hell-bent on introducing partnerships into the Faculty of Advocates.
Moreover —and, I stress this point —once the Secretary of State acting in the public interest approves any rule on partnerships, that will remove the rule from the direct supervision of the planned competition authority. Again, that is impossible to reconcile with a DTI scheme to stifle the independence of the profession. Further, in discussions with the learned Dean of Faculty and other members of the faculty it was, I thought, sufficiently understood by them why it was considered appropriate that the provision should be approached in this way. I emphasise, as best I can, that the provision is not there with the express purpose of getting rid of the Faculty of Advocates by way of requiring it to remove its rule on prohibition of partnerships.
I shall now deal briefly with matters in relation to licensing. It would seem to me that there were no substantial points of concern in this respect. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, asked many questions. He asked first why there is no appeal against decisions by licensing boards on late night extensions. It was considered that licensing boards were best placed to make such decisions on the basis of detailed local knowledge. With some perception, the noble Lord indicated that he appreciated the fact that public houses are in a somewhat anomalous position, being the only group which will not be allowed to open on Sunday afternoons when all other types of business are so permitted.
I am grateful to those noble Lords who indicated their approval regarding what we are doing as regards matters of fines and sentencing. I trust that, although we shall have some interesting discussion on the issue, there will be little heat in it.
Finally, there is the matter of divorce. I appreciate that there are those who feel most strongly that the "hardback" should be left on the marriage certificate. However, we have sought to look at what the Scottish Law Commission concluded, having carried out some research on the matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, the proposal seems to have generated a little heat in Scotland. It is not a measure which is designed to encourage people to divorce more frequently or more readily. Indeed, we understand and appreciate as well as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, that marriage is the basis of much good in our society.
224
However, we are concerned that if there is too much difficulty in the way that divorces can be achieved once the marriage has broken down, then, instead of settling arrangements for the children for whom they have concern and coming to a proper arrangement on financial matters, the parents will be involved in protracted and mutually destructive arguments about the divorce.
Despite the threat made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, at the end of his speech that we are in for a long period of debate in Committee, I trust that after the explanations I have given there will at least be a constructive basis upon which to approach the matter.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Greenhouse Effect: Select Committee Report
7.8 p.m.
Lord Carver Lord Carver rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on the Greenhouse Effect [6th Report, 1988–89, HL Paper 88].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in introducing the Select Committee's Report on the Greenhouse Effect, and as Chairman of the sub-committee which produced it, I wish to express my thanks to the noble Lords who contributed so much as members of the sub-committee. We owe a great debt of gratitude to our specialist advisers: Mr. Andrew Gilchrist, former director of research at the Meteorological Office; Professor Henry Charnock, who is Professor of Oceanography at the University of Southampton; and Professor Michael Unsworth, Professor of Environmental Physics at the University of Nottingham. We are also most grateful to all those people who gave evidence to the sub-committee.
One must always remember that the greenhouse effect is in essence a good thing. Indeed, without it temperatures at the earth's surface would be 30 degrees centigrade lower than they are —too low to support life as we know it. The problem is the increase in the effect which there is reason to believe is being brought about by an increase in the concentrations of certain gases, caused directly or indirectly by human activity.
In discussing that important subject it is not easy to find the right balance between panic and complacency. The apocalypse is not now or imminent, but there are good reasons why we cannot be complacent. The first is that we are not merely concerned about what the situation will be at a fixed date in the future —2030 being the year upon which eyes are now fixed —because the increase in the greenhouse effect will continue to become worse at a greater rate unless the increase in concentrations of greenhouse gases is reversed. The second reason is what is called the thermal inertial of the oceans. There is a time-lag in their warming-up process so that they act as a sort of reservoir of warmth inherited from the past.
Our aim was to consider the state of the science upon which a policy should be based and what action this country should take. We began by looking at the

225
evidence of how the climate had changed and the link between that change and greenhouse gases. We concluded that the global mean temperature of the atmosphere had increased by about half a degree Centigrade since 1900, although not regularly. There was a cooling between 1940 and 1960, but in the 1980s there was a marked increase, and, although it cannot yet be scientifically proved that higher concentrations of greenhouse gases have caused that warming, the scientific evidence is that the increase in concentrations of gases that have been recorded in the period would have been expected to produce an increase of temperature of about that amount.
Next we looked at the greenhouse gases themselves. They are, in order of their contribution to the greenhouse effect: water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons, ozone and nitrous oxide. Water vapour is by far the most important, but there is nothing we can do about it. An important factor is that the warmer the atmosphere the greater the volumn of water vapour. It therefore enhances the effect caused by the other gases, the concentrations of which are enhanced by human activity.
Next in importance is carbon dioxide. Its contribution to the greenhouse effect, excluding that of water vapour, is 50 per cent. of the total, and it is increasing at the rate of 0·4 per cent. per annum. That is due primarily to the burning of fossil fuels, but the reduction of the earth's biomass, expecially the burning of tropical forests, has also contributed. Of the carbon released in that way, about half remains in the atmosphere, the rest being absorbed by the oceans. In our report we have given details of the sources of carbon dioxide emissions. At present, the developed countries are the main culprits, but that situation will change as the standard of living of the less developed countries with large populations, such as China, India and South-East Asia, rise. Their consumption of energy and emission of all greenhouse gases looks like increasing dramatically and poses one of the greatest problems.
Methane is next on the list. Its main sources are decaying vegetable matter and the output —to put it politely —of the digestive process of herbivorous animals. It is not easy therefore to do much about it without drastic effects on agriculture. Chlorofluorocarbons come next. They are especially serious apart from their effect on the ozone layer in the stratosphere as they persist in the troposphere for such a long time.
Fortunately the action already taken under the Montreal Protocol should check the increase in the concentration of chlorofluorocarbons and eventually reduce it. However, that is dependent upon the less developed countries with large populations observing the protocol, and their potential demand for refrigeration and air conditioning poses a major problem. Surface ozone is next. Concentration in the troposphere has been increasing, due largely to motor vehicle exhaust gases. Nitrous oxide is also increasing, caused partly by agricultural practices and partly by high temperature combustion.
That is the easy part of the science lesson. It is much more difficult to predict the future. First, the
226
future concentration of the gases depends upon what action governments and industries all over the world take in reaction to knowledge as it develops; to public opinion, well or ill informed; and to vested interests. There are also great gaps in our scientific knowledge about the effects of gases on one another and what goes on within the atmosphere itself; on the part that the oceans play as sinks to absorb the gases; and of the interaction between the atmosphere and the oceans. Our report lists the international efforts that are being made to remedy some of those gaps in our understanding.
We concluded that greater emphasis should be placed on scientific observations in all those areas; on research into atmospheric chemistry at our universities; and on the relevant chemical and biological skills which have not been fully used in that field. We hope that the new Atmospheric Directorate which has been set up within the Natural Environment Research Council will help.
Uncertainty about future concentrations of gases means that there is an uncertain premise for predicting what effect they will have on the climate. That just adds to the great uncertainties inherent in the methods employed for that purpose. Climatology as a science is in its infancy. For historical and practical reasons its observations from satellites and other sources and its calculations by computer-based mathematical models are primarily oriented to short-term forecasts. They have been adapted to attempt to produce long-term predictions, but there are only five models doing that (four in the United States and the one at our Meteorological Office). The grid that they use is large and the data about many important inputs are crude or sparse. They have been trying to predict further changes in climate on the reasonable assumption that by 2030 the concentrations of greenhouse gases expressed in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents will have doubled since 1900. They come up with generally similar answers although the degree they estimate varies between 1·5 degrees and 4·5 degrees Centigrade.
They estimate that the warming will be greater nearer the poles and less nearer the equator; that global rainfall will be higher, especially in high latitudes, and along the tracks which depressions tend to follow in the middle latitudes; but that there may be droughts leading to a reduction in soil moisture in summer in middle latitude continental areas, such as in the United States and the Soviet Union where the corn belts lie; and that there will be a marked cooling of the stratosphere. Other than those, they are at present unable to make any reliable forecasts of regional changes, and localised forecasting is virtually impossible.
That degree of uncertainty as to the magnitude of the change and of the timescale over which it may take place is clearly an unsatisfactory basis for making major policy decisions which could have far-reaching political, economic and social consequences. The committee therefore considers it essential that the models be developed so as to increase their resolution and to improve the methods by which they calculate the effect of one feature of climate, such as clouds, on another, and particularly

227
the interaction between the atmosphere and the surface of the oceans and the land, and with ice on both. They should also be able to represent a dynamic rather than a static situation. That will demand much greater computer power than is used at present. We therefore welcome the Government's decision to set up a national climate modelling centre by expansion of the facilities at the Meteorological Office.
Computers are no better than the data one feeds into them. There are enormous gaps to be filled in the field of scientific observation. Those observations are also of vital importance as indicators of whether the prognostications of the models are in fact being fulfilled. That data must be collected and disseminated on a global basis. We must make certain that the current standard meteorological global network is maintained at least at its present level; and it is urgent to improve observations of the oceans, both from within them and from satellites. In that field, the increased allocation in the science budget recently announced by the Secretary of State for Education and Science for the Natural Environment Research Council for marine scientific research vessels and for support of the European Space Agency's earth reconnaissance satellite programme is welcome. All that is in aid of improving our knowledge of what may bring about global warming and consequent climate change.
We next examined the possible impacts of those changes. In general we concluded that one impact would be a greater frequency of climatic extremes —hot and cold, wet and dry —and that their occurrence could be an indicator of increased greenhouse effects. That could mean stronger winds and more hurricanes which would aggravate the results of an increase in sea level. The latter would arise partly by expansion, as the seas warmed up, and partly as a result of the melting of ice and snow on land. Melting sea ice would not make any difference as it already displaces its weight in water. There have been various attempts to estimate the rise, and we accepted a figure of 15 centimetres by expansion and another 15 centimetres from ice melt by the year 2030. This is markedly less than the 80 plus or minus 70 centimetres which was accepted by the 1980 Villach conference, which we were persuaded by the Royal Society was not soundly based. Some estimates that have been made are even lower than the one which we accepted. Further research is clearly needed.
However, most important of all is the maintenance of an extensive worldwide monitoring of sea level. If the rise by 2030 is no more than we estimated, the existing measures of coast defence should suffice for this country. But, given the uncertainty and the possible increase in surges due to the combination of high winds with high tides, we recommended that the Department of the Environment should initiate a long-term research programme into possible impacts and responses of a rise in sea level.
In the fields of agriculture and forestry, one has to consider not only the possible effects of climate change, but also that of increased concentration of carbon dioxide on plant life. As regards agriculture,
228
adaptation to climatic change in comparatively short timescales by breeding techniques is a well-established science for both animals and plants and is well supported by the Agriculture and Food Research Council. It should produce no great problem for this country, but we recognised that in other parts of the world agriculture may be much less adaptable, and this would have substantial consequences for us.
Forestry poses a more difficult problem, both because less is known about the likely effects on trees and also because of the long periods trees, particularly hardwoods, take to reach maturity. Forestry research on an international basis should be accelerated and new planting should be composed of species that are resilient to possible climate change.
The effect on natural ecosystems is even more difficult to predict and is an important area where more research is needed. In this general field we concluded that the preparation of response strategies would be best served by ensuring that a broad research base should be maintained in this country in the full range of biological and molecular skills. A central chapter of our report deals with the counter-measures needed to control greenhouse gas emissions. I have not time to go into them in detail. I have no doubt that other members of the sub-committee will draw attention to them.
In summary, we stressed the importance of and the difficulties in implementing the 1987 Montreal Protocol about CFCs. We endorsed the conclusion of the report by the Select Committee on Energy in another place, that energy efficiency and conservation measures are the economically most advantageous and the quickest way of curbing carbon dioxide emissions. We repeated the opinion of our previous report on civil nuclear power, that nuclear power is the only proven large-scale alternative to fossil fuel energy generation. We thought that the future role of renewable sources of energy would be limited and local, and that in the case of wind, wave and barrage generation they posed environmental problems of their own.
We recommended that decisions on fuel use and emissions control in road transport should be taken in the light of full research into their effect on greenhouse gases, and that methane from landfill sites and oilfields should be collected whenever possible, or flared. We commended the work of the Overseas Development Administration and the forestry organisations in promoting sustainable forestry overseas. The contribution that additional planting in Europe could make is very limited.
In the course of taking evidence, we became keenly aware of the problem of the availability of scientific manpower. Not only is the number of scientists currently working in this field small, but expansion to meet the needs of the research that we have recommended seems likely to be restricted more by difficulty in recruiting new entrants than by finance. I expect that members of the sub-committee who are more closely linked with academic life than I will expand on this theme.
Finally, we looked at the problem of co-ordination of the research effort needed and its financial

229
support. After considerable discussion we did not recommend the establishment of any elaborate new government machinery specifically for co-ordinating climate research. We recommended that the Department of the Environment should continue to be responsible for research into impacts; but that, in the wider field of climate and climate-related research, the Advisory Board of the Research Councils should set up a review group, including representation of the Met. Office, to co-ordinate research activity and review it periodically.
We considered that the ministerial committee which the Prime Minister has established to review the whole of this field annually would be of central importance. We hope that it will lead to effective decisions in the allocation of government resources in the research field. We recommended that its findings should be published.
In the international field, we concluded that co-operation had already been established on a sound basis, with the World Climate Research Programme, supported by the World Meteorological Organisation and the International Council of Scientific Unions, dealing with climate research; and the UN Environment Programme dealing with impacts. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which they have both established, is of great importance. Its three working groups are due to report towards the end of this year and they should form the basis of international action, both in the research field and in developing responses. We recommended that such reviews should take place every four or five years.
The additional government expenditure arising from our recommendations is only of the order of 180 million over 10 years, and largely consists of support for proposals which the research councils have made, but which at the time we finalised our report the Government had not yet accepted. Although it would double what the Government spent on climate and climate-related research last year, which was £15·5 million, in the light of the seriousness of the problem it surely cannot be regarded as a large sum. However, it covers only research and does not include the cost of counter measures designed to control gas emissions. That could be very large, although the Government appear to believe that energy efficiency and conservation can be encouraged by the market itself. Their response to the report of the Energy Committee in another place stated in paragraph 5.2:
"Current and future energy prices are likely to continue to encourage the efficient use of energy".
To me that would appear to mean that the cost of energy is now high and likely to become higher, which is not what I, at least, thought was the case or was the object of privatisation. The same paragraph stated that the Department of Energy was taking steps to provide a methodology which would make it possible for market mechanisms to recognise the external costs associated with energy consumption. It stated that when that was done,
"it is expected that market mechanisms would provide the most efficient means through which a response to global warming can be made".
230
I hope that the noble Lord who is replying for the Government will throw more light on how that is to be achieved, especially in the single European market, after 1992. I personally am not convinced.
In our report we judged that it would be impracticable to meet the 1988 Toronto Conference target of a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. within the next 15 years. But we recommended that the Government should begin to assess the policy implications of targets which might be set under a United Nations convention. We support the Government in the view that such a convention, to which protocols would be negotiated, is the best method of organising international co-operation in this field.
Since we reported, the Secretary of State for the Environment, at the Conference of World Environment Ministers held at Noordwijk, has signed the Noordwijk Declaration on Atmospheric Pollution and Climate Change. It is an admirable document. We must hope that the good intentions it declares will result in action after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has reported.
The Royal Institute of International Affairs has published a detailed and very interesting study of the subject of targets which casts doubt on the possibility of achieving targets specific to each country. The institute proposes instead a system based on leasable permits for fossil carbon emissions allocated on an adult per capita basis. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government will say whether the Government have studied the report, and what view they take about the feasibility of agreement on targets, of actually achieving the targets agreed and then verifying that nations have done so.
My Lords, I apologise, particularly at this time of night, for taking so long to introduce the report. However, your Lordships will understand what a complex matter this is. It contains many facets, all of which are important. I can only conclude by reminding the House of what I said in the debate on 20th December on the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I emphasised that the effort to improve our knowledge of all aspects of this subject must be organised internationally and that our own effort must make a major contribution, as it does now. I also emphasised that the most difficult problem would be how to avoid the development of the less developed countries leading to a great increase in greenhouse gases. Those countries must therefore be brought into participation in the international effort from the start.
However, governments cannot, before they act, wait until they can be more certain that science is giving the right answers. They must begin now to adopt insurance or what are called "no regrets" policies, particularly to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Those policies can be put into effect without causing drastic economic or social difficulties. They could also have advantages of their own. If governments fail to act in that way it may be too late as, with the thermal inertia of the oceans, the warming will be under way and it will be

231
impossible to counteract it. The committee hopes that its report will help your Lordships to influence the Government in that direction. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on the Greenhouse Effect (6th Report, 1988–89, HL Paper 88). —(Lord Carver.)
7.32 p.m.
The Archbishop of York: My Lords, I am a little alarmed to find myself in such a prominent position on the list of speakers in this debate as my intention is to concentrate on only one small part of the report. I shall start by congratulating the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and his committee on an excellent and timely piece of work. I also wish to congratulate him on his lucid handling in his speech of this complex subject.
The report is sober, factual, well balanced and properly agnostic where it is not possible to be certain. I hope it will raise the level of discussion of the greenhouse effect well outside the confines of this House because there is no doubt about popular concern with the subject. However, there is also no doubt about the level of popular misinformation. I myself had to protest recently to the authors of a draft report on environmental matters about their remarkable claim that the sea level would rise by several metres in the next 30 years.
The Select Committee's report is certainly needed. I am sure I express the views of many when I say how grateful we are for it and for the Select Committee which so effectively mastered such a huge and at times conflicting body of evidence.
The report focuses quite properly on the need for more research in a complex field. That is essential. Nevertheless, I share the hope which the noble and gallant Lord expressed towards the end of his speech, that concentration on research will not be used as an excuse for delaying action in suitable instances, even if the research is incomplete and we sometimes have to rely on reasonable guesses. As the noble and gallant Lord said, the difficulty is that we are confronting a phenomenon which has a long lead time, so that by the time we are ready to do something with full scientific backing it may already be too late to do anything effective.
Over the past few years I have been involved through the World Council of Churches in setting up local research and educational projects in Central America and Indonesia on the subject of the rain forests. The groups that we have set up have co-operated closely with local people who understand some of the complex social, financial and political pressures which lead to deforestation. We have tried to help people in different parts of the world to face the issues more knowledgeably and to share their experiences across half the world.
Against that background I turned with particular interest to paragraphs 10.32 and 10.39 of the report which consider the international dimension of emissions control. That part of the report deals with the matter of forests. I have also followed up the
232
extremely interesting references in the evidence on which these paragraphs are based.
It is clear from the evidence that the effects of deforestation or reforestation on carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are not nearly so straightforward as some of us might like to think. That is a valuable piece of information. I was frankly surprised to learn that established forests seem to be in equilibrium with their environment and are unlikely to be net absorbers of carbon dioxide, although as long as they are allowed to survive they remain an important means of fixing carbon, which might otherwise be turned into carbon dioxide, where it is. All the same, I must confess to some disappointment that the only recommendation of the committee on this theme is that contained in paragraph 13.49, which simply commends the work of the Overseas Development Administration and the forestry organisations. I should have thought we could go further than that. I believe that in trying to consider our use and abuse of forests as a world problem it is not enough simply to think in terms of overseas aid and the work of voluntary organisations.
Serious concentration on forestry on a world level could achieve three things. First, it could help to preserve the existing rain forests with all the carbon locked up in them and with all their other enormous ecological advantages. Secondly, it could encourage, as the report says, new planting on a cyclical basis in other parts of the world, thus locking up more carbon in toto while at the same time providing a renewable source of fuel. Thirdly, it could take some of the pressure off the use of fossil fuels, bearing in mind, as the noble and gallant Lord has said, the huge energy increases that will be required in many developing nations.
It seems to me that, no matter what detailed refinements more research is likely to provide, those three matters are desirable objectives. Therefore I come back to my question: is it enough to try to attain those objectives on a world scale simply through aid and voluntary effort? I do not think it is. I believe we need to move in the direction of thinking of forests as a world resource for which the world pays, not just by paying for the wood when it is cut down but also by paying to keep the land afforested.
Let us suppose that Brazil, for instance, were to be paid a handsome sum on an annual basis for the amount of Amazonian forest that it retained. We would not be interfering politically as Brazil would still be free to do what it wanted with the forests, but the internal financial pressures towards destruction would be relieved. That would also be the case in many other parts of the world. It would not be hard on a macro-scale to estimate the forested area of each country and to pay each country accordingly from a common fund. Where would that money come from? It would come from the users of fossil fuels.
I know that there are groans at that point and that the idea of a fossil fuel tax is unpopular because no nation wants to put itself at an economic disadvantage. Everybody would like to find an answer to environmental problems which does not

233
have too obvious a price tag on it. However, suppose that we take the Government seriously and adopt the principle of the polluter pays. We are talking about pollution, because the essence of greenhouse pollution regarding CO2 is the release of carbon dioxide from carbon which has been safely stored away underground for millions of years. If the polluter is to pay for that pollution of the atmosphere then some form of tax on the burning of fossil fuels seems to me to follow logically. To use the revenue to help those countries which provide a service to the rest of the world through their forests seems to me to follow equally logically. I believe that at least some countries which are heavy burners of fossil fuels could be persuaded to see the sense of that.
The other obvious advantages of such a tax, in helping to promote the efficient use of fossil fuels, are too obvious to dwell on.
It is not my intention to put forward some utopian scheme. The report rightly concentrates on hard and basic facts. In particular, it concentrates on what Britain can do. One thing we can also do is help to shift world thinking in the direction of greater co-operation, a more global vision of the problems and a more comprehensive view of our dependence on each other's resources. I hope that a little imaginative thinking about the world's forests will he part of our future agenda.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Clitheroe: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, for introducing the debate this evening. I should also like to thank him very warmly for the way in which he chaired our sub-committee which studied the greenhouse effect. I should like to join him in thanking those who helped with our deliberations on the subject.
The debate this evening will certainly be wide ranging. Although there are many points that one would like to make, time does not permit it. Therefore I shall restrict myself to comments on three issues which are interrelated.
The first issue is the quality of the science behind the problem. I do not wish in any way to denigrate the efforts that have been made by many working in the field, but the quality of that work has been deeply handicapped by inadequate and inaccurate data. No scientific work is worthy of the name unless it is supported by reliable experimentation. It has been said, and with some truth, that the quality of the science concerning global warming is inversely proportional to the amount of hot air generated on the subject by the media.
In 1896 in Sweden Arrhenius hypothesised that the consumption of fossil fuel would in due course double the CO2 content of the atmosphere and hence raise the global temperature by five degrees Centigrade. Sixty years later, in 1949, my tutor at Oxford speculated on the subject with me. Forty-one years later the speculation has grown from a murmur to a roar. However, it is still speculation. The facts, the measurements and the experimentation are largely missing. The scientific base has not yet been
234
developed, and science fiction can easily reign supreme. Therefore, I submit that the first issue is how to improve the data to provide a reasonably accurate basis for true scientific evaluation.
The Select Committee's report summarises a great deal of the work that is needed. It also emphasises the need to improve modelling techniques related to global warming. That raises another point of mine. Although I heartily endorse the need for improved modelling techniques, particularly in relation to improvement of the understanding of the atmospheric chemistry and the physics and biology which affect the world, I have some concern about the value of modeling for climate change without much more realistic and accurate input than we have today.
I have a healthy scepticism about modelling to predict the future and particularly if the input data are suspect. Memories of Malthus, of the Group of Rome, and, closer to my experience, of economic attempts to forecast the price of metals tend to show that the future is unpredictable. The trouble with models that attempt to predict the future is that, while it may be possible to devise one that fits a curve very snugly to any number of points in the past, its extrapolation can produce some wildly wrong forecasts.
It is a curious fact that human beings like to frighten themselves. Predictions of disasters —particularly global disasters —sell newspapers and television space almost as well as violence and pornography. It is of course arguable that unless one puts the fear of God into people one cannot obtain support for political action or to appropriate funds for necessary scientific work. The downside to that approach is that more emotion than logic can very readily be induced and foolish decisions can be taken in a hurry because of political expediency.
My concern is that some modelling on inadequate data and inadequate understanding of the enormously complicated processes involved in the interaction of atmosphere, oceans and land, chemistry, physics and biology may well lead to scenarios of disaster which are quite spurious. That could occur despite the qualities and abilities of the scientists performing the work. Spurious conclusions will lead to bad decisions. Therefore I suggest that all models must come with the appropriate health warning that they must not be used in the wrong context.
My third point is to endorse the policies recently recommended by the president of the US Academy of Engineers, referred to in the Select Committee's report, namely:
"policies that address causes and predicted consequences in such a way that future options are not foreclosed if projections turn out to be incorrect, and which may be desirable for other environmental and economic reasons. Insurance policies if you wish".
However, when one analyses it, even that statement has its snags. Political intervention in many fields is inevitably simplistic. What appears at first sight to be an obvious decision to take for the general benefit of all —a simple insurance policy —can have very serious and unexpected side effects.

235
Even such an obvious initiative as has been taken in another context to clean up the atmosphere —the promotion of green non-leaded petrol —may have induced its own health and safety problems and its own environmental risks which need very careful scientific analysis. The same may apply to CFCs and their substitutes. There is a great deal more work that needs to be done in that area.
Emotion may stimulate action, but only careful analysis can determine whether that action is beneficial or otherwise. Because of the public interest that has been generated in the debate on global warming reasonably rapid decisions and actions are called for. Insurance policies are a good answer. However, most insurance policies also need proper scientific evaluation.
I have two favourite insurance policies. One, which seems to me to be self-evident, is that work should be done to improve the total efficiency of energy production and use. That means energy conservation and many other things. But even that may need some economic analysis to back it up. My second insurance policy, which may not be so totally without contention, is to increase rather than reduce work on ensuring that nuclear energy can be economically and safely produced. That is clearly a subject for another debate, but it must be an issue central to reducing emissions of carbon dioxide in the long run.
Above all, I come back to the urgent need to improve the quality of the scientific base related to the field of atmospheric chemistry and the knowledge of the mechanism of the world's environment if we are to have any insurance policies. Without greatly increasing scientific effort in those fields, we shall surely take the wrong decisions. Improvement of the quality of the scientific base itself is the primary, essential insurance policy that is needed.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I should like to thank most warmly the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and his committee for an important contribution to what is now a global debate and for the lucid way in which he introduced this complex subject. I share with the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York his agnosticism in so far as the scientific world is not monolithic and its views vary tremendously on each of those important subjects. If I have any criticisms to make of the report, it is not that I profess to know better than members of the committee but that there are certain areas of the report which seem to me not to have taken into account the full weight of scientific opinion from all sides.
However, before I make any criticisms, I should like most warmly and wholeheartedly to support paragraph 13.5, which states:
"Action, by way of insurance or 'no regrets' policies" —
about which the noble and gallant Lord spoke—
"is therefore needed in advance of obtaining clear proof that a global warming due to enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations is occurring. Such policies —whether aimed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions or mitigating the possible consequences of global
236
warming —will involve difficult political decisions and will require a firm base of scientific knowledge".
In addition, paragraph 13.39 emphasises once again the importance of action in advance of scientific certainty. That is the most important conclusion reached in the report. Paragraph 13.39 recommends the United Nations Climate Convention, but goes on to state:
"[every country] must plan to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases in advance of such a Convention".
I could not agree more with that. The paragraph concludes with a point to which I wish to refer briefly later; namely:
"Developed countries should assist less developed countries to do the same, especially where more advanced technology is required".
Having said that, I must take issue with the way in which certain issues in the report are dealt with. The first concerns the Toronto target, referred to in paragraph 13.4. It is printed as paragraph 3.40, but I think it should read paragraph 13.40; it is no doubt a misprint. Here the committee states that reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by the year 2005 is impracticable. However, looking through the report and the evidence, there does not seem to be any argument behind that conclusion. It is simply put down to testimony from certain witnesses.
We are dealing with an argument, not a dogmatic statement and I challenge the way in which that conclusion has been reached. It ignores a number of published scenarios which have established that Canada, the United States, Poland, the USSR, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands could each reduce CO2 by 20 per cent. by the year 2005, usually without cost. The Canadian study, funded by the Canadian Ministry of Energy, established that Canada could reduce CO2 emissions by 20 per cent. by 2005 and save over 100 billion Canadian dollars. That conclusion appears to me to be under-researched.
My second and central point is to be found in paragraph 13.44 and concerns nuclear energy. I have spoken about that subject many times and noble Lords know my views. However, I am puzzled by the apparent anomaly, if not contradiction, in paragraphs 13.43 and 13.44. Paragraph 13.43 states:
"Energy efficiency and conservation measures are the economically most advantageous and quickest way of curbing emissions of carbon dioxide".
Paragraph 13.44 states:
"Nuclear power is the only proven adequate alternative to fossil fuel energy generation".
That is not necessarily a direct contradiction —that is not what I am saying —but there is an anomaly. If one accepts the conclusion of paragraph 13.43, surely the correct, sensible and imaginative policy would be to put in the maximum resources available for energy efficiency and conservation.
It is not established that nuclear power is the only proven adequate alternative to fossil fuel energy generation. We now know, although this fact perhaps emerged after the committee had met, that nuclear power is expensive. We have always known that it is dangerous, wasteful and environmentally destructive technology which nevertheless appears to

237
be recommended in the report. Numerous scientific treatises have catalogued the dangers of nuclear energy and have consistently shown, as paragraph 13.43 states, that
"Energy efficiency and conservation measures are the economically most advantageous and quickest way of curbing emissions of carbon dioxide".
The committee appears to have ignored that part of the evidence given by Friends of the Earth —I refer to paragraph 5.8 on page 220 of the written evidence —where Friends of the Earth quotes the World Commission on Environment and Development as declaring that,
"the generation of nuclear power is only justifiable if there are solid solutions to the presently unsolved problems to which it gives rise".
I could go on quoting, as I have done previously, along the same lines. Dr. Mike Kelly, a colleague of mine in the university which has adopted me —the University of East Anglia —writes as a scientist and a member of the School of Environmental Sciences. He has repeatedly pointed out that nuclear energy is not the answer to the greenhouse effect, and I would refer to his article "Meltdown" in the BBC Wildlife booklet last year.
Again, he writes:
"A recent authoritative study by the Rocky Mountain Institute compares the efficiency strategy and the nuclear strategy for reducing emission of carbon dioxide in the US. It finds that one dollar buys 50 kilowatt hours (kWh) of saved electricity if invested in efficiency measures and 7·4 kWh if invested in generating nuclear electricity. If that 7·4 kWh is used to replace coal burning, the efficiency measures prove almost seven times more cost effective in doing the same job".
He goes on to say that in the United Kingdom a similar study found that,
"each £ invested in nuclear power can remove the need for between 5·5 and 7·2 kg of carbon in carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired plants, whereas one £ invested in compact fluorescent lighting instead of incandescent lighting displaces 27·4 kg of carbon. Hence, investment in this particular form of energy efficiency is four to five times more cost-effective than investment in nuclear power".
One could continue. I suggest only that the committee's conclusion is not supported by an exhaustive examination of the scientific evidence which has been presented.
I should like to make two more points. Paragraph 13·47 refers to,
"Decisions on fuel use and emissions control in road transport [which] should be taken in the light of full research into their effect on greenhouse gases".
I believe that the noble Lord who is to wind up the debate should tell us the policy of the Government on this issue. It seems to be a divided policy. The Secretary of State for Transport is trying to devise a road system in London to allow more automobiles to use the roads. I understand that he has estimated that the use of cars will increase by 142 per cent. over 20 years into the next century. The Secretary of State for the Environment says that that is unacceptable.
Which is the Government's policy? One cannot have it both ways; there will be either a restriction on the increase in the use of cars or an increase in carbon dioxide emissions.
238
I have already mentioned the developing countries. I think that they are very important indeed. I wish that the committee had found time to go into the question more thoroughly. Paragraph 13.51 speaks of developed countries being,
"assisted to build up a source of expertise to advise the governments of those countries in the science of climate change".
That is surely a crusade for Britain and the developing world for at least the rest of this century and into the next. Unless the developed world can find a means of exporting that technology which is environmentally benign to the third world, then, as the noble and gallant Lord said in introducing his report, disaster faces us as the developing world seeks to advance its standard of living.
I can sum up the subject of this report by saying that the scientific opinions quoted in it establish that global mean temperatures will increase some 3 degrees Celsius by the year 2030. That is a higher temperature than has been experienced since humanity arrived on the earth. It is some three times greater an increase in world temperature than has occurred in civilised history. This is all to take place within the next 40 years—within the lifetime of the majority of the people already on the planet. If the scientists cannot find a way out of this mess, it appears that science and technology may not and cannot be the only way or even the best way of solving the problem.
Our responsibility, if we are to face the menace of the greenhouse effect, is to use every means we have to shift the perception of the industrialised world which has contributed 90 per cent. of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions. We have to reform our profligate, energy wasteful, short-sighted lifestyle. And we have to help that half of the world which is underdeveloped not to follow our bad example but to find its better standard of living by means that do not damage the environment.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the report on the greenhouse effect so ably introduced by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, is one of the most balanced that has appeared in recent times amid a welter of documentation on this subject. It enables us to form a clear view of the state of knowledge on the subject, the gaps that need to be filled and action that should be taken pending the achievement of certainty in this somewhat uncertain science.
The fact seems to be that since about 1850, as the report says in paragraph 2.14, there has been a degree of global warming and that it has appeared to accelerate in recent years, in the 1970s and 1980s. If current trends continue, there could be further acceleration. The year 2030 has been taken as the year by which a fairly marked increase could take place.
It seems clear that the warming is associated with the emission of what are known as greenhouse gases and that on the basis of present trends those emissions could continue to increase not only in the developed countries but, what is more important, in the less developed countries. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and the noble Lord, Lord

239
Clitheroe, were absolutely right to emphasise that the first step is to obtain a better knowledge of the subject and to collect more data. But, as the most reverend Primate indicated, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, we cannot wait for that evidence to be provided before action is taken.
For that reason at the Toronto Conference in 1988 the objective of cutting these emissions by some 20 per cent. by the year 2005 was promulgated. The report that we have before us throws some doubt on whether that can be achieved. That is the aspect that I should like to deal with. If we consider what is happening in Britain today, on the basis of estimates of future energy trends both in the sector of consumption of energy for heating and for transport, the impression emerges that, regrettably, far from emissions being cut by 20 per cent. they are likely to increase by about that figure. In fact, the latest estimates suggest that the increase may be as much as 30 per cent. Therefore, on what has been described as the business as usual scenario, this country, which is aiming to be in the van of how to deal with the problem, in the practical measures —unless there are major changes introduced —may be doing precisely the opposite of what was recommended at Toronto in 1988.
So the first question that we must pose to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, who is to reply, is: what targets are there to be and when are the Government going to say that they should be achieved in order that we may get near what was proposed at Toronto, if we cannot achieve what was stated there? There are ways in which action can certainly be taken. As the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, indicated, there are many options open. The most effective option available, as all noble Lords who have spoken so far have indicated, is in the field of energy efficiency and conservation. Here is an area of action which, even if the estimates of what global warming can do to change the earth's climate turn out to be exaggerated, would be worth while of itself because it would lead to cost saving and a cleaner atmosphere.
I wish to deal particularly with three areas where I feel that we should now be taking much more energetic action than we are. I feel that there is here a new role for the Energy Efficiency Office. In this House we have many times drawn attention to our concern at the Government's reduction in the funding of this office. Even though no further reduction is contemplated, the level at which it is being funded at the moment is nowhere near enough to do the things that need to be done. There has to be some co-ordination and stimulus if we are to change the trend in these emissions and to bring about a more effective achievement in energy saving.
I wish to identify three sectors, though there are many others. The first concerns electricity generation and the use of electricity. Your Lordships recently had before you the report of the sub-committee that dealt with the efficient use of electricity. A number of recommendations were made. At the generating end there is no doubt that combined cycle gas can help to improve substantially the efficiency with which electricity is generated. I am glad to note that the coal industry, with which I
240
have had some association in the past, is experimenting vigorously with what is known as the "topping cycle" which will enable coal to achieve similar improvements when used for electricity generation.
Perhaps the most important and effective way of improving the efficiency with which energy is generated is by developing combined heat and power. We spoke about this at great length during the passage of the Electricity Bill. It is much to my regret that the Government were not prepared to take a more positive attitude towards this solution. We know from the experience in Scandinavia and most other European countries where this method has been developed that the efficient conversion of primary energy in power stations into energy that is acutally usable can be virtually doubled by that system. It is the most effective way of increasing energy efficiency and diminishing the greenhouse effect because all we are talking about here is the conveyance of hot water in pipes underground. It has no deleterious effect whatsoever on the atmosphere.
There is also the question of the efficient use of electricity. In our report on this subject we strongly recommended that there should be clearer information than is at present available on the relative efficiency of electrical applicances and that some system of labelling, which I believe is under consideration by the European Commission, should be widely adopted. So there is much to be done in the electricity sector.
Equally, as regards the building sector, we have as a country lagged far behind the rest of Europe in the way in which we build our houses. We have fallen behind in insulation and in the efficient use of heating in houses. In Scandinavia and on the Continent of Europe they do these things (and have done them) far better over the years. Even now, with the new building standards about to be brought into operation, they do not bring about the kinds of improvements we should have.
That is proved by what has been done at Milton Keynes. Many of your Lordships may be aware of what is happening there. Far greater levels of energy efficiency in house construction are being achieved at very little extra cost, leading to savings of 40 per cent. in energy through greater attention being paid to the problem and to the setting of higher standards than those which are likely to be promulgated by the Government in, I believe, April this year. So there is a great deal to be done in the home which we have not yet begun to tackle. What we can do in the home can be done in all other buildings.
The third area to which I wish to refer is transport. In this area we are still very wasteful of energy. There are undoubtedly two ways in which energy can be saved in this regard without in any way diminishing the means of transport. One way which involves the motor vehicle is to make their engines more efficient. Experiments have been carried out which have almost doubled the efficiency of the most efficient vehicles on the road. I am talking about 50 to 100 miles per gallon as being attainable. These are developments which need to be very seriously encouraged.

241
An even better means of improving the situation is through improved methods of public transport because it enables more people to be carried in the same vehicle. Therefore in terms of persons per mile, public transport is much more effective than any other way of reducing emissions in the transport sector.
I have just indicated three ways in which I believe that by effective action co-ordinated by a government agency, which I feel should be the Energy Efficiency Office, we can counteract the trend in greenhouse gas emissions. It is not just a question of improving on what we are doing but of doing the opposite of what we are doing. That will counteract the trend which is taking place at the moment. In order to do that we need to spend more on research into these matters and more on information and promotional campaigns, and we should work out financial incentives. We should also devise taxes which direct people in the right way.
I believe that in these areas we have a great opportunity not only of improving developments in our own country, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said in reiterating what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, said before him, of setting an example to others and particularly to those in the less developed countries who will be moving up to a higher level of industrialisation and growth in the years ahead.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, I apologise to the House, and especially to the Minister, for the fact that a long-standing speaking engagement later this evening means that I must leave the debate before it has ended. I hope that I shall be forgiven. On behalf of the Select Committee I also wish to thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, for leading our study of the greenhouse effect. He did so with characteristic persistence and charm.
I had the privilege of accompanying him to Washington, where we compared our findings with those of a number of American studies. Therefore, it is of no surprise to me that his impressive report has already been greeted with acclaim by Dr. Bromley who advises the president of the United States on scientific matters. The visit was extremely valuable because in almost every respect it confirmed our analysis.
However, we gained two new perspectives. The first can best be described by the American expression, "no regrets policies". The second perspective concerns the need for independent evidence. I wish to say a few words about both and also to touch briefly on the subject of scientific manpower.
As the noble and gallant Lord explained in his masterly introduction of this complex subject, we know that the greenhouse effect is real. Without it the earth would be uninhabitably cold. The question is whether man's activities are enhancing it to the detriment of the environment and over what timescale. The temperature changes that have been observed are small; about half a degree celsius this
242
century, perhaps speeding up a little during the past decade. However, they accord reasonably with what can be calculated in the present uncertain state of knowledge. If the uncertain calculations are extended to the future they suggest a continuing and worrying rise in temperature of a few degrees over a few decades. It is enough to entail climatic changes with environmental consequences, some of which could be severe.
All that is quite different from saying that we can be sure about the matter. Although I am not as sceptical as the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, I still say, "Do not be misled". Only one thing is sure; it is that the so-called "experts", who claim that the unusual weather conditions during the past few years provide overwhelming evidence of enhanced climate change, will be the first to forget about the greenhouse effect if a few normal years should follow.
Of course we must refine the calculations and extend the range of observations on which they are based. But given that any real rise in average global temperature will be small compared with the larger annual fluctuations which we commonly associate with good and bad weather for summer or winter holidays according to preference, it will take several decades before we can confirm the magnitude of the effect and, therefore, be clear about the scale of the consequences.
Why can we not simply wait until we have more certain knowledge? I make no apology for repeating what has already been said in the debate. The answer is that the effect cannot simply be put into reverse whenever we like. The thermal inertia of the oceans spreads all changes, desired and otherwise, over many decades. It is like a giant oil tanker which does not appreciably change course until long after the rudder has been applied. In those circumstances, good helmsmen behave with foresight.
The particular foresight recommended by the Americans is to adopt policies for limiting the consequences of an enhanced greenhouse effect. They would also be desirable policies for other reasons, even if it turned out that the climate change was not so serious after all. Chief among those is energy conservation, which is desirable for many reasons well known to your Lordships. It also reduces the rate at which greenhouse gases are pumped into the atmosphere. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has given that subject particular emphasis tonight, and I support what he has said about combined heat and power. Another measure is to stop the burning of tropical forests which are the home of so much desirable biological diversity. I was deeply impressed by the words of the most reverend Primate.
That is what the Americans mean by "no regrets policies". Just because we are not quite sure how far ahead are the rocks does not mean that we should not apply the rudder in good time. We should try to choose a new direction that is in any event to our advantage. Of course, we must carry out more research so that we can be more certain. But we do not have to wait for the results of that research before taking our earliest counter-measures. In that respect I happily agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby.

243
Like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, I am doubtful about whether market forces operating on fuel prices can alone provide effective mechanisms for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Perhaps by taxation or otherwise, it is the Government's intention to add to the price of fuel a substantial sum representing the damage done to the environment. But it is a long-term, and uncertain damage not readily allowed for within a normal price mechanism. I hope that the Minister will enlighten the House about that matter, and I shall read his comments tomorrow in Hansard.
My second point concerns the need for independent evidence. The Americans were insistent that the British effort was vital. In certain fields, especially the modelling of climate for which the Meteorological Office is renowned, in addition to its intrinsic merit our work provides the only really independent check on their efforts.
I understand very well and share the desire to eliminate waste in public expenditure. I understand, but do not entirely share, the common belief that duplication is waste. Of course, mere slavish repetition may well be little more than wasteful, unless it produces different results, when one knows that someone has made a mistake. After all, it may be important to know that. Usually, however, one does not slavishly repeat. One uses a different technique, or different data, or one tests against a different hypothesis. Let us call that "constructive repetition" as distinct from mere slavish repetition. Science proceeds by constructive repetition, learning from its apparent inconsistencies. Every experiment must be constructively repeated; every calculation must be constructively reworked. Otherwise we should never know what to believe and we should be in a state of continual "cold fusion", so to speak.
Therefore, the British effort in these fields is as important to the Americans as it is to us. To be sure, we collaborate with them and with other countries. But it is, as it must be if it is to be useful, a collaboration between partners working independently. In particular, we must pursue our modelling programme at the Meteorological Office on a grand scale and in the universities (where new ideas can most readily be explored) on a smaller scale.
We also need to contribute to the acquisition of data at sea-level and by satellite. That is expensive but essential. For example, in order to have the grid size one must collect data at eight times as may points. However, in order to predict regional variations in climate change, it would be necessary to reduce the grid size substantially. Therefore, I am also pleased to hear that the Government have committed themselves in principle to the European satellite programme, ERS2.
However, it is not merely a matter of increasing the volume of data. As I have already explained, it is important in science that there should always be independent sources of data and independent analysis. I only hope that the European and American programmes will never be too closely co-ordinated.
244
However, there are other relevant fields where there could be a more substantial British effort and where the essential skills are at present underused. We possess considerable expertise in the physical chemistry of gaseous reactions which could readily be applied to study the fate of the greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, will say something about that because that is his field.
We possess the skills required to understand how biological processes taking place in the ocean surface both affect and are affected by the heat and carbon balance between atmosphere and ocean. Both require basic research on a relatively small scale of the kind commonly supported by research councils at universities. I hope that the research councils may be persuaded to adjust their priorities in favour of such work, because it is needed in order to remove some of the present uncertainties in the modelling of the climate.
I doubt whether those two examples require much increase in scientific manpower or cost; more a temporary redirection of effort.
To increase the magnitude of our modelling effort there will undoubtedly be new demands on scientific manpower for the modelling itself and also for data acquisition. There will be the cost of new equipment, super computers, ships and satellites. To evaluate the consequences of climate change will require, for coastline erosion, the attention of engineering geology, and for agriculture the tools of molecular genetics and so on.
All told, that amounts to perhaps another £200 million over 10 years. However, as the noble and gallant Lord said in his opening speech, these costs are modest compared with those which we are trying to learn how, first, to predict and, secondly, to avoid.
8.32 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble and gallant Lord not only for the report which his committee has presented but also for the very clear way in which he introduced it to the House. It was completed very soon after the report of the House of Commons Energy Select Committee on the same subject and is extremely complimentary to that report.
Our Select Committee says quite early in its report that it hopes that, while the report cannot be a definitive account of the phenomenon of global warming, it will at least serve as an intelligible and timely account of the state of scientific understanding. I believe that the report is certainly that. It is a clear-headed and intelligent survey of the state of scientific knowledge.
A variety of organisations have produced reports on the greenhouse effect. But, however thoughtful and well argued those were, there has often been a slight suspicion that there have been some ulterior motives. For example, it can be no surprise that of the 25 memoranda printed in the report, the two which were most sceptical about the greenhouse effect were those from British Coal and British Gas. On the other hand, it is likely that some of the groups have exaggerated the probability of the more dire of

245
the possible outcomes out of their commendable desire to try to galvanise public opinion.
The committee's report is therefore particularly valuable as an objective and impartial survey and a summary of our present day knowledge. Being a science and technology Select Committee, it is very scientific and technological. Much of the report concentrates on the state of knowledge and the need for more research. I am no expert on the science of the issue but the conclusions and recommendations of the committee in that area appear to me to be sound and I could personally accept them all.
Rather than entering into the detailed scientific argument, I believe it better to concentrate on what action is necessary by individuals, companies and governments to help to combat the greenhouse effect and to help to cope with the global warming which will occur in the next 50 years. Other noble Lords have referred to the comment in the report that action by way of insurance or "no regrets" policies are therefore needed in advance of obtaining clear proof that a global warming due to enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations is occurring.
We cannot afford to wait until the seas flood and our crops begin to fail before we take any action. It was once said that it is better to be an optimist than a pessimist because it makes no difference to the final outcome but the optimist has a better time of it. That may be so. However, I believe on this issue that we must act as pessimists in designing policies in this area because, while preparing for the worst may be expensive, not preparing for it may be disastrous to us and to the world.
In the short term, the emphasis must be on energy efficiency. Research published last July by the Association for the Conservation of Energy and the Worldwide Fund for Nature shows how the United Kingdom, mainly by installing existing energy efficiency technology, could cut its CO2 emissions by 23 per cent. by the year 2005. At the same time, it could enjoy an annual gross domestic product growth of something like 2·5 per cent.
The energy committee's report from another place criticised the Government's lack of investment in energy efficiency and especially the Department of Energy's spending on promotion of energy efficiency. Indeed, it pointed out that the Energy Efficiency Office has been cut drastically and that further cuts are planned. There seems to be a misplaced complacency that consumers are now well aware of the case for energy efficiency.
This Govenment should not need to be reminded that markets only function properly if consumers have information about the range of choices available to them. They should increase their grants to the Energy Efficiency Office and promote efficiency through a mixture of regulations, penalties and incentives.
In the medium or long term greenhouse gas emissions will be best reduced by applying principles set out in the recent report by Professor David Pearce and his colleagues entitled Blueprint For a Green Economy. The publicity which the Secretary of State for the Environment gave to that report
246
was commendable. The report proposes the use of economic techniques to take into account the value of our environment and the costs of pollution by imposing social taxes where they prove to be necessary. That is a radical approach but I believe that that is right. It is hoped that many of its principles will be turned into policies when the Government's new environment White Paper is published in the autumn.
We shall need a broad all-party consensus if we are to be able to take the tough decisions which will soon face us. I believe that the hardest of those will be the need to impose a carbon tax. Such a tax to help to cut back on the carbon dioxide emissions by increasing the cost of coal, gas and petrol is undoubtedly necessary. However, I believe that it will also be unwelcome. Hastily to impose such a "green tax" in Britain alone would simply export jobs to our competitors. Environmental policy is one area where it is absolutely clear that international co-operation is necessary and EC attempts to come up with a workable carbon tax should be supported by our Government.
Even if there were simultaneous cuts in other taxes, the imposition of a carbon tax would be highly inflationary in the short term and reports last week suggest that the Chancellor has ruled out a "green budget" in March for that reason. He is right to do so. It is important that we achieve low and falling inflation before "green taxes" are able to be introduced. A green tax which only encouraged double digit inflation and increased unemployment would be very unpopular and would not last very long.
We live in a time of unprecedented concern about our environment. Last year's 14 per cent. support for the Green Party in the European elections was a warning to all politicians of whatever party that they ignore these issues at their peril. The opinion polls now very clearly show that the public rate the damage to the environment as the greatest threat now facing mankind. Nevertheless, there are also signs that people are not yet willing to pay the price for change. For example, an independent NOP survey last year showed that most people thought it was a bad idea to make it more expensive to travel by road and air and cheaper to travel by rail and water.
Saving the environment may mean that we shall be poorer and everyone will have to accept that, but we need to work now to build a cross-party consensus on a programme to tackle the global warming so that governments will be able to act even when harsh measures prove necessary. I believe that the report of our Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble and gallant Lord is the foundation stone for that process.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, for the admirable way he started this debate. I was not a member of the sub-committee of which he was chairman and I found the report most helpful. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, took part in the debate in the House on 20th December which

247
was initiated by me. He was good enough to give an outline then of the report's conclusions. That was a day's debate on the wider subject of the need for international co-operation to protect the world's environment. Within that subject global warming is a significant factor.
I suggest there are two general main conclusions in the sub-committee's report which should guide policies in the future. First, there is no certainty yet about the causes and effects which contribute to global warming. Urgent research, with nations working together, is still needed. Secondly, certain courses of action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases can nonetheless be adopted soon. It is clear that such action can be beneficial, though much will remain unknown until more research is completed; and that action is urgent, as the noble and gallant Lord told us in his opening speech.
It seems that our Government have the same view about an international convention as that expressed in the sub-committee's report. The expression, "an international framework agreement" is the same kind of convention as that suggested, probably to be negotiated through the United Nations. This kind of agreement can be built upon by protocols as knowledge increases and remedies emerge. Almost any action will mean higher costs for producers and users of energy. These may, at some time in the future, be regarded as sacrifices in some respects.
Developing countries —for example, China and India —are preparing for industrialisation on a major scale which would release large volumes of greenhouse gases. The developed countries are already sounding alarm bells and preparing for action. I am glad that the United Kingdom is playing a leading part in this. I remind your Lordships of the Prime Minister's speech at the United Nations in New York in November and the increased contribution to the United Nations Environment Programme; I understand the United Kingdom is now the second largest contributor in the world. In addition, there is British support for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
However, we must take with us the less developed countries if there is to be effective action on a worldwide basis. Developing countries could justifiably complain that the Western world has already industrialised, with pollution from which we are now suffering, yet it is now making that process more expensive and inconvenient for them.
I strongly support the following more detailed recommendations in the report. First, I support the recommendation on energy efficiency and especially research into improved efficiency in generation from fossil fuels. Secondly, there are the conservation aspects of building design. I shall not pursue the point because noble Lords will have heard me at Question Time on that subject. Thirdly, I believe that nuclear energy will be needed. How much and when are decisions which will have to be taken carefully by this country in the future. I, along with the Select Committee, regret that the Government have for the moment abandoned research into the fast reactor technology. Having myself observed the work at Dounreay over the past 20 years, I hope that
248
the Government will look at the recommendation in the report that the future of the prototype fast reactor be reconsidered. It seems a pity to lose the results of valuable work at a time when other forms of generation are becoming less favoured because they pollute the atmosphere.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, today we are discussing a huge subject. I should like to begin by adding my congratulations to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, not only for the masterly way in which he introduced the subject tonight but also for the way he handled our committee. I should add that much credit must go to our clerk and our technical advisers for their considerable help in this complex field. If a member of the sub-committee may be permitted to say so, I believe the end product of our report is fully up to the high standard set by previous Select Committee reports.
There is a tendency to think of the greenhouse gas problem, of controlling global warming, as a problem or the fault of the industrialised world. While that may be true of the past, or until today, it is the future which matters. In the future it is more a problem of the developing world. It is the problem of the developing world and our relationship with it on which I wish to concentate this evening.
A few figures indicate the size of the problem. Since the late 1970s the industrialised world CO2 emissions have been growing at the rate of 0·7 per cent. per annum. On the other hand, the developing world's emissions have been growing at 5 per cent. per annum, which is no less than seven times as fast; this in a decade when economic growth in the developing world has been relatively poor.
It is true that the developing world starts from a much lower base —about one-fifth that of the industrialised world —but, as I have said, the growth is seven times as fast. On present trends in 30 years it will be the biggest generator of CO2 emissions. Indeed, the likelihood is that it will occur in less the 30 years because in all probability the difference in the rates of emission —industrialised versus developing —will be greater than they have been in the past decade.
There are simple and exceedingly powerful reasons for this state of affairs and they are reasons which hitherto we have regarded as benign. The process of development, of moving towards industrialisation and higher standards of living, is pre-eminently powered by the use of energy: energy for domestic light, heat, transport, for factories, and so on. Energy is indeed the engine of economic growth. Invariably —and this point has not yet been made —with higher standards of living to begin with go rising populations. It is generally agreed that the best we can hope for is that the world population will stabilise at double today's figure some time towards the end of the next century. There will be another 5 billion people. Each of them will be consuming energy. There is nothing that we can do about that situation.
If the industrialised world managed to halve CO2 emissions, economic development in the third world

249
is likely to double their per capita emissions by the year 2030. With the population growth added to that figure, the global total of CO2 emissions would be two or two and half times what it is today. That is the size of the problem.
The largest single component of that problem is China. On the latest figures, more up to date than those contained in the report, China matches the whole of the European Community in the size of its emissions. It has plans for hugely increasing its output of coal to no less than 1,400 million tonnes per year by the year 2000.
It is neither right in equity nor is it a practical solution to attempt to shut off the economic development of China or of any other third world country. In some way we must accommodate their needs. In a very true sense this is a global problem because every tonne of emission by China is as much a problem for us as it is for them. In that sense, any attempt to deal with that problem must be founded on international agreement, as is stated in the report. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, proposed in Nairobi last May that the right approach is along the lines of a framework convention to which scientific protocols can be attached as issues arise and as science justifies.
We must avoid at all costs approaches based on simple percentage reductions across the board. That route would lead only to failure. The considerations of individual countries are so different and the economic considerations and differences are so great that such an approach would be utterly unrealistic and ultimately counterproductive. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is not in his place because I believe that that is the answer to the point that he was making about not following a single global reduction. There should be individual volunteer targets but not a single percentage target. That would be a failure, and there would be tears.
More importantly, it detracts attention from the more serious issue. How do we accommodate the energy needs of the third world countries in their justifiable pursuit of economic development? This circle can only be squared, if squared it can be (for it is a hugely difficult task) by assisting those countries in avoiding the inefficiencies normally associated with the early steps of industrialisation.
There are two issues involved. The first is to ensure the proper economic pricing of primary fuels and of electricity in third world countries. A great deal of hard and difficult work needs to be done in that area. The second issue concerns the application of technology and other measures in order to achieve energy conservation. That subject has been touched on by almost every speaker this evening. It is a well recognised point and common ground in the industrialised world.
There is even greater potential for conservation in the third world. China is enormously profligate in its use of fuel. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, stated that we were profligate in our use of fuel, but in relation to GDP, China uses eight times as much fuel per unit of GDP as the European Community countries. I say that in no way as a criticism; it is a natural state of affairs for a young industrialising country. It is a point that we must tackle.
250
Time does not permit me to go into the pros and cons of alternative measures that we should seek to promote or alternatively discourage, either unilaterally in the United Kingdom or internationally. I should like to make two brief observations. Firstly, given the uncertainty for at least a decade or two of scientific answers to the questions of how much warming there is going to be and when, and given the importance of energy to economic development, the right strategy is a no regrets policy where one works with the grain of economic forces rather than against it. Hence the emphasis which has emerged so frequently this evening on energy conservation. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, drew attention to the illuminating discussion of the entire issue in a recent Chatham House report by Dr. Michael Grubb.
I should have liked to mention the work being carried out by the Natural Environment Research Council, a body on which I sit. It is very exciting work and it is an important science in its own right. I should have liked to talk about the problems of energy conservation and to take issue with a number of noble Lords on that matter. I should like to have mentioned the rain forests and the work of the Royal Geographical Society in Amazonia concerning rain forest regeneration and alternative uses of rain forests. All of those matters are important but I have confined my remarks to the problem of third world economic development. I have done so because I believe that unless we tackle and solve that problem, then, irrespective of what we manage to do at home, we are merely whistling in the wind.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I should like to join previous speakers in expressing appreciation to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, for initiating this debate and for the lucid manner in which he introduced it. This is a very important subject which ranges far wider than the United Kingdom. It concerns what is taking place in the world today.
Although the noble and gallant Lord tended to calm the situation by saying that there was no dangerous problem at present, it is true to say, whichever way one looks at the problem, that unless we begin to take action now, time is not on our side. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that that should be done on an international basis. Some kind of agreement must be reached, bearing in mind the imblance in the developed world as against the undeveloped world.
I shall restrict my remarks to the question of the power resources of the world, how they are being used and what is the foreseeable future. Without doubt the biggest culprits so far identified in regard to the greenhouse effect and CO2 emissions are the international power stations which burn fossil fuels. The figures are variable but the mean works out at about 40 per cent. of all the emissions that are damaging to us on an international or universal basis.
I should like to put forward a balanced view in regard to future sources of power. I fully support the

251
view taken by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, concerning district heating and combined power. That type of energy is absolutely desirable, but it is not a complete answer. It is a worthwhile bonus that we ought to look into. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, drew attention to the fact that we must be careful in our deliberations not to lobby for particular sectors. The noble Baroness referred to the fact that the coal lobby and the gas lobby are in some respects less than frank in what they state.
I should like to quote some figures in order to indicate the dimension of the problem as I see it. That is the only facet of the problem that I intend to mention. According to the Energy Statistics Yearbook, total world energy production in 1986 was roughly 2·5 billion kilowatts. Of that total, nuclear power production amounted to 11·16 per cent. and energy produced from fossil fuel to 65·6 per cent. In 1985 the world population was 4,837,500,000. That number was predicted to grow to 5·067 billion by 1988; to 5·69 billion by 1995; to 6·07 billion by the year 2000; and to 6·5 billion by the year 2005. Those figures give an idea of how much energy will be needed in the future. As previous speakers in the debate have forcefully pointed out, those population explosions are mostly taking place in areas which cannot produce enough energy.
At the same time predictions were made of world energy trends. It was predicted that by 1995 3,558 gigawatts would be required, of which the nuclear element would be 383 gigawatts. By the year 2000 it was predicted that 4,285 gigawatts would be required, of which the nuclear element would be 467 gigawatts. By the year 2005 it was predicted that 4,040 gigawatts would be required, of which the nuclear element would be 569 gigawatts. The CEGB did not have a percentage figure for the contribution of fossil fuels to CO2 emissions. However, it provided figures on the global contribution to CO2 emissions. In 1983, the total contribution through fossil fuel burning was 5,054 million tonnes; in 1984 it was 5,330 million tonnes; and in 1985 it was 5,300 million tonnes. Those are dramatic figures. No one has been able accurately to calculate what that increase will mean. The United Kingdom, with only 1 per cent. of the world's population, produces 3 per cent. of the world's CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. Western Europe as a whole produces some 15 per cent. and therefore has a primary responsibility for what is taking place. It is calculated that the main source of CO2 emissions in the United Kingdom is electricity generation and that coal accounts for roughly 45 per cent. of CO2 emissions.
I should like to try to stop this apparent attack by the coal lobby on nuclear energy. If we are to provide the world with energy we need various sources. An increase in nuclear energy production would protect finite resources such as fossil fuels. Coal and oil can be used for more profitable purposes than burning in power stations. Paragraph 13.44 of the Select Committee report says:
"Nuclear power is the only proven adequate alternative to fossil fuel energy generation. Abandonment of research into the fast reactor technology is short sighted. Under section 3 of the
252
Electricity Act the Secretary of State should exercise his duty to promote R & D into new techniques for generation and reconsider the future of the Dounreay PFR".
I spoke recently in a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, has not been able to stay. He likes to debunk the view that nuclear generation is the only available alternative. Wind power and barrage power may make a contribution but in a global sense an increase in nuclear generation is the only answer. One noble Lord spoke about the tremendous programme of power station building in China. I am told that the Chinese will not only dramatically increase their production of power from coal but that they plan to increase dramatically their output of power from nuclear generation.
Great Britain is surprisingly well down the international league in terms of nuclear energy generation. At present the French produce more than 60 per cent. of their power by nuclear generation. The Germans produce more energy in this way than we do. We should play our part in promoting a power that does not pollute the atmosphere. The materials used in the production of nuclear power can be recycled, and so in this way we can protect finite resources. It may well be that those finite resources have not yet been adequately assessed. They may be difficult to recover. However, if one then starts to talk in terms of bringing that sort of coal and oil into being, the argument between nuclear power and coal —and I think that this has damaged the country —may well be blown sky high. I say that because it is only a few years ago that oil was so cheap that we were still making locos and burning coal. It was only because oil was so cheap at that time that the steam locomotive went out of operation in some areas of the world. Of course oil has become so dear these days that the situation may well be reversed. Indeed, it is a difficult situation.
In my view we should now be looking at future energy needs. In 1986 world primary energy conservation consumption was the equivalent of 7·5 billion tonnes; that is, 1·5 tonnes oil equivalent (toe) per capita. This figure ranged from 7 toe per capita in North America and Scandinavia down to 0.6 in China and 10 kilograms for a peasant in Ethiopia. In the report I have with me, it says that the major cause of an increasing world energy demand is not demographic growth but the movement from an agricultural economy to an industrial one demonstrated by countries such as Korea. In that country the population has grown by 80 per cent. since 1955, while energy consumption has increased more than 10 times to supply its new shipbuilding and car manufacturing plants. The report asks why —and indications of this were given by a previous speaker —should China, for example, not attempt to follow the same model?
I think that I have taken my share of the time available to us this evening. However, I hope that this debate in your Lordships' House will reach more people than just those in this country. In my view, what we are talking about is an international responsibility. The source of energy which is accepted in the Select Committee's report as being the major answer to providing the increased power

253
which will be needed in future is nuclear power. This may need to be done by way of an international convention.
I am saddened that because of privatisation our own particular energy programme appears to have been damaged. I hope that the Minister on the Front Bench will be able to bring to the attention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy the need to try to shorten what I think is almost a four-year moratorium on what is to happen. We must ensure that research and development in the nuclear industry continue. If we do not do so, we shall fall far behind, and perhaps never catch up.
Finally, I should like again to express my thanks to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, for initiating this debate on a subject which I think is of tremendous importance to the world at large.
9.12 p.m.
Lord Sherfield: My Lords, as a member of the sub-committee which drew up the report, I fully support its conclusions and recommendations. Nonetheless, I venture to inflict a few brief personal comments on the evidence as it strikes a non-scientist. It was one of the most complicated and intricate inquiries that the Select Committee has undertaken, because of the myriad of uncertainties involved. Further, the hypothetical effect of one uncertainty on the others serves to multiply their total and makes judgment extremely difficult.
What do we know for certain? First, we know that the global mean temperature is higher now than it was in 1850 and that there has been an acceleration in warming during the past two decades. We also know what are the gases that warm the earth and that their concentration is increasing, and why. It is also certain that the problem is a global one and can therefore only be effectively tackled by international action; but, further, we know that the scientifically advanced countries should give a strong lead.
In one particular case we know about the damage caused by the emission of chlorofluorocarbons and so international action is already in hand to deal with the problem, although care will have to be taken to ensure that the substitutes being developed do not have deleterious effects in other directions. After that, judgments are necessarily subjective and to some extent opinions involve an element of belief. There is virtual unanimity in scientific circles on the effects which increased concentrations should, in theory, have over time; but there is no certainty about the length of that time. Global warming to date is within the historic variations in world climate and could be due to natural causes. There is among the professionals a range of views —from scepticism to a belief that the greenhouse effect is already in operation.
It was the public statement by Dr. Hansen, an eminent American expert, before a congressional committee, that the greenhouse effect was already with us, four of the past 10 years having been the warmest on record, which struck home to the American public during one of their hottest summers.
254
It seems as though many recent climatic phenomena have at least been consistent with an intensification of the greenhouse effect. But there is no proof of it. As a cynic has observed, it needs only a succession of two or three cold summers to cool the American public's concern.
As the committee recommends, it is of the first importance that the uncertainties should be reduced as soon as possible. The preferred and possibly the only approach is through climate models. There are differences of view about the value of such models. Their imperfections are set out at length in our report, and the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, emphasised some of them. For example, their resolution is low; the information fed into them about the oceans, about clouds and about polar conditions is limited; and they cannot differentiate between regions. Even the introduction of a single new factor —for example, ice crystals in clouds —can have a radical effect upon predictions. The Royal Society told us that the introduction of the ice crystals reduced the computer temperature analysis of a doubling of carbon dioxide from 5·2 degrees to 2·6 degrees. However, when all is said, the models are the best instrument that we have and rather than denigrate them every effort should be made to improve the information fed into them and the modelling methods themselves.
It is on those grounds that the committee recommends substantial United Kingdom participation in a number of international experiments. I welcome the fact that the Government have made a commitment to participate in the satellite ERS2 and to make funds available to re-equip the research ship "Discovery" to take a full part in the world ocean circulation experiment, as well as setting up enhanced data collection and computer facilities under the Meteorological Office. I hope that the Government will also accept the other recommendations made by the committee for these purposes.
I turn for a moment to the possible impact of global warming. The wide publicity given to the greenhouse effect has led to some fairly horrendous predictions. I think that these should be taken calmly. I believe that global warming is a real threat, but like so many natural processes it may take much longer to come about than is predicted. That has been true of predictions made in the past; for example, about energy resources. Indeed, excluding catastrophes such as major earthquakes, the process may well be slow enough to enable vegetation, crops, animals, and indeed humans, to adapt to it to a great extent. However that may be, I strongly support the so-called no regrets policies to which so many noble Lords have referred.
In view of my past, I cannot refrain from referring to the Committee's recommendations on nuclear power. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby —I am sorry that he is not in his place —spoke at length about it. His views are well known to your Lordships. He will not be surprised to learn that I differ from him. I follow much more closely the views of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. I make only one comment on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. It relates to what lie called the

255
contradiction between the two recommendations of the report: 13.43 and 13.44. I suggest that these two recommendations are not contradictory but complementary.
Since the report was published, the Government have announced the suspension of the nuclear power programme. In sharp contradiction to the successful fuel cycle programme, this has been dogged almost from the beginning by bad judgment, sharp changes of course, poor industrial organisation and often bad management. When I look back at this sad story, it almost brings tears to my eyes. The Government have taken a decision to suspend the construction of the three remaining pressurised water reactors in the programme. But that does not mean that research and development on the PWR system should not be continued. Indeed, this is surely essential if a viable option is to be kept open, particularly as the PWRs in the programme were not of the most advanced design.
The Government repeatedly declare that it is essential to keep the nuclear option open. What better opportunity is there for doing this than by fully supporting the European fast reactor programme and keeping the Dounreay prototype fast reactor —an invaluable, indeed a unique test-bed for fuel research —going for longer than at present planned? Incidentally, this would cost a minute fraction of the capital costs forgone by the abandonment of the PWR programme. Together with the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Dean of Beswick, I beg the Government to reconsider the recommendations on the matter which the Select Committee has now reiterated with even greater emphasis.
An important element in the no regrets policy is forestry practice and research. Here the picture on the United Kingdom side is brighter. On the national scene, the Forestry Commission told us that existing forestry policy is very positive but that the research needed to ensure the continued adjustment of our forests to the potentially damaging effects of global warming has not begun in earnest.
The committee concluded that we know very little about how our native and acclimatised species would be likely to thrive or suffer as a result of climatic change. We considered —and so recommend —that research on this aspect should be pressed ahead. Because of the long rotation of forest trees, especially hardwoods, this is an area where adaptation to global warming could be most difficult. Both research and planting programmes ought to take the risk of global warming into account.
On the international front, the Forestry Commission, the Forestry Research Co-ordinating Committee and the Overseas Development Administration are making an excellent contribution to the tropical forest programme, drawing upon the fund of expertise on tropical forests which happily still exists in this country. They support the Food and Agriculture Organisation's tropical forest action programme and are also operating through bilateral action, notably with Brazil, and through non-governmental organisations and charities. The
256
most reverend Primate made some interesting comments on this subject. He said that we should go further. I am sure the Government will consider carefully what he said. But noble Lords had a good tour through the rain forests at Question Time last week so I need say no more tonight except that the committee commends the ODA work and hopes that it will be sustained.
Finally, there is one field outside the terms of reference of the committee in which vigorous action would have a greater impact on the onset of the greenhouse effect than any other. I am referring to population control. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, also referred to this. It is obvious that the increase in the world population at a rate recently mentioned in the press, if I remember correctly, of 25 million births a week will put an intolerable strain on natural resources and will cause a major increase in the emission of greenhouse gases. That is a subject for another debate, but I can think of no stronger candidate for a no regrets policy.
While the Minister will not be expected this evening to give more than a general response to the report, I hope he will be able to confirm the steps which the Government are already taking and to indicate that further measures of the kind recommended by the committee are in contemplation. Your Lordships will await with interest the Government's detailed reply to the committee's recommendations.
6 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, for introducing this report, which, even if it does not provide all the answers, certainly provides most of the questions that we should be asking ourselves at this time on this truly global problem whose ramifications are ones which we cannot avoid or dodge for any great length of time. If the greenhouse effect is to have a deleterious effect on us, it will already have started to do so. We shall not be able to do anything about those effects for some considerable time due to the problem of the oceans' slow rate of warm-up and slow rate of cooling.
Much of what I wanted to say today has already been covered by other speakers far more eloquently and in far greater depth than I could achieve. However, there is a point which constantly drives itself home to me and that is that those of us in Western Europe, and particularly in North America, must accept a great deal of responsibility for the greenhouse problem for the simple reason that we were the first to go through the process of industrialisation. We started the whole thing. We are also currently the richest sectors in the world. We have the most strongly developed scientific backgrounds, and thus we must take full responsibility for trying to find solutions to the greenhouse problem and for initiating action on those solutions.
The report calls for greater research and a greater level of questioning on the part of the Western world than any other part of the world for the simple reason that the West is the only sector which can at present carry out such questioning. We have effectively

257
created a situation where those in the developing world must follow us if they are to keep up and be able to provide a reasonable standard of living for their own populations. As has already been pointed out, not least by the previous speaker, world population is growing at a phenomenal rate. Historically speaking, population growth rate is only reduced by higher standards of living. However, if higher standards of living can only be attained through the process of industrialisation, a vicious spiral is created which has unpleasant environmental effects completely outside the geenhouse effect. However, the greenhouse problem will be the first to reach us in the West and will probably have the most total effect on us.
We thus find ourselves in a situation where we must export what knowledge we have. That knowledge must be increased so that we can offer, to China and India for example —two countries where major problems appear on the horizon —the capacity to jump over the technological hurdles that we had to overcome. They cannot afford, and we cannot afford to allow them, to go through the process of having to clean up their environment, of making sure that their rivers no longer smell, as we did with the Thames in the 19th century, or that rolling smog no longer descends on them, as we had to clean our own air in the 1950s. We cannot afford that because the effects on us would be far too severe. The cost of not taking action will be far too great in the long term.
If the estimate of the rise in the level of the oceans is only a few centimetres out, what might that cost us in terms of additional expenditure on coastal defences? It is a hideous prospect. Our own economy would be affected detrimentally if we had to divert so much of our national resources to keep our shorelines intact. Other Western nations such as Holland will face that problem on an even greater scale.
We must share our knowledge with the developing world. We cannot expect them to buy it because that will only increase their need to create wealth. It will mean that they have to go faster down the road to cheap industrialisation, which is environmentally so extremely damaging.
An example of the technology which is already available to us, and an item which people in the developing world would be keen to acquire in their households, is the domestic refrigerator. In Europe the average domestic refrigerator uses 270 kilowatts of electricity per annum. An EC proposal would reduce that to 170 kilowatts per annum. The best available machines use only 80 kilowatts per annum. Those are figures which I have quoted before, in the debate which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, initiated on 20th December. They provide an excellent example of the type of knowledge which we can give to the developing world to enable countries to produce goods that will require less energy so that they will be able to slow the spiral of increased energy demand and increased industrialisation.
The provision of technology such as the heat exchange system and more efficient power
258
production which my noble friend Lord Ezra described could be combined with that approach, providing both more efficient electrical goods and more efficient energy production. One could thus begin to reverse the present cycle.
That approach calls for a greater exchange of information. It places a heavy onus on the Government to provide the conditions which will enable present research to continue and further research to be undertaken. The Government must make sure that funding is available for the necessary projects and also that there is a career structure within the larger research establishments: it is extremely unlikely that this will be funded by industry. It is worth remembering that industry exists to succeed in business and not to carry out such environmental and technical research. The two are not necessarily incompatible but nor do they necessarily go hand in glove. The Government must make sure that the research takes place, that people are encouraged to enter the industry and to stay there and that the projects will provide the necessary knowledge.
Once we have achieved that, we can begin to solve our own problems. By solving them we shall solve the problems of the developing countries which will ultimately become our problems.
9.34 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I sympathise very much with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, but I have a slight reservation; namely, that in doing what I think he suggests, it is important for us not to appear too bossy and know-all. Otherwise, we shall be resented and the proposals will not work. The noble Lord will forgive me if I do not pursue that line. I have another that I want to follow. We must all be most grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and his sub-committee for producing such a thorough and carefully argued report on a subject which is of profound importance to the future of all peoples.
I have the good fortune to have two scientist friends who have taken a special interest in what is called the greenhouse problem. The first is Dr. Bruce Denness who has developed a computer model which I believe answers many of the more important questions that the report in paragraphs 13.4 and 13.14 considers still to be outstanding, notwithstanding the sceptical view about forecasting of my noble friend Lord Clitheroe. My second friend is Mr. Peter Grantham, who has devised a means of sufficiently economically reflecting the sun's rays by very large but lightweight reflectors in space and in deserts.
Most unfortunately, I did not become aware of the work of the sub-committee last year until much too late for it to be arranged for either of my friends to give evidence to it. I apologise most deeply to the committee and to noble Lords for failing to spot what is probably the most important study that any of your Lordships' Select Committees has ever undertaken.
I trust that noble Lords will allow me to outline briefly the contributions of my two friends. As

259
members of the sub-committee will be aware because he has sent copies to them, Dr. Denness has prepared a paper commenting in detail on the report. I propose to send a copy of it to my noble friend the Minister who will wind up the debate. I have copies available for any other noble Lords who might care for one.
With his model, Dr. Denness forecast in 1980 that 1989 would be the second hottest year on record and 1988 would be the hottest. In fact, he got the two years the wrong way round, but that is not bad as conventional modelling could not do it at all in 1980 or even now. His model has been the subject of many learned papers by Dr. Denness in the past decade, as shown in appendix 2 to his comment on the Select Committee's report. It may be of interest to noble Lords even at this late hour to hear briefly how he came to construct it.
Bruce Denness was a professor at Newcastle University in the 1970s when he was asked by the companies putting oil rigs into the North Sea whether he could tell them, about two years ahead, precisely when the weather would be suitable for positioning and securing the rigs. Accurate knowledge of that kind could lead to much saving of the considerable expense involved. That remarkable request, to which he undertook to respond —no regular climatologist at the time, I suspect, would have contemplated such an undertaking—led to Dr. Denness taking advantage of a concurrent ocean bed drilling programme being conducted by Americans near the Azores. That programme produced cores which enabled Dr. Denness to analyse world weather patterns going back 4 billion years. A further study of that kind might perhaps always be worth while, but I wonder whether the Select Committee's recommendation in paragraph 13.26 is necessary.
From his analysis, Bruce Denness has been able to develop a computer model which shows that there is a natural cyclical —certainly not random —temperature movement over centuries which can be analysed in detail down to years and even months, as was necessary for the oil rig exercise.
The greenhouse effect has always existed but has noticeably increased during the past 50 years or so. However, the natural temperature movement is of much greater significance in determining whether, for example, there will in the next 30 years be a marked rise in the worldwide water level and whether the tendency towards desert conditions in North America will continue and, if so, for how long. Dr. Denness believes that he can answer those sorts of questions with reasonable accuracy and, so far as he can tell, his is the only current model for which such a claim can be made. Perhaps that can be the independent source of information which, in his important speech, the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, told us was so necessary.
I have introduced Dr. Denness to Ministers in the Department of Energy and the Department of the Environment. He has met scientists from those departments and the Meteorological Office as well as other government sponsored bodies. His views are widely respected by leading climatologists in the United States and in NATO, which held a conference
260
on the subject in April 1989. However, there seems to be a strong flavour of "not invented here" among UK scientists with whom my friend has discussed his model. Certainly he deserves a better hearing than he is getting and if only I had not been so dilatory I suspect that he would have received it from your Lordships' Select Committee.
I turn now to the suggestions of Mr. Peter Grantham, whom I first met as a senior Admiralty scientist in the 1950s and 1960s. His contribution is somewhat different. He believes that if—I emphasise the word "if"—the global mean temperature change is going to be of the order shown in Figure 26 on page 43 of Volume II of the Select Committee's report, it will be necessary for us in the next 10 years to take temporary physical protective measures while the world as a whole gets round to reducing significantly the underlying causes of the greenhouse effect.
A way of doing that, which is well within the state of the art for such projects and within the order of cost of many very large industrial projects, is to place large reflectors in space and in desert areas on earth. I sent Peter Grantham's preliminary ideas on the subject to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne in the DTI last autumn. That led to a very helpful reply from my honourable friend Mr. Eric Forth, the responsible Minister in that department, for whom Mr. Grantham is preparing a fuller paper on his proposals.
It certainly seems to me that temporary protective measures may turn out to be necessary because the action to contain the greenhouse gases looks as if it will be too slow. Thus it is worth evaluating now a possible means of providing such protective measures. In space terms the project is relatively simple and could be effected reasonably quickly if shown to be necessary. In the meantime I hope that Dr. Denness's model is also soon validated by others so that action on what it reveals with regard to climate changes can be taken with confidence by governments.
To conclude, I believe that this is probably the most important subject confronting the nations of the world today. The Select Committee is to be congratulated on producing a most valuable report. However, action to deal with the problems should not be long delayed.
9.44 p.m.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I suspect that by now noble Lords are beginning to feel that the number of words spoken and written about the so-called greenhouse effect is likely soon to exceed the number of molecules of man-made greenhouse gases which are added daily to our atmosphere. Such torrents of verbiage can be self-defeating. I shall therefore be brief. I shall not bother your Lordships with physics and chemistry, despite the invitation from the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, for me to indulge in my own subject. Instead, I want to emphasise just a few salient points.
First, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, made abundantly clear in his very lucid speech, it has long been known that, without the presence of

261
the earth's own greenhouse gases, the temperature of our earth would be 30 degrees Centigrade lower than it now is. We should not survive. Secondly, what we mean therefore when we talk about the greenhouse effect is in fact the enhancement of this natural phenomenon in consequence of man's economic activities which add to the normal concentration of greenhouse gases other gases which have similar properties and which will therefore tend to raise the temperature of the earth.
What we need to know is how much a given increment of man-made greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere will cause the temperature of the earth to rise; what climatic changes that rise will induce and what impacts those changes will have on our own activities. As the report of the committee describes, we have to admit that, while remarkable progress has been and is still being made by scientists in understanding the effects, and while we can be sure of the direction of the changes I have mentioned, nevertheless as yet we cannot be adequately precise as to the magnitude of the temperature rise nor the time-scale of this warming process. I mean by that the fraction of a degree per decade that the temperature will rise. Nor can we be more sure of what that temperature rise will do to the climate in land areas as small as the United Kingdom, though we can be reasonably sure that such small temperature changes may nevertheless produce perturbations in local weather which could have dramatic effects on the inhabitants.
What we also know is that the impacts could be major in, say, 50 to 100 years' time and that resources will have to be mobilised in good time if we are adequately to mitigate any adverse impacts. Two other considerations should be mentioned here. The first is that the oceans and the land masses which are warmed are so large that they constitute a great reservoir of heat. Therefore, contrary to what many would like to believe, even if the concentrations of greenhouse gases could be miraculously restored to their natural values in an instant, the temperature would not recover simultaneously. Its fall would be very slow.
This statement must not be misconstrued and used as an argument for fatalistic acceptance of what is thought to be inevitable. Nor must it inhibit us from taking what remedial action we can take now without too great a dislocation of the economy. The no regrets policy which has been referred to by so many and which is described in the report must be implemented as rapidly as possible. Prominent in that are energy efficiency measures, the emission of gases being reduced and likewise the promotion of afforestation, which was mentioned by the most reverend Primate.
At this point I should mention the second consideration. There are people (and I have met several) who argue that we humans are very clever and that increased knowledge will enable us to find some quick scientific trick by which we could maintain economic activities without adding to the greenhouse gas concentration. They believe this because they want to believe it; and they buttress their arguments with examples of man's past
262
conquests of plague and pestilence by such things as the magic bullets of the chemists.
These examples are of course wholly irrelevant to the issue in front of your Lordships today. Some others who are more thoughtful point with some understanding to the so-called hydrogen economy as the solution. By this they mean the complete avoidance of the use of fossil fuels as an energy source. Instead water, of which in these past few days no one would deny that we have an abundance, is to be broken up by electricity or sunlight into hydrogen and oxygen. Those two gases are then recombined by combustion either in power stations to generate electricity or in smaller units for motive power and driving machinery.
That proposal has an obvious appeal but the snags are clear and severe. In the first place, the direct sensitised decomposition by sunlight of water into hydrogen and oxygen alone is today nothing more than a gleam in the eye of some scientists. Secondly, to generate enough electricity from the sun's rays to electrolyse water —for example, by the use of photo-voltaic cells —poses many scientific and technical problems as yet unsolved.
So what, in those circumstances, should the United Kingdom do? Your committee is quite clear about that. We should do all that is reasonably practicable to diminish our contribution to greenhouse gases and by example, precept and discussion encourage other nations to take what actions they can in that direction. Many of the problems have already been referred to by other noble Lords and many aspects of them have been discussed in detail. In particular, as I have mentioned, the no regrets policies should be implemented now.
At the same time, one must recognise the fact that that policy can be soundly based only if the present imprecision and uncertainties in the predictions of the temperature rise, climate changes and probable impacts are markedly reduced. Therefore, the United Kingdom in concert with other nations —because it is a transnational problem —must engage in the necessary scientific and technological research and development in a purposeful way and on a time-scale which is not leisurely but has some urgency.
Fortunately, the United Kingdom is reasonably well placed to make a very significant contribution to that international work, though I am bound to say that in some areas it is limited by a lack of suitably trained and equipped scientific manpower. In the report we have listed particular scientific areas to which attention should be directed. Those have already been referred to by many speakers.
The committee has seen the scope and the need for government laboratories and universities to be involved in this work. Much of it is of an interdisciplinary or multi-disciplinary character and therefore some co-ordination will be necessary. But it must not be of the overarching, heavy-handed, top-down nature which stifles initiative and originality. Instead, it should be of a more flexible kind. It is there that the committee sees a role and important function which could be performed by the advisory board for the research councils.

263
One could go on. I was tempted by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, to expatiate on the physical chemistry of the upper atmosphere. However, the hour is late and I shall content myself by saying that some of us who served on the committee under the able chairmanship of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, earnestly hope that your Lordships will find convincing its opinions, conclusions and recommendations, with which I wholly concur. I hope that your Lordships will give them your strong support and thus enhance their chance of acceptance by the Government.
9.53 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, as a non-scientist it is a privilege to take part in a debate based on the brilliant report produced by distinguished noble Lords under the guidance of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. I do not wish to take any advantage of my amateur status but I must be at odds with the conclusions of the report on the grounds of what was intimated by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton. I am a fatalist and I believe that whatever we may try to do it will not be enough to prevent some of the physical processes that we have discussed this evening.
I felt that when I first raised the matter of greenhouse gases in an Unstarred Question on 30th November 1978. During the course of the debate it became quite clear that the greenhouse effect had not then been identified as a problem by Her Majesty's Government or by noble Lords in Opposition; therefore, it was not a matter for serious concern, despite the fact that figures available at that time were slightly higher than those produced in the noble and gallant Lord's report.
Therefore, while I felt that the second part of my Question which I wanted to ask at that time could not be relevant, I shall ask it now. It is, is the increase in global warming attributable mainly to industrial man's activities over the past century and therefore to some extent controllable or is it an inevitable part of the natural history of our planet over which mankind has little or no control one way or another?
The Sixth Report of the Select Commitee on Science and Technology seems to imply that the former might be the case. Therefore, the conclusions indicate that by a global change in energy production methods and energy consumption habits, coupled with other social changes involving the production and use of CFCs, it is thought, and has been thought by many noble Lords who have spoken, that industrial man might avoid some of the more drastic consequences created by a global warming due to the increase in greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere.
It is for that purpose that the noble and gallant Lord's report and organisations like the Association for the Conservation of Energy recommend energy policies which might require some of the following direction by governments all over the world: global restrictions on the use of fossil fuels for electricity generation, which has been mentioned; development of new types of refrigerators and air conditioners; a major reduction in the populations of flatulent cattle,
264
as mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord; ban logging and slash and burn activities and firewood extraction of the rain forests; create emission controls on motor cars and industrial plants and so on. I fully support all those no regret policies. I suggest, and I am sure that noble Lords would agree, that those are part of good planetary housekeeping. However, will they not prove politically impossible to apply to developing nations, the reason being, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and others have mentioned, the unacceptable costs and psychology involved in such policies?
For example, such restrictions could seriously affect industrial development, in particular, in countries like China which have easy access to immense coal reserves. How can they be expected to institute energy generation policies which will deny their own citizens the use of their own coal in order to benefit environmentally those who appear industrially better off and who live far beyond the confines of the Middle Kingdom?
It was announced today by the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate —and I wonder whether he even felt guilty for a moment —that 13·3 billion is to be spent by the Government on a road-building programme. I am sure that he does not feel guilty about that being announced on the day on which we are having this debate in the noble Lord's House. There will be an increase in motor car production and use, and that is forecast not only in this country but in all other European countries. That will not stop because of this debate or because of the suggestions made about the increase in greenhouse gases. I cannot see how those programmes can be changed or altered in the industrial world. Therefore I think it is rather unlikely that they will be changed in the non-industrial world. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply can confirm that the Government will go ahead with their programmes despite what has been said.
What are those non-industrial countries to do which might hope to share the industrial world's affluence in motor transport but which are at the moment reliant on animal power? Should they make the transition and add yet more ozone in the troposphere, or should they stay where they are without the internal combustion engine? The report says that that is also undesirable because of the extra volume of harmful methane created by cattle production in agricultural economies.
What hope of improvement for the future therefore can, say, an Indian politician offer his Hindu constituents in the villages of the sub-continent? How can he say that there must be a reduction in the cow and buffalo population while at the same time saying that there can be no replacement with tractors or motor transport? Likewise, how can an East African politician deliver the same message to his Masai constituents, and so on? Surely the only way that such policies can become politically and financially acceptable is if the planetary scientists can prove conclusively that all mankind's activities have an adverse effect on the global warming process. A collective solution must therefore be made available, perhaps through the World Bank or some other international financial

265
organisation, which can suit the rich and poor alike for the same costs. Such a solution may be a very long way off and politically and financially unattainable.
That brings me to my main question. Is the greenhouse effect a natural process with man's influence only acting on the periphery? In Volume I of the Sixth Report, page 18, figure 4, we find the famous graph which originally identified the greenhouse effect. This was achieved with a measurement at Mauna Loa in Hawaii of all natural and industrial carbon dioxide emissions around the world since 1958. It is a formidable looking graph, with an obvious and upward curve which has no real variations except those which reflect winter and summer growth of vegetation in the northern hemisphere.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord who will reply to the debate one or two questions relating to what I consider to be a very important graph. What percentage of these emissions are man-made and therefore controllable? Is it 2 per cent, or 20 per cent? I have been given both figures by NERC. Is the higher percentage identifiable in the graph? If so, why was there not a dip in the upward curve of emissions during the oil crisis of the 1970s and the subsequent cutbacks in energy production and consumption throughout the industrial world at that time? Could this graph of CO2 emissions reflect an atmospheric process which is primarily a natural rather than an industrial one?
I feel that the report of the noble and gallant Lord does not go into this last question either because it is so obvious and I should know about it —we should all know about it —or it was somehow avoided. It is a pity because it is, to me at any rate, of fundamental importance for the future to know what the answer to this question may be. Perhaps the noble Lord, in his wind-up speech, can put my mind at rest by giving a definitive answer to a non-scientist.
Let us suppose for a moment —as one of the later speakers in the debate I believe we are allowed to suppose at this time of night but I will not take long —that this graph reflects a natural phenomenon of global warming: what has taken place in the distant past, is taking place now and will return again at some time in the future. The Sixth Report reminds us that this is indeed the pattern, so what would it mean? It would surely mean that completely different policies and entirely new philosophies have to be evolved as a matter of some urgency once it is recognised that the phenomenon of global warming is a natural one whose direction is largely unaffected by mankind's agricultural or
266
industrial activities. The changing climate might even mark the end of the present inter-glacial season as the procession of equinoxes moves from Pisces into the age of Aquarius, the water carrier.
In referring to the water carrier, there is another paragraph in the report which mentions that the increase in precipitation in Antarctica could lead to an increase in the weight of Antarctica —I used weight in the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy —of between 400 billion and 600 billion tonnes of water a year. Where does that water come from? There will be a yearly transfer of atmospheric water of hundreds of billions of tonnes perhaps from the centre and the mid-latitudes of the globe to one of the top latitudes of the globe.
I do not know what that means. Will the rotation of the planet slow down? Will there be a variation in polar wander? Could it be a trigger for the start of a new ice age, which is, I understand, somewhat overdue? The consequences of a natural greenhouse effect would become inevitable regardless of the efforts that industrial man might make to postpone them. According to the Sixth Report, no one knows whether or not that is the case. I am sure that it is a very unlikely situation, but it must be wrong totally to exclude such a scenario until scientific evidence proves otherwise. Homo sapiens over the past million years has had to adapt to dramatic changes in his environment. Many have failed to survive those changes because of the violence of nature or because they were unprepared for them.
The gales which have recently swept down trees and telephone and power lines throughout Northern Europe give an indication of what nature can do to bring an industrial and urban society to a standstill, apart from causing tragic loss of life. The disruption to transport, power and communications that was experienced in the South of England last week as a result of bad weather makes one wonder whether, in a period of major climatic change, urban man would become as extinct as the dinosaur.
In conclusion I should like to see the threat of a natural greenhouse effect cause homo sapiens to implement a global policy of de-urbanisation as a survival policy for the future. I believe that that would be a common sense and realistic objective, even assuming that fears about climatic change prove to be unfounded. That route is preferable, in my view, to suggesting rather arrogantly, as the Sixth Report is inclined to do on occasions, that mankind might be able to alter the course of nature by symbolically switching its refrigerator from an "on" to an "off" position.
10.6 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the committee for producing such an excellent report, covering almost any subject that the intelligent layman wants to know about in a generally understandable way.
We can now say that unless the scientists have left out some quite unforeseen factor in their analysis, we know that we are facing a serious situation which could become a world disaster in the not very distant future. A moderate estimate that has been mentioned is a rise in the sea level of a third of a metre by the year 2030. There is a climatic change that goes with that rise in sea level. It is thought by some that once under way the greenhouse effect will increase more and more rapidly. For that and other reasons it may be quite impossible to reverse or halt the effect if we do not do something about it now.
The need to appreciate and take action provides a situation which, to a greater or lesser degree, is quite common. So often a government will not face a problem until it becomes extreme, largely because the public will not accept drastic measures until the need for them is obvious. One could draw the conclusion that although one might turn to some expensive kind of generation of electricity, how much extra would the public be prepared to pay in order to avoid CO2? The same kind of situation could apply to the problem of traffic in London. The Government will not do anything drastic without public support, and the public will not give its support until the situation is drastic.
It is easy for the Government to say that a reduction in Britain's carbon dioxide emissions would only produce a small effect in the total emissions worldwide, and that therefore they may await European and international agreement before doing anything useful. What has happened to the concept of leadership if that is the view that the Government take? Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are approximately 10,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide. However, they are present in very small amounts. Nevertheless, they produce an effective 14 per cent. towards global warming. They are better known for their effect on the ozone layer. I am sure that in a subsequent debate we shall be told that government establishments are major users of CFCs for refrigeration and air conditioning. Already there is at least one commercial firm concerned with the recovery or neutralisation of CFCs from air conditioning and refrigeration plants. Instead of actively encouraging this, the Government do precisely nothing to help.
I turn now to CO2 emissions, which represent 50 per cent. of the problem. The first and obvious course is to reduce the need for power stations by improving energy efficiency and conservation. Almost every noble Lord has made that point. Friends of the Earth claims that a 65 per cent. reduction is possible, but even at the very least, 25 per cent. is easily achievable on commercial terms with a three-year or four-year pay-back time. But what do we find? The Government have cut the Energy Efficiency Organisation's modest budget,
268
largely on its publicity. Yet this is just where more money is needed.
People are apt to think that energy savings are simply a matter of better insulation of houses and buildings. Yes, they are very important, and it would be useful if the Government could provide a scheme for better insulation of existing housing stock. Some 20 per cent. of our energy is spent in heating needs. But there are many other areas where substantial savings are possible; the latest types of fluorescent lighting, for example, can give large savings on existing installation in industry, and in the domestic field a greater use of now quite attractive fluorescent fittings would help, as would more efficient domestic appliances. Television sets, refrigerators and freezers are now so widespread and in such constant use that even a small increase in their efficiency could be important. In the industrial field there are great opportunities in energy-saving processes, even, for example, in the efficiency of electric motors. The list is endless.
Much is always said about alternative renewable energy sources. I support all efforts in this direction, but they simply do not, and will not in the foreseeable future, provide more than a small proportion of our total energy requirement. Geothermal power, at the very best, if successful, would give a tiny fraction. The same applies to waste incineration and gas from waste tips, though the latter does mean that methane, one of the greenhouse gases, can be collected and put to good use.
I am afraid that wave energy in bulk still looks vastly expensive, and I am reminded that to provide all the energy we need would call for roughly 900 miles of wave generators. Wind power could provide a useful contribution, perhaps up to 10 per cent. of our needs, if the public will accept what they would see on the tops of our hills. Putting wind generators out to sea might be more acceptable but the cost of electricity so generated is likely to be too expensive.
There are two other quite important ways of producing non-polluting generation. They are the Severn barrage and combined heat and power. The Severn barrage could provide about 6 per cent. of our energy needs, as could large combined heat and power city schemes. For either of these to become practical some degree of Government support is needed. However, that is not yet forthcoming to any effective degree.
From the point of view of reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we must try to lessen our energy requirements and promote, so far as we can, the non-polluting alternative sources of energy, even if each one of them were to contribute only a small proportion of the whole.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, in congratulating my noble and gallant friend and his colleagues on a most admirable report delivered in the most elegant fashion to your Lordships' House, I feel that I have very little to add beyond a certain amount of personal perspective on the subject with which I have been engaged for many years.

269
I take first paragraph 1.3 of the report. It reads:
"to the extent that man failed to adapt, the social and political consequences could be very serious indeed".
Man will fail to adapt; he always does until it is too late. Then it will be a story of too little, too late. I turn next to paragraph 2.1 of the report. It says:
"Climate fluctuates on many timescales and the warming so far measured could, as far as the observational evidence is concerned, be part of a fluctuation which could in time change to cooling".
Some 40 years ago when Sir Vivian Fuchs was crossing the Antarctic, I was interesting myself in the thickness of the ice over the North Pole. I had two figures upon which to work: one was the measurement made by Nansen in 1900; the other was the measurement made by the Soviet expedition in 1936. In extrapolating these forward, it was obvious that the Polar ice cap was going to break up quite soon —that is, if the figures were to be relied upon. I could not gain access to Nansen's sampling techniques or to those of the Soviet expedition. Therefore, I was unable to work out what the standard deviation was statistically. Of course, an average quoted without its measure of dispersion is the most misleading thing from which one can try to learn.
However, just as I was warming to my subject, the clerk of the weather started cooling down and the trend that I thought I had detected —which was a genuine warming up, since the glaciers were retreating all over Switzerland —reversed itself and the earth started cooling down again. But in the past 20 years it has started warming up again. Such fluctuations do occur. In terms of communication engineering, we are operating in an area with a very unfavourable signal to noise ratio.
Let us allow the years to pass. In 1970 I was appointed chairman of one of the three meteorological committees in this country; namely, the Meteorological Committee. The others were the Meteorological Research Committee and the Meteorological Committee for Scotland. Of course meteorology has no frontiers and all three committees were eventually consolidated under my chairmanship.
When I retired in 1982 I could not help looking backwards to see whether my efforts had been in any way beneficial. When I took on the job we had six weather ships working in the Atlantic; when I retired we had only one. Why was that? It was because America did not think that, as part of the partnership, it was receiving value for money and since the contributions were in proportion to the gross national product, it meant that when the Americans retired from the project five-sixths of it disappeared.
I learnt then, as I had learnt before and have learnt since, that we shall never understand the oceans until we understand the atmosphere. And we shall never understand the atmosphere until we understand the oceans. Further, understanding the oceans is much more expensive than understanding the atmosphere because people live at meteorological stations on land, but they do not live on ships in
270
mid-Atlantic. Therefore, maintaining them and the ships, and alternating the crews so that they have some sort of home life, is a very expensive business. As I said, our cousins across the duckpond did not think that they were getting value for money.
I turn again to the report and read that Britain accounts for only 3 per cent. of the global warming. Therefore, whether we do something or whether we can do nothing, the net result at the end of the road will be exactly the same. There is only one thing we can do: it is the only way that you can ever influence other people. We must set them a good example.
We can set the world a good example by doing something in terms of money from which we may not get an immediate return. If our lead is not followed, there is nothing we can do: only Brazilians can stop other Brazilians burning down their forests. If they persist in their ways, what are we to do? Are we going to apply economic sanctions? That will not have much effect: they are already bankrupt.
Various remarks have been made about nuclear power. I entirely endorse the conclusions contained in paragraph 13.44 which tilt a lance against the Government's decision to threaten Dounreay with shut-down in the not-too-distant future. We should never shut down Dounreay until the European fast reactor has started up. There should be a period of overlap between the two because, apart from the Superfenix in France, which is not an entirely satisfactory power station, or has not been so far, Dounreay is the major materials testing laboratory for the whole of the nuclear power of the future. One cannot do accelerated ageing tests. One has to go on with one's components, submitting them to irradiation, finding out how density changes, how cracks develop and so on. One cannot accelerate that process. We should therefore keep Dounreay going until the European fast reactor project, in which we are partners, gets going.
It can never be sufficiently emphasised that we have in stock, at no pounds sterling in the books, 400 years' supply of power at our present rate of consumption, represented by depleted uranium and plutonium, all waiting until the engineering of the fast reactor is complete, and the atomic energy situation can become part of a balanced system which goes forward into an indefinite future.
There is one further matter to which I wish to refer; that is, the rise in sea level to which the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, referred. When I last talked to Sir John Mason, the former director general of the Meteorological Office while I was its chairman, about this matter, I said, 'What do you really think it is?" He said, "Over the next 50 years or so, perhaps 25 centimetres". Twenty-five centimetres is 10 inches. It is a little less than one-third of a metre, which the noble Viscount quoted. The greater part of Holland operates below sea level. The Dutch learnt the trick of beating back the tides with dykes. Most of our early dykes were built by the equivalent of civil engineers from Holland who were engaged on the task.
I have one last thing to say about our relative ignorance of climatic processes. We do not know the

271
origins of the little ice age which stretched from Elizabethan to Jacobean times. All knowledge of our past climate is purely anecdotal —"The Thames froze this year", "A storm wrecks 30 ships", "Primroses blossomed in February", and so on. That is all we know. Why? Because Galileo invented the first thermometer operating with alcohol in 1612. He was followed by Fahrenheit in 1714 and then by Celsius in 1742. Celsius invented the 100 degree thermometer which we called centigrade because the ice point is nought and the boiling point of water is one. Divided into 100 equal divisions it was known as Celsius all over Europe and centigrade only in Britain. We changed the nomenclature from centigrade to Celsius quite recently. Until those dates which I have quoted, we had no knowledge of temperatures because we had no thermometers. The history was all anecdotal; nevertheless, there was a little ice age from Elizabethan to Jacobean times, and no one knows why.
10.24 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and his committee on the most excellent report that they have produced. It has caused us to listen to an outstanding debate. I am only sad that a debate of this importance and interest to a majority of the population of this country should have taken place so late in the evening. With all due respect to the Scottish lawyers, I should have preferred it to be the first business.
I am not a scientist or an expert but I have read the report with great care. There is no doubt that the evidence given to the committee points to the fact that due to increased greenhouse gases the global temperature is higher now than in 1850. That is not wholly due to the greenhouse gases, because none of the witnesses was able to say for certain that the rise in temperature could be attributed largely to an increase in those gases. However one must assume, and the report assumes, that the gases are responsible for some of the rise in temperature. I am therefore wholly in agreement with the policy advocated that we must adopt an insurance or a "no regrets" policy to deal with the problem of emissions so far as possible.
It has also been pointed out that international co-operation involving an enormous amount of research is necessary to achieve a real impact. One hopes that the United Kingdom Government will commit themselves to international co-operation and also devote substantial amounts of money to research, both nationally and internationally.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, referred to the Third World and the problems that we in the developed countries will have in order to convince these people that they should not go the way that we have gone and create economic riches for themselves at the risk of further spoiling the environment for us all. It will be extremely difficult to put this across.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that the best way is to do it by example. Actions are
272
much more telling than words. There is an enormous amount that we ourselves can do in this country to reduce our input into the problem. First, nationally, as suggested by many noble Lords, the Government should provide funds to promote the efficient use of energy. My noble friend Lord Ezra referred to combined heat and power and better insulation for buildings, where the Government's input is essential. That is an action that we can take for which research I is no longer necessary. My noble friend Lord Ezra pointed out that these actions are taken in Scandinavian countries and have been proved to be efficient. That is something which we could do immediately to reduce the problem within our own nation and show by example that we are prepared to do the right thing.
Secondly, the aim for a reduction of carbon dioxide by the year 2005 in line with the Toronto target should be fulfilled. Much can be done in this country by way of a change in transport policy. That was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, and by my noble friend Lord Ezra. Instead of following what one would hope would be a policy of reduction, the Government plan £ 12 billion road programme which will cause an increase of 142 per cent. in car emissions by the year 2025. In this country emissions went up by just over 2·6 per cent. last year, and the car business subsidy is five times the rail subsidy, which is the lowest in Europe. Countries like France and Germany have a different road and rail policy and they have managed to reduce their CO2 emissions during the past year. Britain should return to a greater use of rail travel and produce a properly co-ordinated road/rail policy.
Many noble Lords have mentioned the need for increased research into renewable sources of power such as wave and tidal power. I am conscious that they will not solve the problem and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, pointed out that they could have an adverse environmental impact. However, we must balance their impact on the natural environment with the impact of the greenhouse gases. Much more research should be put into this effort in order to avoid what I believe is a wrong course of action, although it is recommended in the report, and that is a return to a greater increase in the use of nuclear power.
In order to achieve those objectives we must set an example by creating a coherent policy. To create a coherent policy, much closer co-operation between the Department of the Environment, the Department of Energy, the Department of Transport and the Ministry of Agriculture must be created. Those departments must work together to produce an environmental policy that is acceptable to this country.
The report suggests an annual review by Ministers to be chaired by the Prime Minister with an appropriate back-up from the Cabinet Office secretariat. An annual review is fine. I agree that it should take place and that its findings should be published, but what is more important than anything else is the political will in the Government to make the departments I have mentioned work together and jointly produce an acceptable policy.
10.32 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I join with all noble Lords who have taken part in this very interesting debate in congratulating the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and his noble friends for a first-class and extremely important report. When I have to deal with Select Committee reports I like to read the evidence first and then look to the report. However, I must confess that a large part of the evidence and a considerable part of the report defeated me. As a non-scientist I was not able to keep up with the language and I am afraid that in many ways I was not able to keep up with the thinking. Therefore, I was particularly grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, for the clarity of his exposition in introducing the report. The fact that the noble and gallant Lord was able to bring together the fundamental assumptions and conclusions of the report in the clear way that he did made life much easier for me.
I am not a scientist but I have been a user of statistics for most of my working life. I hope that I understand, if not the nature of the scientific evidence which is adduced for the conclusions of the report, something of the difference between the accumulation of observation and the statistical inferences which may be drawn from patently inadequate observations for scientific proof.
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, referred to his attempts to calculate the depth of the polar ice cap from two observations, one in 1900 and the other in 1936. To a statistician that means he had one degree of freedom, which will not take him very far. I think the evidence is rather better than that in this case, but certainly as we seek to place ourselves properly in the balance between complacency and panic, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, said, we are entitled to say that the fundamental evidence has been produced and is stated clearly in the evidence from the Meteorological Office.
The greenhouse effect is real and the increase in the number of greenhouse gases causes global warming. That may not have happened yet. It may not happen significantly in our lifetime. It may not happen dangerously in our children's lifetime. However, even if we do not know enough about the observations, and even if our modelling of the climate is not good enough for us fully to predict what will happen, nevertheless, we understand enough about the processes involved to be confident —confident in despair rather than in joy —that certain things will happen if present trends in the emission of greenhouse gases continue.
As Sherwood Rowland said (and he is quoted in the evidence of the Friends of the Earth to the committee):
"What's the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions, if in the end all we're willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?"
In the most valuable conclusion that this committee or any committee reaches, the committee says that we cannot wait for scientific proof; we have to take action now. That action must not be experimental but real action.
274
I am certainly not qualified to comment on the very important conclusions which the committee reaches on scientific policy and manpower. I was impressed by the evidence of the Natural Environment Research Council that the budgets available in this country for the research that is necessary are not adequate. I have no doubt that in replying the Minister will have some rabbits to produce out of the hat in that respect. I am sure that he will be able to introduce some exciting new initiative which will convince the House that the Government are taking the matter as seriously as they should. Therefore I shall pass over that very large and valuable part of the report which is concerned with the implications for scientific policy.
I want to talk about social policy. This is a problem for humanity and it will be social policies which will make the necessary difference. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, put the matter very effectively when she spoke of the need for co-ordination between the different government departments. She echoed the point that has been made over and over again in the course of the debate, about the need for energy conservation in particular. The Association for Energy Conservation calculates that the difference between continuing with existing policies and adopting what we know to be possible in terms of energy conservation is an increase of 20 per cent. in carbon dioxide emissions and a decrease of 20 per cent. in carbon dioxide emissions in a reasonable period of time.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and other noble Lords referred to the need for combined heat and power. A number of noble Lords, notably the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred to the paradox of energy prices. It is not so much that energy prices will go up, although, as the noble and gallant Lord said, that was not one of the attractions of privatisation that was debated when the Electricity Bill was discussed last year. Energy prices will go up irrationally and in a way which is not calculated to improve energy conservation. The balance between fossil fuels and other fuel sources is a matter which appears not to be a conscious element of government policy. The Government appear to be closing down the nuclear industry not because of any well-founded fears of the dangers of the industry, but because it is inconvenient to include the nuclear industry in the privatisation proposals.
On the issue of nuclear energy, fossil fuels and conservation, I find myself on the side of my noble friend Lord Dean and the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield. I do not think that there is a conflict between energy conservation policies and the continuation of the use of nuclear energy. They are complementary; they are not in contradiction. We must spend as much as we possibly can. We must be as efficient as we can in energy conservation, but it does not follow from that that we must rely for all time on fossil fuels. As my noble friend Lord Dean said, fossil fuels will run out anyway. The proven resources of all types of fossil fuels will certainly last less than a century and an alternative must be found.

275
Thus, in energy conservation, in terms of energy generation, there is a vast amount for government to do. There has been a great lack of coherence in the Government's policies ever since, at the outset of their term of office, they abolished the Energy Commission and the Commission on Energy and the Environment.
There is a great deal to be done in the field of transport. A number of noble Lords referred to that aspect. I was disappointed to find that the report referred to transport policy in terms of decisions to be made on the basis of full research. When it referred to improvement, it mentioned the use of catalytic converters which, as we know, increases the emission of nitrous oxide, rather than the much more fundamental issue to which the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred; namely, the balance between efficient road and rail and, above all, the balance between energy-efficient public transport and less energy-efficient private cars.
I am bound to repeat the question that has already been put to the Government: who is in charge? Is the Department of Transport, which is apparently prepared to accept a 142 per cent. increase in private cars by 2025, or the Department of the Environment in charge? Someone in government must be in charge. If the Department of Transport is in charge, God help us.
A number of noble Lords have spoken on the subject of energy conservation in buildings. It is clear that, if we were even to approach the conscious policies which have been adopted in Scandinavia for many years, the possibilities for improving energy conservation in the way in which our buildings are designed and constructed, and even in the way in which existing buildings might be converted, are great.
However, dwarfing all those issues are the international issues. The most reverend Primate referred very effectively to the problem of the rain forests. He made some imaginative suggestions about the way in which that problem might be tackled. It is certainly a problem. Evidence produced to the committee showed that a 1 per cent. decrease in the area of tropical rain forests was equivalent in damage to the atmosphere of a 3 per cent. increase in fossil fuel consumption. If the solutions of the most reverend Primate do not find favour with the Government, they will certainly have to come up with a meaningful alternative.
Dwarfing all those issues, as Sir John Mason of the Royal Society said in evidence to the committee, is the problem of conservation and of the increasing energy demands of the third world. In his evidence, Sir John said that, in comparison with the problems of increasing population, all the other issues which we are discussing are secondary issues. I should add that it is not just a matter of arithmetical increase in the population, but of what becomes a geometrical increase when one considers the increase in energy demand that it will make. Many noble Lords, notably the noble Lords, Lord Chorley and Lord Sherfield, referred to that problem. It so dwarfs our other considerations about energy consumption and
276
emission of greenhouse gases that we cannot think about our national issues without taking proper account of the international dimension.
The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, hoped that the Government's response to the committee's report would be positive. I am bound to say that if we look at the Government's response to the report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Energy, there is not much hope that that will be the case. Their response was what can only be politely described as minimalist. They do not even seem to have got their act together so far as the organisation of energy conservation is concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, quite rightly referred to the necessity to make the Energy Efficiency Office a lead agency in that respect. It is simply not enough to have what is glibly called the Department of the Environment as the lead agency unless someone gets together the act of all government departments, notably, as the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, said, transport, agriculture and the energy department itself. As many noble Lords have said, time is not on our side.
The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, put forward the familiar analogy of trying to turn a large tanker on the sea. Nothing will happen until a very long time after the change of direction has been planned. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, when he talked about the warming of the seas referred to the most extreme case of the time-lag which is found. The fact is that in the first instance the seas will take longer to warm up and, if and when anything is done about it, they will take very much longer to cool down. So the problem will be with us for a very long time indeed.
In terms of the ability of people in the world as a whole to react to what we know to be a worldwide and desperately serious problem, the omens are not good. It took at least 10 years to reach any real understanding of the implications of the 1979 world climate conference, and even now I am not convinced that we are taking adequately into consideration the need for us to participate actively in the United Nations climate convention.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that for our own part locally we must set a good example to other countires and developing nations. However, I think he would agree that that is not enough. We have to participate in international action along the lines that have been suggested, if we are to get anywhere.
I started by quoting a scientist about the need to do something instead of just making predictions. I finish with the words of a poet, Robert Graves, who said: Come, live in now and occupy it well. Prediction is no alternative to forethought.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord. Before he sits down perhaps he will confirm that, although he has the total right to his own opinion, it is the official policy of the Labour Party to phase out nuclear energy.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this matter is still the subject of a great deal of debate. The noble Lord is entitled to his opinion, as I am to mine.
10.47 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I must begin by paying tribute to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and the members of the sub-committee for producing such a comprehensive and well-researched report. Those of us who have seen the written and oral evidence that the committee received know that its final report represents the outcome of an enormous body of work. I am sorry that we have not yet been able to respond to the committee. The report covers a great deal of ground on which the department needs to consult widely. But I can assure the noble and gallant Lord and members of the committee that we shall respond very shortly. I can, however, say that we welcome the contribution that the report makes to the debate on this vital subject. We shall be responding positively.
Tonight has seen an extremely informative debate without rancour and with no politics. If I may say so, in a sense it is a great pleasure to look to the spokesman on the Benches opposite, who is a man whose career outside your Lordship's House has been one of interest in statistics. I probably wasted 20 years of my career in researching the internal combustion engine before coming to your Lordships' House. On all sides of the House there is an interest in the debate tonight. It has been a fascinating and, I hope, an informed debate.
We have heard today many informed and informative speeches from noble Lords. Their concern about the greenhouse effect is shared by the Government as it is undoubtedly shared by an increasing number of people in this country and throughout the world. Change to the world's climate is an issue which must concern every person, and one about which no one should remain ignorant.
It is a particularly important fact that we all play a part in educating young people to have a full appreciation of the importance of the environment, and I am delighted to say that copies of the Department of the Environment's recent publication, the booklet Global Climate Change, were sent to every secondary school and college.
In fact, such is the quality of this booklet and the timeliness of its production that the department has been somewhat overwhelmed with requests from schools for further copies. An additional 100,000 copies of the booklet are now being printed and sent out to schools across the country. This will complement the series of leaflets already produced by the Department called Environment in Trust which have proved informative and popular. There is a continuing need to maintain and enhance awareness and understanding of environmental issues and we shall continue to play our part in fulfilling this important objective.
The concern which we all feel for this issue is not always matched by understanding of the complex science involved in climate change. Perhaps I may take a moment of your Lordships' time to stress a few of the most important points. First —a fact not always recognised by the public—climate change and the greenhouse effect are inherently natural
278
phenomena. The history of the earth shows clearly that changes have occurred in the past and will inevitably occur again. These may be caused by small natural changes in our orbit around the sun and influenced by changes within the sun itself. Scientists have predicted that in perhaps 5,000 years the planet will enter another ice age which would not reach its furthest extent for another 10,000 or 20,000 years. In fact, the average rise or fall in the global temperature underlying these momentous changes may be very small. Equally natural is the greenhouse effect itself. Without this process which retains some of the sun's heat within the atmosphere of the earth the planet would be some 30 degrees cooler and so unable to sustain life.
It is central to the great complexity of the problem of the greenhouse effect that we as yet find it difficult to disentangle these natural changes from any additional man-made effects. What we know is that, certainly since the start of the industrial revolution, man's activities on the planet have led us to generate certain gases at an unprecedented rate and perhaps to severely deplete the means of reabsorbing them from the atmosphere.
Crucially, we have been producing and emitting carbon dioxide, CFCs, nitrous oxide and methane while at the same time depleting the earth's forests and releasing the carbon they otherwise lock up from the atmosphere. The clearest evidence for man's impact on the atmosphere is the well-established and inexorable rise in the concentration of these so-called greenhouse gases since the commencement of the industrial revolution.
Dealing with the problems of climate change is hampered at present by our poor understanding of many of the scientific questions associated with it. The need to improve this understanding was, I think, well recognised by the committee's report. Taking forward the research we need has become a major theme of the work of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, which was established jointly with the United Nations environment programme and the World Meteorological Organisation. This body, which is recognised as the principal focus for international work on climate change, has three working groups. The first is charged with drawing together an international consensus on the science of climate change. That is an undertaking almost unparalleled in its scope and complexity. The second will examine the possible impacts of climatic change, and the third will look at possible response strategies. If noble Lords prefer, they have set themselves three questions: what is happening? How will it affect us? And what might we do to avert or to adapt to the effects?
Not all noble Lords may be aware of the important role the United Kingdom is undertaking in chairing the IPCC's working group on the scientific assessment of climate change, a role that reflects the high regard in which our expertise in this field is held internationally. That is something which the Select Committee rightly highlighted in its report. However, we are also actively contributing to the work of all the IPCC's groups. The report of the IPCC will be completed in August and will be considered at

279
the second world climate conference in November this year.
Even before the IPCC's report we hope to have taken another significant step. In June we shall be hosting the second meeting of the parties to the Montreal Protocol. And we shall continue at that important meeting to press for the strengthening of the protocol to speed up the phasing out of CFCs. As well as their detrimental effect on the ozone layer, CFCs are, molecule for molecule, the most potent greenhouse gas, as has been pointed out by many noble Lords. Eliminating their production and consumption will be an essential part of our reponse to the greenhouse effect, as, without this vital action, the relative contribution of CFCs to the greenhouse effect would continue to rise in the future.
The success of the international agreements to control the production and consumption of CFCs is, in the Government's view, a model lesson for the way forward on climate change and the greenhouse effect. We have on many occasions emphasised our support for an international framework convention on climate change. That has been endorsed in many international meetings; for example, the Commonwealth Conference and the Conference of Environment Ministers in the Netherlands last November; and its importance was reiterated in the Prime Minister's speech at the United Nations. We firmly believe that concerted international action is an essential part of an effective response to climate change. Within the IPCC the UK is playing an important role, together with Canada and Malta, in co-ordinating the first attempts to reach a consensus on the elements which a framework convention should contain.
We have also recognised that we need to play our part in assisting developing countries to deal with climate change through technical and financial assistance, as many noble Lords pointed out. We have already doubled our contribution to the United Nations Environment Programme, and substantially increased our support for projects to help conserve the world's tropical forests. The Overseas Development Administration's programme in this field is built on a wealth of experience and expertise on the ground, and projects are always pursued in co-operation with the host country. In this regard, the Memorandum of Agreement on environmental co-operation which we have signed with the Brazilian Government will, I hope, set an important precedent.
The attention focused on the greenhouse effect has I think brought into better definition the issues surrounding nuclear power. I believe that it will increasingly question the views in the policies of the opponents of nuclear energy. It is hardly credible to suggest that nuclear power can have little or no contribution to make to our need for clean forms of energy. Yet, in advocating a reduction in the contribution which nuclear power makes, its opponents suggest that it is both the most polluting and the most expensive form of energy.
It is now clear that, far from being the most polluting, nuclear power emits almost no carbon dioxide and so, unlike fossil fuels and especially
280
coal, makes no contribution to the greenhouse effect. Perhaps its opponents would favour burning more coal and oil with the increase in emissions that that would cause?
As for costs, we already take account of the decommissioning costs of nuclear stations and the need to avoid damage to the environment, but we make no such adjustment to the costs of cleaning up after fossil fuels. Proper costing of energy production should take account of these costs and, in doing so, the balance between nuclear power and fossil fuels may well be significantly altered. That point was made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, and my noble friend Lord Clitheroe.
Your Lordships' attention was drawn to a fact concerning energy consumption in China and it is absolutely correct. It is that, if one takes European energy consumption, multiplies it by eight and divides it by gross national product, one realises that we are facing a serious problem in the long term for the future of the greenhouse effect and the world in which we live.
In its report the committee took time to explore in detail the areas where further research into climate change is needed; and to look at the particular research projects where it felt that the United Kingdom should play a part. When he wrote to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, at the time when the report was published, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment stressed the positive view that the Government take of the need for continued research into aspects of the greenhouse effect and climate change. We shall need of course to concentrate our effort in those fields where we have undoubted experience and expertise, which includes the very important area of climate modelling which the committee quite properly highlighted.
Noble Lords will be aware that in her speech at the United Nations last November the Prime Minister announced the establishment of a new centre for climate prediction which will strengthen our contribution to international research on climate change and enhance our considerable standing in climate modelling. It will also, I am pleased to say, reflect another of the committee's recommendations in that it will be an international centre open to scientists from around the world, including developing countries, who will be able to work with and learn from British scientists.
So far as specific research projects are concerned, our formal response to the committee's report will of course discuss these in detail. But I should emphasise that we have already announced a significant increase in the funding available for climate change related research. For 1990–91, our funding for this research will represent almost a doubling of this year's expenditure to some £28 million.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that in demonstrating our commitment in this way we have responded positively to the thrust of the committee's report.

281
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York referred to his interest and knowledge because with his vocation he is also a pharmacologist. It is a great addition to your Lordships' House to have two great experiences and knowledge at the same time. He referred to the rain forest and carbon depletion from its hidden base in the ground and its release into the atmosphere.
I assure your Lordships that only last evening I had the privilege and honour of discussing with the environment Minister of Mexico the very points made by the most reverend Primate. He said two things which I believe are of great interest. I asked him whether there was any contribution which this country or Europe could make to the problem of afforestation in Latin America. He said that Europe did have knowledge and rightly pointed out my lack of education by reminding me why a certain current was called the Humboldt current. That was named after a man who had gone to Latin America, discovered, learned and contributed.
He felt that the world should understand that it is a simple fact that you have to reconcile the economic ambitions of those who live beside the forest and the economy which depends upon the forest with the preservation of the forest. That is not an exciting statement, but it is a statement about practicality. It is also a statement about hard work and communication. I am sure that that is the message which I understood from the most reverend Primate. I was very pleased to learn it from him for he knows far more about it than I do.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, mentioned the need to integrate a research programme on climate impact. I am sure that the noble and gallant Lord will be glad to know that the Department of the Environment has established a climate change impact review group under the chairmanship of Professor Parry of Birmingham University. That group will bring to us balanced advice on our own research.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, asked whether it was possible to reduce CO2s by 20 per cent. by the year 2005 under the Toronto target. The fact is that the assumptions, made in the figures agreed to, accepted an increase in nuclear power within the United Kingdom with regard to the United Kingdom's contribution to that reduction. I must sadly inform the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that as I understand it, Canada's Ministers feel that they are unable to achieve the Toronto target as it was outlined.
The noble Lords, Lord Hatch and Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred to the forecasts and differences between the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment, as they saw it. The responsibility of the Department of Transport is not to encourage road transport but to be responsible for and to assess the possible level of road transport. The figure of 142 per cent. is an assumption about responsibility and not about encouragement.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, referred to public transport. I must again remind them of what
282
I said in the debate in your Lordships' House just before Christmas. The sad fact about public transport in Europe at present is that the highest level of per capita expenditure exists in the Federal Republic of Germany and the actual use of transport there is falling.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, referred to the saving of energy and, in particular, drew attention to Milton Keynes. For some reason, whenever I am at the Dispatch Box, both the saving of energy and Milton Keynes seem to arise. I had the privilege of being at the opening of Energy World in 1986. It is an example for all authorities throughout the country, and planners in particular, to see the potential which is available. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that there were two buildings around which there was a certain amount of controversy: one, which managed to be built without planning permission because, being built underground, it did not require planning permission; the other was the rotating aeroplane propellor in the sky which at the time also caused a certain amount of disquiet in conservation quarters.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, also referred to combined cycle heat and gas-powered stations. I know that certain noble Lords earlier this evening referred —slightly dismissively in the case of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey —to the privatisation of electricity. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that so far as I am aware the only proposed power station, designed for the North-West, is a private undertaking to supply to a new generator. I believe it is supplied by ASCA Brown-Boveri using natural gas coming from the Morecambe field.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, referred to the possibility of a carbon tax. We discussed this point during the debate we had before Christmas. The fact is that we have a difficult balance to achieve. It would, on the one hand, be very easy to say that no car should be built in this country exceeding 500 cc. At the same time, it would be difficult to explain to the employees of the British car industry why they have been put out of work. We have to consider —the Government have said this; I have said it previously and it was discussed before the Recess last year —the fact that, while the carbon tax is now on the political agenda, it has to be achieved with equanimity throughout Europe and the developed world.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, rightly pointed out that many of the developing countries will ask whether they are to be the victims of dual standards. We are in a world in which we are a developed nation and have had the benefits of all that has come through developing our own resources and using them. The question they will ask is, why should they be deprived of the aspirations and material equality? This is in the context of another matter, which is the 5 billion people who, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, rightly pointed out, have not yet arrived on the planet and who will also expect equal treatment.
The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, referred to the limitations of models and their use. That is

283
absolutely right. I would, however, say that the department is committed to funding various organisations in order to improve modelling. However, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, will take the view that modelling will not be improvement enough.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, in a very modest way referred to his amateur status. It is important to remember that the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, was the first to bring the matter of greenhouse gases to the attention of this House. When you produce something which is unfashionable, though you may not be agreed with, it is inevitable that that will be remembered long after I have faded away and gone from this Dispatch Box.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to the need to assist in the transfer of technology. He is absolutely correct for the future and the difficulty, for example, in the abolition of CFCs is how to remove the requirement without providing financial assistance. That is part of the object of the Montreal protocol.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, also referred to the CO2 increase which had been observed in Hawaii and inquired whether it was due to industrialisation. I am advised that the great majority of this increase is due to fossil fuel power. However, there is some uncertainty concerning the figure which he pointed out to the House, of why there was a fall and then a rise again in the use of fossil fuel against the predictions which should have existed in the chart.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone stated that he felt that the proposals of his friend Dr. Grantham had not been attended to. I am pleased to hear that the DTI are now considering them.
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, referred to the importance of understanding the oceans. I agree that, in order to understand the climate, we need to know more about the oceans. That is why the United Kingdom is strongly involved with various international research programmes.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in his usual inquisitive and charming way, asked whether the Government had any commitment at all to the environment. This Government have taken more initiatives, committed more money, shown more concern and have done more than any other government in regard to improving the environment.
There can be no easy answers to the problems of climate and climatic change, whether we are looking at ways to adapt to the changes or at the measures to limit the changes, or whether it is through measured ecological fiscal balance between fossil and nuclear power. It is interesting to note that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, endorsed the possibility —I go no further than that —of a future nuclear energy policy.
In the United Kingdom we may not have to deal with the more extreme impacts of significant changes in the world's climate. The Government will ensure that we continue to contribute our expertise towards the work of scientists in their attempts to understand climate change, our experience of the work of diplomats in their attempts to frame an international
284
response, and our commitment to the work of the politicians as the world looks to them for a lead. Without universality, there is no answer to the problem that we face.
11.11 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this extremely interesting debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, for his reply. I regret that he did not answer either of the specific questions that I put to him. One of those questions concerned the Government response to the House of Commons Energy Committee concerning how market mechanisms will cure the problem. The other question concerned whether or not the Government had studied the Chatham House report on targets.
I am not sure whether the Government are moving from a period when we are all discussing this subject, meeting about it and having conferences, to a period where action is being taken. The report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change —three working groups —and the climate conference that will follow it, must be the spur to taking action on all of these difficult problems.
There is no single solution to the problem. People are inclined to say that we can try nuclear power or energy conservation or forestry. The problem is so great that we have to explore every avenue and act on all those avenues and not waste time in discussing which is the best. All of them are necessary.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Contamination of Feeding Stuff) (England) Order 1990
11.13 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 12th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order and the order relating to Wales have the effect of consolidating the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Contamination of Feeding Stuff) (England) (No. 4) Order 1989 and the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Contamination of Feeding Stuff) (Wales) (No. 4) Order 1989. All earlier orders have been revoked by these principal orders.
It may assist if I briefly set out the circumstances leading up to the imposition of the restrictions in these orders. As my right honourable friend the Minister stated in another place, a consignment of rice bran was contaminated during its transport from Burma. On its arrival in Belgium the unfit cargo was not destroyed but sold on and reprocessed into animal feed in Holland. The Dutch Embassy informed the Ministry on Wednesday, 1st November that a consignment of this feeding stuff — specifically, maize gluten replacer pellets —believed to be contaminated by lead, had

285
been delivered to two companies, one based in Teignmouth and the other in Liverpool.
The Ministry's own veterinary investigation service had by this time established from its own investigations a link between cattle deaths and lead-contaminated animal feed. Subsequent inquiries revealed that a total of some 2,085 tonnes of contaminated feed in four consignments reached the United Kingdom and was distributed to farms mainly in the Midlands and South-West of England and in Wales.
Against this background, the House will appreciate that the Government's immediate concern had to be to ensure consumer protection. The first step was to set in hand an urgent investigation of the records of feed suppliers, merchants and compounders to trace those farms which had or may have received consignments of contaminated feed. This was a colossal task, hampered in some cases by inadequate records and, in a few instances, by less than enthusiastic co-operation by the companies concerned.
As information began to emerge on the distribution of the contaminated feed, ministry officials contacted the farmers concerned to warn them that it would be necessary to place restrictions on their farms. At the same time, thousands of tonnes of the contaminated feed were traced and recalled. More than 2,000 farms in England and Wales were identified as being actually or potentially affected.
I should like next to turn to the statutory arrangements which the Government made to ensure food protection and which are the subject of today's debate. The immediate problem was to ensure that contaminated cattle, milk, beef and dairy products from affected farms were prevented from entering the food chain. Using powers under Part I of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, my right honourable friend signed the first emergency order on Monday, 6th November. This came into force at one minute past midnight on Tuesday, 7th November. Similar arrangements were also made by the Secretary of State for Wales.
Since then, scrutiny of suppliers', merchants', and compounders' records has continued and as new recipients of contaminated feed have been identified they too have been brought within the control arrangements. In other cases, where it could be established that contaminated feed had not after all been delivered, farms were immediately released from restrictions and the orginal orders have therefore been updated as necessary.
I now turn to the detail of controls the Government have introduced. We had first to ensure that milk from affected farms was not distributed to the public while at the same time avoiding having to store or dispose of such milk on-farm where adequate facilities just do not exist. We also wanted to come up with a system which enabled farms to be cleared of milk restrictions as soon as we had evidence that it was safe to do so. In conjunction with the Milk Marketing Board, therefore, arrangements were made for the milk concerned to be separately
286
collected and held in isolation from normal supplies. This milk was processed into milk powder and butter to facilitate storage until proper disposal could be arranged. Our tests have now shown that the lead levels in this butter and powder are below statutory limits and the Milk Marketing Board has therefore been allowed to release these products. I should like to pay tribute to the invaluable assistance which we received from the Milk Marketing Board in operating these arrangements.
We also had to make arrangements to have the specially collected milk individually sampled and analysed. Here again I should like to pay a warm tribute to the many officials and staff from various analytical facilities who worked around the clock on the collection and analysis of milk samples and the processing of results.
The second major element in our control arrangements involved control on the movement and slaughter of livestock, principally cattle, and the movement of meat products. My right honourable friend the Minister announced details of these control arrangements on 27th November 1989. These arrangements enabled cattle to be released under one of three schemes. Under scheme 1, farmers who were able to provide satisfactory evidence to the department that, while they received bagged contaminated feed, they did not use it and returned it intact to the suppliers were released from cattle restrictions. Twenty complete farms in England and Wales were released under scheme 1.
Scheme 2 was designed to cater for those farmers with a complete category of animals which received no contaminated feed. It applied, for example, if the contaminated feed was for calves and none was fed to beef animals on the farm. In those circumstances, and where blood or other tests provided satisfactory evidence that all was well, those groups of animals were eligible for release from restrictions. There was a time-limit of 15th December for taking blood samples under scheme 2. It was to safeguard against the possibility that, over time, blood lead levels would have fallen but lead in offal and bone would be high. More than 111,000 animals in England and Wales were cleared under scheme 2.
Finally, under scheme 3, we deal with the clearance for slaughter of individual cattle which have, or may have, been fed contaminated feed. Here, we are requiring blood samples and where lead levels are below 0·25 milligrammes per litre—that is, 250 parts per billion —the animal is permitted to be slaughtered and the meat supplied for human consumption, subject to a number of conditions designed to ensure that parts of the carcass which might be contaminated do not go for human consumption. More than 5,000 animals in England and Wales have to date been cleared under scheme 3.
Under these schemes more than 20,000 blood samples have been taken and analysed at 11 laboratories. I should like to thank all concerned for the major efforts they have made to enable this to happen, not least those private veterinary surgeons who have worked at great speed to ensure that blood samples were collected quickly.
In addition to these schemes we have been undertaking an extensive research programme which will continue as long as necessary to monitor the rate of decay of lead in animals. We are monitoring various groups of animals which are being slaughtered at regular intervals so that we can carry out detailed analysis of the presence of lead. We have also been doing extensive laboratory work in connection with lead levels in offal and bone with a view to reducing some of the constraints under scheme 3 if this proves possible without compromising food safety. I can assure noble Lords that we are giving priority to looking at ways of easing restrictions on farmers while, at the same time, ensuring that public health continues to be fully protected.
I hope that the explanations I have given will help noble Lords to appreciate the complexity of the task which has faced us in identifying the contaminated feed and recovering it where possible, in tracing recipient farms, in introducing measures to control contaminated livestock and dairy produce, and in operating control arrangements as sensitively as possible to avoid causing avoidable disruption to the farming community. However, while we will not retain controls any longer than is necessary, I make no apologies for saying that restrictions will remain in place for as long as is necessary to protect consumers from any threat from contaminated food and to preserve the good name of British agricultural produce. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 12th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House is extremely grateful to the Minister for the way in which he explained the orders. I appreciate the lateness of the hour but we must take just a little time to consider them because we are discussing a most important matter which has caused great economic loss to many farmers in the affected area. Moreover, I believe that this is the first time we have had the chance to discuss the problem in this House.
In my response to these orders I have been helped by a long letter which I received from West Midland Farmers Association Ltd. which is a farmers' co-operative in Gloucester, the heart of the affected area. Of course, as a co-operative the association has received a large number of claims from affected farmers. The worst problem would seem to be the damaging effect of the blanket restrictions which were placed upon farms with regard to milk and animals, regardless of whether any particular group of animals had received the contaminated feed. This has been described to me as a "slow and ponderous overkill" if that is possible. The other problem for the suppliers of the feed —that is, not the original suppliers but the users of the feed, the merchants and so on —is that they have been told by the Ministry that they should have insurance cover. In this connection the letter reads:
"With regard to our ability to recover losses, this is likewise full of complexity. Our Product Liability insurance will neither cover nor be sufficient for all situations. There are many areas
288
which our insurers and legal advisers are considering but it is certain that there is no insured cover for many situations particularly with regard to milk losses when no contaminated feed was used. It has been widely reported that something in the order of 95 per cent. of the milk under restriction was within the laid down permitted legal limits. At the moment the farmer has received just 5p per litre against an average price of 19p per litre and there is no indication when the final payment will be made or how much it will be. It could lead to a massive level of claims"
on suppliers of feed.
I have some questions which I gave the Minister before the debate, as he is aware. Has the ministry been able to take into account the tests that have been carried out regarding the lead levels in the blood? My information is that in many cases the level is acceptable and will improve with time. Is account being taken of the amount of contaminated feed eaten by the animal? Is account being taken of the degree of contamination of the feed, which is variable? What further scientific information is coming forward to relieve the situation, and is account being taken of how much of the contaminated raw material was used in the final product? Although there were a few cases in the South West where the raw material was used indiluted, in most cases it was combined with other ingredients at a maximum level of 10 per cent.
On the subject of testing for the lead level in blood, I was struck by a letter published this week in the Veterinary Record from a veterinary surgeon in Devon, who wrote:
"A client, who keeps a few cattle on a part-time basis, had his cattle's blood lead levels tested…All had a low blood lead level (less than 50 ppb) except for one cow which had a very high level (over 250 ppb). As it was difficult to explain such a difference, the cow was retested one month later. At the time of the second sampling, the farmer asked if two samples could be taken and sent to different laboratories as he had heard that different results were being obtained from different laboratories …Again, one result showed a very high lead level (over 350 ppb) but the other sample taken from the same cow at the same time but tested at a different, private, laboratory, gave a very different result —'no detectable lead'. When he telephoned the Ministry of Agriculture laboratory concerned, they were at a loss to explain this result. It was decided that if any of the blood was still available it should be retested. This gave a result of just over 50 ppb. So, according to which result one believes, this cow can be regarded as: (i) Very highly contaminated with lead, having sufficient blood lead to exceed the levels set in scheme 2 and 3, (ii) having a blood level allowing it to pass schemes 2 and 3, or (iii) completely lead freed.. Surely, if the accuracy of the testing cannot be relied upon, it puts into question the whole of the testing procedure and the credibility of the ministry schemes."
That letter was from a vet in Devon, which is in the heart of the affected area.
We feel that there must be some way of obtaining compensation from the ministry when restrictions are imposed upon farmers who have not received contaminated feed or if farmers are affected by the way the restrictions are imposed. We have tabled some amendments to the Food Safety Bill to deal with that point. Many healthy animals have been retained on farms for a long time, with all the pressures that one would expect on winter housing and forage supplies. Pages and pages of farmers' names are attached to the orders. They represent a major economic problem or disaster for the farmer concerned. We must find a better, swifter way to deal with similar situations in the future.
11.29 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity which this short debate has afforded me to explain the Government's position on this vexed issue. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has asked a number of interesting questions and I shall try to respond to them.
The noble Lord's first point related to the need for blanket restrictions even where some animals received no contaminated feed. Information on the amount of contaminated feed sent to Britain and the pattern of distribution was extremely sketchy. We could establish which farms had that feed only by physically examining the records of feed suppliers, merchants and compounders, some of which have since proved to be far from accurate.
Against that background, it was necessary to draw the net of our restrictions widely to ensure that consumers were duly protected. Where we were able to establish that particular farmers received or fed no contaminated feed, all restrictions were quickly lifted. Where farmers received contaminated feed but were able to show that particular groups of animals received none of it, and where blood or milk analysis corroborated that, the "clean" animals were released from restrictions. As I said earlier, more than 111,000 animals have been cleared on the basis of this criterion.
The second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was on blood levels. Blood testing was used to corroborate claims that particular groups of animals received no contaminated feed and were thus eligible for release under scheme 2. The level of lead in blood remains the determining factor for eligibility for release under scheme 3. However, there is no known test which could be carried out on farms and which would enable animals to be cleared for release.
The noble Lord also asked me to clarify whether account is being taken of the amount of contaminated feed eaten or the degree of contamination of feed. This is not easy because of the variability of feed contamination and difficulties in establishing amounts fed to animals. We are actively considering whether a systematic scheme could be devised to allow restrictions to be eased without compromising food safety.
On the subject of further scientific information, we are in close contact with the Department of Health over the results of extensive laboratory analysis of lead levels in tissues, offals and bones with a view to easing some of the constraints under scheme 3. We hope on the basis of this work to be able to announce a further relaxation of restrictions shortly. We are also monitoring groups of animals which we are slaughtering at regular intervals, in order to monitor the distribution and levels of lead over time.
Another point concerned the audit of feed merchants' records. To ensure that information received from feed suppliers, merchants and compounders is reliable, MAFF staff have been carrying out their own detailed audits of stocks of contaminated material received and have been checking back on the ultimate destination and disposal of feed. A recent audit at a compounder
290
in Torrington, D. J. Cobbledick Ltd, revealed that contaminated feed was used in the preparation of a number of products which were not previously thought to be involved. The most important of these products was a dairy feed known as "Parlour Pride" which was distributed to over 500 customers. While many of these farms were already under restriction, there were 165 which had never been under restriction and which it was necessary to restrict immediately. This was done issuing formal directions on 17th January.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised a point on compensation. The Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, under which restrictions were imposed, does not contain provisions for statutory compensation. The Act is designed to ensure consumer protection against any hazard arising from the human consumption of contaminated food. Claims for compensation are a matter for farmers to pursue with suppliers of contaminated animal feed, through the courts if necessary. I understand that the National Farmers' Union is advising its members on this question.
Finally, let me repeat that the Government's principal concern throughout this incident has been to protect consumers from any hazard to health arising from the consumption of contaminated food. That has to remain our first priority. Nevertheless, we shall continue to do everything possible to reduce both the extent and the duration of controls and to ease the burden on farmers by lifting restrictions just as fast as we possibly can, consistent with the overriding need to ensure the continuing safety of the food chain. I commend these orders to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Contamination of Feeding Stuff) (Wales) Order 1990
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.: My Lords, I have spoken to this order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 15th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Bromley London Borough Council (Crystal Palace) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before midnight.