Lords Sitting of 13 March 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 Gloucester

Lord Tombs
Sir Francis Leonard Tombs, Knight, having been created Baron Tombs, of Brailes in the County of Warwickshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord McFadzean of Kelvinside and the Lord Lewis of Newnham.

Network SouthEast: Subsidy
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the present rate of subsidy to the Network SouthEast section of British Rail, and what changes in this rate are in contemplation.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the public service obligation cash ceiling for 1989–90 is at present £496 million. This applies to BR's grant-supported sectors, Provincial and Network SouthEast, as a whole and is not broken down by sector. But Network SouthEast's grant for the current year is likely to be £100 million. The final settlement of British Rail's grant claim for 1989–90 will be announced shortly. The new objectives for British Rail announced by my right honourable friend in December endorsed the British Railways Board's objective of reducing Network SouthEast's grant requirement in 1992–93 to zero.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. Is he aware that it will not be of much comfort to those who read the announcement in today's papers about increased fares, a reduction in services and cuts in investment? Does the noble Viscount agree that it all adds to the risk that people will abandon the railways and instead drive into London, probably in a heavily subsidised company car, and thereby add to the congestion and pollution on the roads? Can the Minister say whether the Government have any overall transport policy affecting journeys into and out of the capital?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government realise that a subsidy will be required for the foreseeable future on some provincial lines which are socially necessary and where otherwise there would be no railway. However, there is no need to subsidise a railway which has plenty of customers. There has been an increase in demand on Network SouthEast of 26 per cent. between 1984 and 1988, though that increase has slowed down. Since 1982 revenue has boomed. British Rail became more
1458
efficient partly due to modernising investment and so the subsidy fell. The subsidy has halved since 1983.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the noble Viscount take the view that the report of the Central Transport Consultative Committee published today belies everything that he has just said? That body is the consumers' watchdog for British Rail. In dealing with Network SouthEast the report says that British Rail must take another look at its corporate plan. The committee demands that greater attention should be given to a subsidy so that Network SouthEast can proceed with the improvements that it wants to make.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I accept that much still has to be done on some parts of the network's new investment and that new investment will help. Tough quality objectives have been agreed with British Rail. Unfortunately, quality has been hit this year by damaging and unnecessary industrial action.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that is correct. Delays in the delivery of new trains have not helped. The Government are confident that British Rail is doing all it can to recover that position.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, while I should certainly be critical of the quality of management in British Rail and feel sure that there is room for great improvement there, is my noble friend aware that the logistics of commuter traffic into London—I am a daily sufferer so I am aware of the problems—are unlikely to be met satisfactorily with an adequate standard of service simply by relying on the commercial market? Does my noble friend agree that it will be necessary for a certain amount of public funds to be made available in order to maintain a good standard of service in place of a service which is at present very far from good?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am sure that British Rail will listen very carefully to the remarks made today in your Lordships' House. It will be for the board to react to those figures. It is also right to say that it needs to look at its short-term as well as its long-term investment. I believe that what my noble friend has said is true.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the noble Viscount told us that the rate of increase in the number of passengers is slowing down. Is he aware that that is not surprising since there is no more room to get additional passengers on to the trains? Does he agree that what is necessary is investment in new rolling stock, with doors on trains which open automatically, and better motors that allow the trains to accelerate more quickly so that we can get more trains on to the existing track and attract more customers into the trains and off the roads?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. Investment is currently running at record levels. It is the highest since the change from steam to diesel. In the past two years the

1459
Government have authorised investment in 1,000 new vehicles and there is a massive ongoing programme of infrastructure improvements, resignalling, electrification, station refurbishment and platform lengthening to take longer trains. I hope that answers the noble Lord's question.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, he appeared to imply that one of the answers might be for British Rail to grant itself a loan? That does not seem possible. Is not the only real answer that British Rail must be helped as a public service and must be publicly assisted by the Government?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as I made clear, there are some services which will continue to receive a subsidy. However, those that can be run commercially will not need a subsidy.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the problems of the commuter lines, particularly from the south-east of Kent to London—which are quite appalling—is the massive overdemand in the morning and the underdemand in the middle of the day? Is he aware that it is very difficult to run a commercially profitable service like that? I took part in an inquiry 20 years ago and that was the main reason then and it is the main reason now for British Rail's difficult commercial problems and for the commuter traffic problems in the South-East of England. Is my noble friend really not aware that, despite all the investment in British Rail, absolutely none of it in the past five to 10 years has come through to the south-eastern region and the routes from London to Ashford to Folkestone? I travel to London every day and I can assure him that the conditions of equipment and arrival times are shameful.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I take note of the strictures noble Lords have made. All I can add is that investment is planned into the resignalling work, as I suggested, which will increase the logistics of running more trains on a crowded rail network.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, will the noble Viscount accept that many of the questions and criticism are made not against the management policy of British Rail, though undoubtedly there are some faults there, but against the Government's lack of a convincing overall transport policy? In the circumstances in which almost the whole of the South-East is snarled up and where there is grave danger of such remaining areas of outstanding natural beauty as there are in southern England being concreted over, will the Government explain why they think that London—almost unique among the great cities of the world—can run an effective commuter transport system without subsidy from 1992 onwards?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, over the next three financial years there will be investment of around £.1·2 billion in Network SouthEast. There will be extensive replacement of old rolling stock with
1460
modern vehicles, as I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. British Rail also plans investment in new lines to Stanstead and Heathrow airports, electrification of other lines—for example, Southampton to Portsmouth which is due to come into service in May—and not least in extra vehicles to cope with the growth in passenger demand when it turns round.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Viscount grasp the point? The investment being made, which he quite rightly mentions, is being made by British Rail out of British Rail cash-flow. It has nothing to do with Government subsidy. Will he accept that there is no other capital city in Western Europe which has a commuter service with the characteristics to which his noble friend Lord Aldington quite rightly referred and which operates without extensive public subsidy?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at the moment Network SouthEast operates under a public subsidy. However, it is the intention that that subsidy should phase out when it becomes commercially possible to run that section of British Rail efficiently.

Premium Bonds
2.57 p.m.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of Lord Hanley's statement that "there is no fixed relationship with other interest rates in the economy" (H.L. Deb., 13th February 1990, col. 1248), they will further explain the Paymaster-General's reference to "the rate of interest used to calculate the size of the prize fund" for premium bonds (H.L. Deb., 19th February 1990, col. 134).
The Paymaster-General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, premium bonds are repayable on demand without penalty and therefore do not represent good quality funding for the Government. The modest interest rate reflects the fact that this is not a form of national savings to which the Government attach priority. For each prize draw, the prize fund is calculated at the rate of 6·5 per cent. a year of the value of all bonds eligible to participate; that is, all bonds which have been held for three months or longer.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I am obliged for that information, but is the noble Earl proud of a 6·5 per cent. interest rate in these times when general interest rates have risen spectacularly? Is there some inverse ratio operating between these two rates?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with a budget surplus we need to borrow less net from the public than we have done in the past. Premium bonds are not a form of national savings to which we attach priority because, as I said earlier, they can be repaid on demand without penalty. It is those factors, not the movement of other interest rates, which influence the premium bond rate.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, will the Minister qualify the Government policy in relation to personal savings in general and premium bonds in particular? For example, is it the Government's view that they do not need to worry about the very considerable fall in personal savings from around 13 per cent. to 5 per cent. of personal disposable income because total national savings have remained steady at around 20 per cent.? Is that the real reason?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord tempts me into a slightly wider question than that on the Order Paper, but I can reassure him that we have a number of measures to encourage longer-term personal savings, of which I am sure he is aware. There is the national savings capital bond, save as you earn schemes, personal equity plans and of course the Budget measures that my right honourable friend introduced last year.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, should we not also remember that when premium bonds win prizes, as mine have done more than once, they are free of income tax?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is absolutely right. He is indeed lucky to have won on more than one occasion.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the noble Earl give further consideration to the matter in view of the fact that interest rates today are considerably in excess of the minimum lending rate of 15 per cent. and that small businesses have to pay between 17·5 per cent. and 18·5 per cent. for their facilities which is disastrous for many of them? Surely the Government's interest rate policy needs re-examination. Further, will the Government make up their mind as to whether the existing rate is required to sustain the rate of exchange or to dampen down inflation? Why do they not say what their real policy is?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, alas, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, does not seem to have been as fortunate as my noble and learned friend in winning on the premium bonds. The whole question of interest rates is kept under review on a day-to-day basis.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that there is something of a paradox in the Government saying that they wish to stimulate personal savings while on the other hand, in very large parts of the national savings campaign, interest rates are paid which are no stimulus whatever? Does that not call for some revision of government policy, perhaps in the forthcoming Budget, to encourage people to save rather than spend on consumer goods which unfortunately, due to the reduced capacity of manufacturing industry, we cannot produce in this country and which have to be imported from abroad?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I know that all Members of your Lordships' House are keen to know what is in the Budget. I should remind noble Lords that we only have to wait a week in order to find out.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the noble Earl saying to the House that the Government do not want people to buy premium bonds? If that is the position, perhaps he would say so in simple words that the public can understand rather than kidding them into buying things which are a very bad buy.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I contend the assertion of the noble Lord that premium bonds are a bad buy. There is no question of kidding people into buying them. There is a choice of options which people can undertake and there are many benefits for those who have national savings, especially non-taxpayers such as pensioners arid children, whom I am sure the noble Lord would seek to encourage.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Earl said that interest rates were reviewed on a day-to-day basis. Can he tell us what is the Government's view today as opposed to that of yesterday?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if the noble Lord would like to table a Question on the matter I should be more than happy to answer it.

Nepal: Human Rights
3.3 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have made to the Nepalese Government concerning the human rights situation in that country.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, we have made a number of representations. I discussed human rights issues with both the Nepalese Prime Minister and Foreign Minister during my visit to Kathmandu last month.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, in view of the timely visit which the Minister was able to make to Nepal at such a critical time, and bearing in mind our historic links with the country, was he able to request the release of any of those who are detained without trial? Further, having regard to the very worrying reports from Amnesty International about the methods used by the security forces after the demonstrations, can he say whether the United Kingdom still trains any of those forces? Can he also say what type of military equipment we export to Nepal and its value?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I was certainly able to point out the concern which Nepal's friends felt over the violence which had taken place when I discussed the situation with the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister. Of course, I was able to say how much we regretted the violence between the police and those who demonstrated for greater political representation. I did not raise specifically the issue of the release of detainees. I understand that the government released 593 people on 23rd February and a further number in March. Therefore, something along those lines has happened.

1463
As to the training of security forces, I do not think that we train the police force in Nepal. I do not have details of what, if any, military equipment we provide at present. In any event, it would only be for external rather than internal use.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, is it not a fact, as my informants assure me, that the Government of Nepal have been faced with serious threats to law and order in the country, instigated by agitators who are intent upon exploiting legitimate political demands for reform and that reports of over-reaction and excessive force and repression of press freedom are grossly exaggerated for political ends? Is that not more credible in view of the known benevolent nature of the regime of Nepal and the notably peaceful character of the Nepalese people?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I have outlined, it is a fact that there have been serious demonstrations and outbreaks of violence. The Nepalese Government have to react in such situations but it could be argued that they need not react quite as they did, as a result of which a number of people lost their lives. That was, of course, most regrettable.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that the reason for the troubles in Nepal was the refusal of the King and his very subservient government to recognise opposition parties in the country? Can the noble Lord say what discussions he had with the main leaders of the opposition parties during his visit? Further, can he say what aid Her Majesty's Government give to Nepal at present?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I did not have discussions with the opposition parties in Nepal. They are at present illegal as such. That was the result of a referendum which took place in 1981 when people voted in favour of the present system of government, the panchayat system. However, I am encouraged by statements made on 21st February which stated that the government were open to political dialogue within a peaceful and constitutional framework. I have since been further encouraged to hear that steps have been taken to start a dialogue.
Our aid is currently some £16 million a year which is a substantial increase over the figure of three years ago. The main areas of assistance have been roads, forestry and natural resources. Those projects are mainly directed to the needs of the poor in rural areas. I can assure noble Lords that they are very much needed.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while I understand what my noble friend Lord Hunt said about the Nepalese people—and I thoroughly agree with everything he said—does the noble Lord agree that there is strong evidence for saying that the Government of Nepal is a corrupt despotism?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that may be taking things just a little too far. As I said, there was
1464
a referendum in 1981 and the people voted in favour of the present system of government. Elections are held in Nepal; indeed, one will take place in about a year's time. One suggestion I made during my visit was that perhaps the date of that election could be brought forward. I understand that that would be possible. However, to call an old friend, as Nepal is to this country, a "corrupt despotism" is really a little unfortunate.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the demonstrations were dealt with in a brutal manner? Can he also say how many detainees are still held without trial?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the demonstrations were dealt with quite strongly, I think. That resulted in some loss of life, about which we are naturally very sorry. I said just that. As for the number of detainees currently under arrest, I am afraid that I have no figure. There are various different estimates around but there is nothing which I might be able to use as an official figure.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, what is the point of a country of this kind holding elections when at present Opposition parties are illegal?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the people vote for individuals rather than parties. It is not for me to justify nor to criticise their system. I happen to know that, for instance, a by-election will take place any day now at which there are no fewer than nine candidates for a seat. That is one form of holding an election.

Algeciras/Gibraltar Ferry Service
3.10 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Spanish Government has yet withdrawn its prohibition of the operation of the ferry service between Algeciras and Gibraltar.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords. We have repeatedly reminded the Spanish Government that their refusal to allow the ferry service to operate is contrary to European Community law. We have now made a formal complaint to the Commission.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that sensible reply. Have the Spanish Government been good enough to offer any explanation of this action? It is damaging to the tourist trade and involves territory belonging to a fellow member of the EC.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that the Spanish Government tried to link this measure with that on the airport agreement, which has not yet come into force either. We do not believe that there is any such link. They are two entirely separate agreements. In any case the agreement has to some extent been overtaken by the EC regulation, which

1465
is a binding instrument of Community law. It establishes the freedom to provide maritime transport services between member states. It is about that that we have complained to the Commission and have requested it to start infraction proceedings.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the joint declaration in London of 2nd December 1987 noted that companies in Gibraltar and Spain had expressed an interest in resuming the ferry service; suggested that resumption would be to the mutual advantage of the population of Gibraltar and the Campo de Gibraltar; and stated that the service would be resumed as soon as possible?
Are there no diplomatic means that can be taken between the annual meetings of foreign ministers to expedite the resumption of the service? Can my noble friend say whether the resumption of the ferry service between Algeciras and Gibraltar was discussed by Señor Fernandez Ordoñez and Mr. Douglas Hurd, our Foreign Secretary, in Madrid on 26th February of this year?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have repeatedly urged the Spaniards to allow the ferry service between Gibraltar and Algeciras to be resumed in accordance with the declaration to which my noble friend referred. However we have failed in our attempts to persuade them to do that. That is why we have now started a formal complaint with the European Commission.

Business
3.13 p.m.
Viscount Long: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that, subject to the progress of the House's business, the Report stage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill may be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour. In that case, the Third Reading of the River Tees Barrage and Crossing Bill and the Report stage of the Chlorofluorocarbons (Control) Bill will be taken during the adjournment.

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the committee of the Whole House to whom the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—
Clauses 1 to 14,
Schedule 1,
Clauses 15 to 25,
Schedule 21
Clause 26,
Schedule 3,
Clauses 27 to 45,
Schedule 4,
Clauses 46 to 48,
Schedules 5 and 6,
Clause 49,
The title.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Coal Industry Bill
3.14 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved the following amendment:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
("Licensing of opencast operations; Compliance with air quality directive
No licences for opencast operations shall be awarded under section 4 of this Act unless—

(a) the licensing authority is satisfied that the proposed operations will comply with the European Community Directive 80/779/EEC on air quality; and

(b) such compliance is a condition of the licence.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, those who have followed the matter closely will understand that this is the same amendment as the one I moved at the Report stage. I have no hesitation in asking the House once more to give careful consideration to the burden of the amendment. It is to lay a duty on operators and also to cause expense to be incurred not just by the coal board but by the operators. The issue of health as well as that of obtaining coal or profit is very important indeed.
The House must understand—as I am sure the Minister does—that a directive from the EC is not lightly conceived at that level. It is conceived because there is a general view which is approved throughout the EC that there are circumstances under which matters subject to the directive require control and compliance.
I wished to base my amendment upon evidence of the extent to which dust can cause damage and danger to health, especially in opencast operations. I sought my evidence from a report which I had seen and which was provided by four doctors at a practice in Glynneath. I remind the House and the Minister that the report was very alarming—certainly to me. It indicated the extent to which in their view—and they validated it—dust from opencast operations could damage the health of the people whom those doctors sought to serve.
The Welsh Office have taken some steps in this matter. The doctors decided to provide evidence to support their general concern that the health of their patients, clients and neighbours was being damaged. The five areas of damage that they identified as resulting from the dust particles were as follows: respiratory diseases; gastro-intestinal disorders; joint disease of a non-traumatic nature; malignancy—that is, cancers; and fetal abnormalities.
If one sees a phenomenon which can be validated with evidence—and I am not arguing that it is accepted by everyone—by four doctors of high

1467
repute in their practice over a period of time, it is a serious matter. They are able to point out, to their satisfaction if not to that of anyone else, that those illnesses and damage to human health can be attributable in part—one can never be precise—to the dust which comes from opencast coal operations. Thus I think that the matter needs to be taken very seriously indeed.
The concern I had was not so much that they were able to show to their satisfaction—and certainly to mine, I can tell the House—that these phenomena arose from the dust. What concerned me was the attitude of British Coal. One of the paragraphs from the report which I mentioned states:
"British Coal, in evidence to an inquiry in Manchester, last year, stated that they were unaware of the law on air pollution and that they accepted that coal dust was dangerous".
The gravamen of the point that I would like the Minister to accept is that British Coal appears, from the evidence that has been given to me, to be less than 100 per cent. behind acknowledging not that its operations are causing damage but that opencast coal operations can cause damage. The Minister said at an earlier stage that,
"Responsibility for monitoring lies with the local mineral planning authority and also with the Mines and Quarries Inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive which has powers to set up its own gauges and to see that conditions are met. In the case of the larger sites operated under contract for British Coal, British Coal sets up its own gauges and monitors the situations closely through the local liaison committee: it is usual for an environmental health officer to participate on this liaison committee".—[Official Report, 5/3/90; col. 984.]
I must tell the Minister that I have been advised that the coal board does no such thing. The Minister must tell us precisely how the coal board monitors these matters through local liaison committees. My information is that it does no such thing. Will the Minister tell us how many sites are monitored? My informant tells me that British Coal refuses to answer that question because it considers that to be privileged information. How can the monitoring of such a potentially damaging matter be considered privileged information?
We know that British Coal from the beginning has been hostile and reticent about accepting that there is a need for the EC directive at all. I told the House a week ago that it took a decade for an EC directive that was issued 10 years ago to be given any effect at all in this country. The Minister should tell us some more about that matter.
In the environmental impact assessment that was produced for the Pwlldu site, British Coal stated that it would not use the British standard method of measuring particulates; in other words British Coal would not use the standard that complied with OECD and EC directives. It argued that its own flat-plate method was more appropriate. Will the Minister tell the House a little bit more about the nitty-gritty of that situation?
I accept that the Minister made his previous statements in good faith when he said that British Coal was discussing these matters with its local liaison committees. But can the Minister tell me what gauges British Coal uses to monitor emissions? The Minister tells us that British Coal uses its own
1468
methods of monitoring, but the Minister and his advisers will have seen the EC directive and they will have noted that standards and measuring rods are laid down in it. If the coal board is not using those standards, what standards is it using?
The Minister further stated at col. 984 of the Official Report that,
"After the re-opened inquiry, the Secretary of State for Wales decided that the Derlwyn site could not go ahead".
That is wrong. The Derlwyn site is going ahead. Is that sentence a printer's error? The next sentence states:
"The Opencast Executive has received tenders from contractors and is about to let the contract".
If the Secretary of State for Wales had decided that the site could not go ahead, why did contractors submit tenders for it? I believe there must have been a printer's error there. The Secretary of State must have said that that site was to go ahead, otherwise tenders would not have been submitted. If the Minister is not prepared to insist that British Coal ensures that the directive imperatives are followed by opencast coal operators, I hope he can satisfy me that there is a satisfactory means of ensuring that mining communities are protected. We know that the damage which is now being done to young people may not manifest itself for 10, 20 or 30 years. By then it is too late to do anything. Prevention in this instance is very much better than cure. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, first, I should clear up any misunderstanding which may have arisen from remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, about this particular opencast site. The noble Lord said that my remarks suggested that consideration of the site would not proceed, but then he said that tenders had been received and the site was likely to be let before the end of April. I am not sure how my words resulted in that confusion, but I apologise to noble Lords if I misled them. However, I should have thought that the tenor of my remarks made it clear that planning permission had been granted and tenders had been received and the site was going to be let. However, if there was any misunderstanding I apologise to the House.
When this amendment was moved on Report, I explained the steps which were being taken on the ground to prevent dust from opencast sites. I referred to the fuller guidance on best practices on opencast mining which the Government had included in the new and more stringent Mineral Planning Guideline (MPG 3)—issued in 1988. These include the spraying of haulage roads within the site, washing the wheels of lorries leaving the site, special arrangements for controlling the excavated soil and rock, and guidance on the use of draglines during periods of high wind. These are now matters which the planning authorities have, since 1988, been specifically asked to consider before they give planning permission for an opencast site. I believe they will go a long way to minimise the problems of dust from opencast operations. However, I want on this occasion to focus on the charge that the noble Lord made on Report and which he touched on

1469
again this afternoon, that the Government have somehow been dilatory in implementing the 1980 directive. This is wholly incorrect.
The European Community directive referred to in this amendment was agreed on 15th July 1980. It did two things. It set maximum limits on emissions of sulphur dioxide and suspended particulates. And it set a timetable for member states to bring their air quality into line with these limits. Member states were required by 1st October 1982 to notify to the Commission those zones in which a derogation from the limits was sought; and to take the steps required to bring those zones within the limit by 1st April 1993. These were zones where it was felt that, despite measures taken, concentration would still exceed the limits at 1st April 1983.
The UK notified 29 derogation zones, and 28 of those were notified by the deadline of 1st October 1982. Of those 29 zones, seven have ceased to be derogation zones and are no longer exceeding the directive; and I am confident that the remaining 22 will be brought into conformity with these limits by 1993. In 1987 to 1988 all but seven zones were within the limits set out in the directive and in 1988 to 1989 all but three areas were within the limits. So we are already close to complying fully with the directive.
Most of the zones in which a derogation is still required are mining areas in which there is a concentrated burning of concessionary coal. There will still need to be a significant switch in these zones to smokeless solid fuel or to other fuels over the next three years. I understand the concern that is felt about changes in the concessionary coal arrangements, but it is important to recognise that concessionary coal now accounts for a high proportion of domestic coal consumption and that it contributes to the air pollution which the directive rightly seeks to eliminate.
The opencast site at Derlwyn was discussed at Report stage, and I do not propose to deal with it again this afternoon. However, I can assure the noble Lord that none of the 29 zones for which derogation was sought was in Wales. Perhaps that reflects the fact that most concessionery fuel in the South Wales coalfield tends to be naturally smokeless anthracite. Moreover, at no time since 1983 have the sulphur dioxide and particulate emissions in South Wales exceeded the limits set out in the directive. Elsewhere in the United Kingdom there have been typically between five and 10 breaches of the directive a year. The Health and Safety Executive investigate these as and when they occur and the local authorities are pressed to take smoke control measures.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has made some play with the fact that the statutory instrument implementing the 1980 directive was not brought forward until 1989. The United Kingdom took the view up until 1988 that, as in other areas of policy, the directive had the force of law since it was an EC directive binding on member states. The European Commission, in reviewing implementation of the directive, wrote to the United Kingdom on 1st January 1988 to say the limit values in the directive, and the requirements to monitor, should be
1470
enshrined in UK legislation. Although we had been complying with the provisions of the directive since it became operative, we introduced the Air Quality Standards Regulations 1989 to introduce the air quality standards into domestic law. In any event that does not mean that we were not complying with the directive before 1989. The United Kingdom has had its own smoke control legislation in place for nearly 30 years, and the monitoring methods we employed were basically the same as set out in the European Community directive. Monitoring is undertaken by the Department of Trade and Industry's Warren Spring Laboratory on behalf of the Department of the Environment. It established a comprehensive monitoring network for smoke and sulphur dioxide in 1961 and that network was readily adapted for monitoring for the purposes of the directive.
That demonstrates, I believe, that there has been nothing dilatory in the Government's implementation of air quality standards as they affect the community as a whole. I believe that the new planning guidelines issued in 1988 in MPG 3 show that the Government have taken positive steps to minimise the dust nuisance from opencast sites in particular.
We have been over this ground before, and today I have sought to explain in detail why the amendment is not required. In view of my remarks and the late stage of the Bill I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, once more I am grateful to the Minister for the care that he has taken in preparing for the debate. He has certainly satisfied me and I shall not press the amendment to a Division. However, there are one or two points that I need to make.
It is always puzzling, especially when one is in opposition, to be told that there is no need for an amendment because what the amendment seeks is already being done in some other way. If the EC directive is only applied in circumstances where it is warranted and is not a blanket directive it is puzzling that the Minister should find the amendment so resistable. However, the Minister quite rightly says that this is a late stage of the Bill, and it would be an exercise in futility to pursue the matter.
I do not wish to get the Minister to his feet again. So perhaps he can write to me with more detail of how the local liaison committees work. especially as part of his case at Report stage was that these matters are discussed by local liaison committees. My informants tell me that that is news to them. I should like to know how the committees work, whether these matters are discussed and what steps are taken. I do not want a great deal of detail, but for my own peace of mind I should like to be able to rebut what I was originally told. However, if what: I was told is correct and the Minister has been given a broad-brush picture by British Coal which, on examination can be queried or challenged, then the matter should be raised on the Floor of the House.

1471
I repeat that the Minister has satisfied me that the burden of what I seek is already being done by British Coal and the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.36 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, no Tory government, including this one, have been a friend of the British mining industry. One reason, among a number of reasons, is that they know that they receive virtually no political support from the miners. The nature of the miners' work has made them suspicious of any promises made by any Tory government. When the miners and those of us who take an interest in the industry learn from the Bill that the Government are to write off the debts of British Coal it is realised immediately that there is a different motive from that stated in the Bill.
Many people, including the various miners' organisations, have been asking for such a write-off for years. I need not go into the reasons for that now. They met with a stony response.
It was no surprise to see the provision in this Bill: the decision to privatise the industry has been known now for some two or three years. The Secretary of State said in another place:
"I do not claim that our deficiency grant is simply an act of generosity".
For those people who may take over the industry it is one of the most generous gifts that even this Government have handed out.
As with all their other privatisation measures, the Government say that the industry will be run more efficiently. We can debate that on another occasion. However, there is no doubt whatever that the main purpose of this part of the Bill is to set the scene for more fat profits for those who will own the pits. If it ever comes about—and now that the country can see how incompetent the Government are in running the economy it is unlikely that they will win the next election—privatisation will bring a heavy price in its wake.
First, there will be heavy loss of jobs in the industry where profit will be the sole criterion. We have seen already under British Coal pits closing and little attempt made to provide alternative employment. If the Minister wishes to praise what has been done by British Coal Enterprise I shall be happy to respond to him. Whole communities have been callously destroyed. Privatisation will simply exacerbate the situation.
I remind noble Lords that as recently as January 1987 the Select Committee on Energy in another place recommended that rundown of the industry should never again take place without a policy co-ordinated by the Departments of Energy, Trade and Industry and Employment to cushion the blow
1472
and limit the social consequences. The implication of this Bill is that such co-ordination will never take place.
Secondly, it is certain that the safety record in the pits, so carefully and painstakingly built up over the years, will deteriorate. A good example of that is that there is to be a five-fold increase in the number of people allowed to work below ground in private pits. I seem to remember that the Minister himself admitted during our debates on the Bill that the safety record in private pits left much to be desired.
Thirdly, the so-called unacceptable face of capitalism has shown itself again through the Government's policies on opencast mining. I trust that the Government felt ashamed, although I doubt it very much, when they were defeated by Members on their own side on one aspect of opencast mining. I wonder whether any Minister lives in an area where the countryside is raped by that form of mining. I have grave doubts that the provisions of the Bill will provide the necessary safeguards. Never was the phrase "making a quick buck" more appropriate than in opencast mining.
There are many unanswered questions in the Bill. Where will the managers for the private pits come from? The high qualifications and wide experience required for the post have not only been vital but widely admired over the years. The qualifications to become a colliery manager are difficult to obtain. Who will pay the heavy capital costs involved in the mechanisation of the private pits? What about the future of special kinds of coal such as anthracite? Who will finance that? Will there be any improvement in the provision of alternative employment and social facilities in the mining communities? Many more questions could be asked and so far no replies have been forthcoming.
I realise that all the matters on which I have spoken have been raised previously, but I reiterate them for emphasis. The Government must not think that in not voting against the Bill tonight the Opposition is wholly in agreement with it. The measure has shown once again that Tory governments are no friends of either miners or their communities.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I rise in the hope that the Bill will not pass. I do so because I believe that I received unsatisfactory replies to my main objections to the Bill when the Minister wound up the Second Reading debate. I took great exception to the expansion of opencast coal mining and I still do. I thought that the Minister was both brief and complacent in his reply on that matter.
My objections were based on experience in the communities which have suffered from that industrial vandaliser of the environment—pollution by noise and by dust; the environmental damage to coal mining districts and villages; the ruination of people's lives; and the blighting and devaluing of their property. It is especially severe on old people within the vicinity of an opencast site. Untold numbers of people have suffered with no compensation and no recognition of a life blighted,

1473
yet the Bill gives the right to the opencast operators to extend their tonnage extraction from 25,000 tonnes of coal per site to 250,000 tonnes—a ten fold increase—irrespective of the environmental damage that that will cause.
To anyone seriously interested in improving the environment, that is a diabolical increase. Furthermore, whereas in the past a 25,000-tonne site would take up to five years to mine, the new 250,000-tonne sites could be operating for seven to 10 years. For many in the coalfield communities that is a horrifying prospect.
In reply to my objections, the Minister acknowledged that every contributor in the Second Reading debate had raised the environmental aspects of opencast operations. He said:
"It is essential to strike a balance between the environmental impact of opencast mining and the benefits to the national economy … We want to see opencasting, which is 30 per cent. cheaper than deep-mined coal, contributing more to our national economy, always consistent with each individual site being acceptable environmentally".—[Official Report, 9/2/90; col. 1059.]
The profit motive could not have been expressed more clearly than that. The Minister's only defence was the planning system and he even admitted that mistakes had been made in the past. If that is true of the small sites, what then of the new massive sites that are to be worked?
The size of the problem is revealed in answer to a Question that I posed in the House. In the two years 1985–87, 212 applications were made for opencast mining sites and 130 were approved in spite of the major warnings previously made to the Government by the Flowers Commission. In its report on energy and the environment, the Flowers Commission said:
"Opencast mining has a severe impact on the environment in both the short and long term".
It stressed:
"the uniquely sensitive character of the British countryside and the high population density in much of the country would not be able to accommodate expansion without unwarrantable damage".
That was in 1981, and at the time of its report the commission concluded that the balance was moving against the environment and amenity. Yet all those warnings have been ignored. How do the Government answer the environmental case? Their supposed sympathy with improving the environment is a sham. It is a pretence. They are bent upon a major increase in environmental damage in many forms in the mining communities in our country.
If the Government are keen to adopt the principle that the polluter pays, who is to compensate all those who still suffer years of dust and noise and those whose homes are blighted near an opencast site, their properties devalued for years? What provision is to be made to make the polluter pay? Our coalfields are still suffering from the severity of the pit closure programme in. recent years and particularly since the end of the strike. The Minister told me in the Second Reading debate that 190,000 jobs had been lost during the Labour Government's period in office. That was over 11 years. This Government have caused job losses of 130,000 in four and a half years—a ruthless rundown. It is like a fit of pique and a reprisal in the wake of the strike.
1474
The Bill gives no respite to mining communities. More pits are destined to close with more unemployment, more rundown districts and a continuing degree of unhappiness with an unfair burden of misery being thrust upon them. I cannot support a Bill that clearly condemns our mining areas—for that is where opencast mining is destined to expand—to more years of pollution contamination. If ever there was a case for enhancing the quality of life by protecting the environment from that increasing pollution, curbing opencast coal mining is a must. It is obvious that pollution and profit before health and happiness is the creed of this Government, and no better is it emphasised than in this Bill.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to make three comments on this short but important Bill. First, I am wholly in favour of the capital reconstruction of the coal industry. That is something which I should have liked to see in my time in the industry. The remarkable productivity performance of British Coal in recent times has fully justified that long-awaited reconstruction and I wish it well under the new arrangements.
Secondly, as noble Lords who have spoken rightly emphasised, there must be a concern about safety in the mines. The record of safety in the nationalised British mining industry has been second to none in the world. We have reduced fatalities—I say "we" because I was involved in it for some years—to the minimum compared with all other major mining industries. That high standard of safety must never be relaxed, whatever form of ownership the coal industry may have in the future.
It is a matter of concern that private mine operations are being expanded, because their record of safety does not compare favourably with that of British Coal and the National Coal Board before it. So I very much hope that it will be a prime endeavour of the Government, through the organisations that exist for this purpose, to ensure that those standards of safety are never relaxed in any form or shape. Human safety is far more important than profitability or any other consideration.
Thirdly, there is the question of the environment. Attention has consistently been drawn to this matter, particularly in relation to opencast mining. Opencast mining has contributed substantially to the profitability and efficiency of British mining. When I was chairman of the Coal Board I accepted that opencast should play its part, particularly in blending with deep-mined coal so as to make it a more acceptable product. However, it must be accepted that there is an environmental issue.
I am very glad that amendments to that effect were agreed during the passage of the Bill through this House. I should like only to emphasise that if coal as an industry is to succeed it must conform in every possible way to environmental and safety requirements. Of course it must also be efficient. But those are the two prime considerations and there has been some degree of concern expressed about those aspects during the passage of the Bill. I commend these issues very strongly to the Government in whatever future policy they may have in regard to the coal industry.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I too should like to welcome the restructuring of the finances of the coal industry even though, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, it has perhaps been dealt with a little belatedly for some. However, it is necessary and it will be a good thing for the industry. I am also pleased that we had the co-operation of the Minister in regard to the environmental amendment to the Bill and that the Government were happy to accept that. I know that restoration of opencast sites has not always been of the highest standard but there are a considerable number of places around the country where it has been carried out well and has rendered the areas much more enjoyable to those who live in them.
Finally, I thank the Minister for his courtesy and consideration and for the consultations that he undertook with those of us who had special worries in the course of this Bill.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, as my noble friends Lord Dormand of Easington and Lord Mason of Barnsley said, the Bill is unwelcome. We acknowledged at Second Reading that some aspects of it could bring some solace and comfort to those who will inevitably be made redundant and have their future damaged by this legislation.
Certainly in another place my honourable friends voted against the Bill because of the damage that it would do to the coal mining communities and to the general economy of the country. What shines out of this Bill, as it does from many other aspects of energy policy, is the complete absence of any governmental integrated energy policy. It is all very well for the Minister to bring forward measures to expand opencast operations. As my noble friends said tellingly, because they not only live there now but have lived in mining communities all their lives and represented their members, there is not a community within which an opencast operation exists that has not resisted and detested its impact upon it.
Together with the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, we welcome acceptance of the amendment which helps soften the environmental impact. The noble Baroness said that she was happy that the Government had accepted it. When it was first put to the House, the Government rejected it by 80 votes to 64. It was only in the face of such a defeat that the Government recognised the political realities of having to avoid difficulties in another place. This Government will resist what ultimately they acknowledge they will have to embrace. At the time, however, they found a great deal wrong with the amendment.
Having said that, I believe that the Minister has shown compassion and understanding about the feelings of Members of this House who have spoken on the subject. Some aspects of the Bill are sensible, and although we did not obtain our amendments we received satisfactory assurances, not least in the realm of subsidence. Many people outside the House—small members of the community as well as big landowners—can take comfort from what the Minister said. More than once he used phrases such as, "the early intention of the Government" or "as soon as possible will bring forward legislation to give effect to the Waddilove Committee's reports".
1476
However, at the end of the day no one should disabuse themselves. This is a Bill to prepare the coal mining industry for privatisation. By clearing up the capital reconstruction aspects and carrying out a great many other operations, it is intended by this Bill to get the industry ready for the market. I believe that it is a crime against the coal mining communities for them in effect to be sold off to the highest bidder. As my noble friend Lord Dormand said, the consequences will certainly be felt not only in the coal mining communities but throughout the country when we next have the opportunity of a general election.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for her kind remarks and also the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for accepting that the answers which I sought to give him were considered replies. I have considered very carefully the points that he put to me.
I shall be brief. Although much of our debate has focused on the changes in the licensing limits at Clause 4, the heart of the Bill concerns British Coal's finances. The capital reconstruction it provides is very large, but it is not a fattening-up exercise. It is no more than is required to keep the corporation alive. It addresses the losses and liabilities of the past—the actual losses recorded over the past two years, the liabilities which had long gone unrecorded for concessionary coal and deafness claims and the overvaluation of its assets.
When the Secretary of State introduced this Bill on 4th December in another place he was able to announce not only this financial reconstruction but also an outline deal between the generators and British Coal. This afternoon it is fitting that I should be able to tell your Lordships' House on the Third Reading of the Bill that those three-year coal contracts have now been finalised in a fully detailed form and shortly will be signed.
Those two events—the signing of the coal contracts and the passage of the Bill—represent two major uncertainties that are now being lifted from the corporation's future. The corporation can now plan its future with much greater confidence than before, with a real prospect of at least restoring the industry to profitability and viability. That is a major step forward. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons amended.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [H.L.]
3.59 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 29 [The Authority's register of information]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 15, line 43, leave out ("of that") and insert ("non-identifying").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will be sad to learn that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, is ill in hospital. At his request I therefore beg the leave of the House to move the amendment.
It seems to me that the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that only non-identifying information is made available to an applicant for information who is seeking to know whether or not he was born in consequence of treatment services. I am far from sure whether or not that is already adequately covered by Clause 31(3)(c). That represents an amendment moved by the Government at Committee. However, even if it is covered, Amendment No. 58 would reinforce the principle that only non-identifying information is to be made available. Whatever the position today, there is always the risk that identifying information may be kept by a licensed holder by virtue of directions to be made under Clause 13(2)(c) by the authority and that disclosure of such information could subsequently be authorised by regulations yet to be made, even if that is not the intention of the present Government.
If the amendment were acceptable to the House, it would not only be consistent with Clause 31(3)(c), but would make it difficult, if not impossible, for regulations to be made authorising the disclosure of information which would enable the donor to be identified. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure that all of your Lordships will be sorry to learn that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, whose amendment it is, is in hospital. I am sure that we all wish him a speedy recovery.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord has taken much interest in the matters that we are discussing.
The amendment would have the effect of making it impossible for regulations to be made requiring the authority to give an applicant information which would enable him or her to identify a genetic parent. The Government's policy on the disclosure of information to children born as a result of treatments regulated by the Bill is that they should be given access to non-identifying information about their genetic parents. The majority view of those who responded to the consultation document that we sent out following the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and her colleagues also shared this view. But this is a matter on which views may change and we recognised that in the White Paper which stated:
"Attitudes to the anonymity of donors, however, may well change over time as happened with adoption. The Government therefore proposes to keep the position under review. The Bill will include powers to amend the categories of information to be made available to children born following donation, so that the possibility of granting access to identifying information in future remains open".
1478
It is our firm intention that the regulations should specify that the authority may not disclose identifying information, but we believe that the possibility of change in the future should not be ruled out.
It is for that reason that the Government do not accept the amendment. As we said in the White Paper, we believe it right, in the light of developments, to keep open the possibility that identifying information should be made available.
The current balance as a result of consultation is against it, but it is the possibility of change in this respect that we wish to recognise. I hope that the noble Lord may feel in the light of this answer that the amendment should not be pressed.
The position on the clause to which the noble Lord referred is Clause 31(3)(c) which is intended to qualify the application of Clause 31(1). That is its purpose. However, the Bill would still enable regulations to be made if it were thought right to allow identifying information in future, although the present intention is to restrict that information to non-identifying information.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I believe that the response of the noble and learned Lord is a little worrying. It leaves the door open for regulations to be made in the future which would enable the identification of the donors to be made available. It is feared that that could have a serious impact on the supply of donors. Nevertheless, at this stage I do not propose to press the amendment to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 16, line 15, at end insert—
("() Where any question arises with respect to the effect of section 28(3) of this Act, the Authority shall provide at the request of the College of Arms or the Lord Lyon King of Arms any relevant information on the register kept in pursuance of this section.").
The noble Lady said: My Lords, the amendment is to enable those whose duty it may be to ascertain that a particular person is the right person to inherit under Clause 28(3) to have access to the minimum information necessary to enable them to carry out that duty. It may be that Clause 30 covers the situation and that it is therefore unnecessary. However, it is important that the necessary information is available to those who need to know if Clause 28(3) is to be capable of being implemented. I cannot believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would have moved Amendments Nos. 55 to 57 last Tuesday if they had not been capable of being implemented. In my stupidity I find the Bill very confusing and I should like to be clear as to the mechanism. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could enlighten me.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, Clause 29 of the Bill requires the authority to keep information about the keeping or use of gametes of identifiable donors and identifiable persons for whom treatment

1479
services were provided or which shows that an identifiable individual might have been born as a result of treatment services. It also regulates circumstances under which that information may be disclosed to persons who were or may have been born in consequence of treatment services. Subsection (3) of Clause 28 provides that Clauses 26 and 27, which deal with the meaning of "mother" and "father" under the Bill, shall not affect any rights of succession to any dignity or title of honour. The amendment would, where any question arose with respect to the effect of Clause 28(3), require the authority to provide the College of Arms or the Lord Lyon King of Arms with any information kept on the register under Clause 29. This information comprises information about treatment of individuals and storage of gametes and embryos from an identifiable individual, together with information that an individual was, or might have been, born as a result of treatment services.
The College of Arms and the Lord Lyon King of Arms, as your Lordships know, deal with the pedigrees of persons who may be connected with the succession to a coat of arms, and with certain other questions on titles of honour. The amendment would not affect the question of succession to peerages which is, of course, a matter for your Lordships' House.
Under the Bill as it stands, the disclosure of information held by the licensing authority is very strictly controlled. Clause 30 provides for the special case where the Registrar General is concerned that a man is not the father of the child. With this one exception, release of information can be made only to the person who was or may have been born as a result of licensed treatment services in two types of case. The first is when after age 18 he seeks information on his genetic origins. The second is if he asks for informaton about whether he and an intended spouse are or may be genetically related. There is no provision for the disclosure of information to individuals to whom the information does not relate.
The amendment would make an important exception to the general provision that information is not available other than to the person who is or may have been born as a result of licensed treatment. It would enable the College of Arms or the Lord Lyon King of Arms to obtain freely information held by the authority which either the college or Lord Lyon considers relevant. There would be no limit to the extent to which this information could be published either by the college and Lord Lyon, or by those to whom the college or Lord Lyon gave it, since the restrictions on disclosure by persons to whom Clause 31 applies do not apply to information disclosed in accordance with Clause 29.
It is necessary to recall that this is personal and medical information of a kind which has always been regarded as a matter of the strictest confidentiality between doctor and patient. To accept the amendment would mean two things: first, that the college and Lord Lyon had a right
1480
to this information which was equal to the rights of the person who was or may have been born as a result of treatment; and secondly, that the college and Lord Lyon had a right to this information that was greater than any other person whose access to that information is restricted by the Bill.
I find it difficult to accept either of these propositions. In particular I have to bear in mind that on the matters with which the college and Lord Lyon are concerned, the Bill does not alter the present position; that is, that dignities and titles of honour pass through the blood line and are not covered by Clauses 26 to 28 of the Bill. The college and Lord Lyon already face the problem of having to decide succession in cases where parentage may be disputed for whatever reason, including treatments provided for infertile couples. In many of these cases, medical information about the putative parents and the child may be relevant to the issue. But whether medically confidential information can and should be disclosed for these purposes is a matter to be decided under the existing laws of England and Wales, and of Scotland, and is ultimately a matter for the courts to consider if a case is brought to them.
At present, I see no sufficient reasons to disturb this position. I fear that the amendment, although very well intentioned, would open up a series of claims from other people who would find it helpful to have confidential medical and personal information about people which derived from medical records. The basis for the Government's policy is that it would be wrong to make special provision in the very specialised context of succession issues involving children born as a result of the treatments licensed by the Bill. Where these issues arise in nature, so to speak, the college and the Lord Lyon would need to consider arguments brought on the basis of such evidence as was available and to determine the matter as best they could. I do not see any difference in principle which should alter the position for AID children and the like.
The Bill, after careful thought by the Government in the consultative document and the White Paper, does make some special provisions, especially for the person who is or may have been born as a result of licensed treatment. But that information is personal to him or her unless he or she chooses to disclose it more widely. I believe it is not justified to go further than the Bill does and for that reason, I do not feel able to accept the amendment.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I find the logic of the noble and learned Lord very curious. It does not seem unreasonable that someone should want to know who is their father. Whether we are tallking about this instance or any other situation, this only adds more unreality to the Bill. We are talking about something which is so precious. Every human being should have the knowledge as to who is their father and mother.
Whatever the reason, it seems to me that if we deny this, we are doing something which is quite wrong under the law but also under the religion which we all say that we practise. Because the noble Lady has raised it in this context does not mean that it is not right in any other context. I believe that she raises a very important point and I hope that the

1481
noble and learned Lord can produce some reasons which are more interesting than those given so far as to why the amendment is not acceptable.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord replies, I very much support what the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has said. We have already discussed in Committee the question of whether the name of the father should be revealed to the child at any particular time. I believe that we have had very little evidence of any good reason why that name should not be given except, as I understand it, that there may be a shortage of gametes. So far, that is the only valid reason which has been produced. If I was a child in that situation I would find that a totally unacceptable reason as to why I should not know the name of my father.
Those of us who have the good fortune to know the identity of our father must realise how terrible it is for a child not to be able to know who is their father, particularly in circumstances where there will be no father. My noble and learned friend said that there would be circumstances in which there would be no father known to the child, where perhaps there was no husband or the husband was dead or something had happened to him. For a Government who claim that the family is the basis of society, I find it very hard as a Member who has always supported that Government to find that we are totally destroying the concept of family by destroying the possibility of a child, in many circumstances, ever knowing who or what is his or her father.
Lord Ennals: My Lords——
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. We are all out of order. The Companion is quite clear that no noble Lord should speak after the Minister has replied except the mover of the amendment, who in this case is the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. There is a rider in the Companion which states that if the Minister intervenes early in order to assist the House, then it is quite natural that noble Lords will wish to speak. However, with great respect to noble Lords, that was not the case on this occasion.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, it was.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my impression was that my noble and learned friend quite deliberately waited, as is his custom, in order to see whether noble Lords wished to speak, and when no noble Lord spoke my noble and learned friend replied.
I suggest that on this occasion, now that this line has started, we finish this debate by allowing all noble Lords who wish to speak to do so and my noble and learned friend, if he so wishes, with the leave of the House can reply. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, will then finish the debate. However, this is a one-off and we should try to stick to the Companion in the future.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, without wishing to take up the time of the House I should like to support what has been said by my noble friend Lady
1482
Elles. This is a very serious matter and I am sorry that we did not understand that my noble and learned friend was intervening to close the debate. I entirely agree with what has been said by my noble friend Lady Elles and the noble Baroness opposite. It is quite intolerable that we should proclaim our support for the family and that the Government should do that and then deny to a child or even an adult the knowledge of the identity of his father.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I should like to ask a question of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as a result of what he said. I do not see how the Lord Lyon and the College of Arms can discharge their duties properly—and the Lord Lyon has to determine matters which relate to succession of many things, sometimes titles and sometimes other matters pertaining only to Scotland—without some of this information. I fully understand the noble and learned Lord saying that the full medical information should not be disclosed to the Lord Lyon nor should it be disseminated more widely by the Lord Lyon. However, I cannot see how the Lord Lyon can possibly carry out his duties effectively without having access to some part of this information. Surely it may be possible to include a similar but more restrictive clause in the Bill which would perhaps satisfy the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does not this amendment apply only to information which might be made available to the College of Arms or the Lord Lyon? It does not relate at all to the question of whether a person has access to that information from the age of 18 onwards. Am I right?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think it is important, in view of the interventions of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, my noble friend Lady Elles and my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, to say that the point which they are raising does not appear to me to be relevant to this amendment.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in a sense it may have been extremely relevant to the last amendment which was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. I indicated the situation with regard to that amendment. At the risk of being somewhat out of order I shall explain that the amendment dealt with the question of whether, for example, it would ever be proper to disclose the identity of a donor.
We are now dealing with a different question: that is whether the College of Arms or the Lord Lyon should have the right to obtain information from records kept by the licensing authority which might have a bearing on the discharge of their functions. The successions with which they are concerned are to be by blood rather than, for example, as a result of one of the treatments licensed under the Bill.
My comments in relation to that matter in no way cut across the points which were raised later. They are completely different matters and if I were to deal with them fully I should need to go back further than

1483
the last amendment. However, the question posed in the amendment is: should the Lord Lyon or the College of Arms have access to the particular records?
As was said by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, the College of Arms and the Lord Lyon have responsibilities which they discharge on the basis of the evidence available to them. The evidence properly available to them can be circumscribed by law if appropriate. As I said earlier, the Lord Lyon and the College of Arms must deal with cases in which the evidence may be scarce. It may not be easy to establish exactly the circumstances of a particular individual's birth. However, they have no particular or special rights to require information.
If there is a question about a particular treatment and succession the person asking the Lord Lyon or the College of Arms to make a grant or declaration could well be asked to deal with the matter. After the age of 18 a person affected has the right to obtain such information. In that situation the College of Arms could make it a condition that the information should be disclosed by the person making the request in order that a check can be made.
I must emphasise—and sometimes it is forgotten—that no information on the register can ever be conclusive on that question for reasons which I have explained. At best it would be information about a treatment; it could not produce information with regard to the birth. More detailed information might then be required and in that case the ultimate test would probably be genetic testing.
I hope that I have answered the points raised. In view of the interventions I must point out that in our debates on this Bill and others I have sought never to intervene at the Report stage until I have given all noble Lords who wish to intervene a chance to do so. I believe that that makes for orderly debate, although sometimes I have been almost invited to intervene because the general feeling has been that the debate had exhausted its subject matter. However, apart from such circumstances I have sought to ensure that all noble Lords who wish to speak do so before I speak.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I remain in a state of confusion. It appears that the resolution of a claim might be considerably delayed if it had to wait until the claimant was aged 18 before he could obtain the information to prove or disprove his case. However, I shall read most carefully what the noble and learned Lord said and take legal advice. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 16, line 15, at end insert—
(" (7) A person who has attained the age of eighteen ("the descendant") may by notice to the Authority require the Authority to comply with a request under subsection (8) below and the Authority shall do so if—
(a) the information contained in the register shows that a named ancestor of the descendant was, or may have been, born in consequence of treatment services, and
1484
(b) the descendant has been given a suitable opportunity to receive proper counselling about the implications of compliance with the request.
(8) The descendant may request the Authority to give the descendant notice stating whether or not the information contained in the register shows that a person other than a parent of the named ancestor would or might, but for sections 26 to 28 of this Act, be a parent of the named ancestor and, if it does show that—(a) giving the descendant so much of that information as relates to the person concerned as the Authority is required by regulations to give (but no other information), or (b) stating whether or not that information shows that, but for sections 26 to 28 of this Act, the descendant, and a person specified in the request as a person whom the descendant proposes to marry, would or might be related.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I intervene in the debate somewhat quietly bearing in mind what was said previously in respect of Amendment No. 58. The views are not opposite but they are differing. Noble Lords put forward certain views in respect of the amendment tabled by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. There will be plenty of opportunity to discuss them more appropriately in respect of these amendments.
Before doing so I wish to remind your Lordships of the Committee stage when you may have thought that I was smacked. I took the Committee to a Division and was beaten by 97 votes to 35. However, bearing in mind the Government Whip and the Opposition views, I was glad to have 35 votes and the opportunity of putting forward a point of view. The Committee took a certain view about the birth certificate which I regret. This afternoon I have tabled two amendments—Nos. 60 and 62—which I shall ask your Lordships to consider in their entirety despite what happened in Committee.
Clause 29(3) and (4) provides that an applicant may seek to discover whether he or she is about to marry a parent, sister or brother. That is entirely right and proper. However, at present there is no right for a donor child to make enquiries about whether the person he or she is about to marry is his aunt or her uncle. Nor can the worried person ask his or her parent to make an application under Clause 29(3) and (4) on his or her behalf because the parent is not about to marry the other party. My amendment seeks to remedy that defect.
My amendment also gives the descendants of donor children the right to the same information about the genetic parents of named ancestors as the donor children have about the genetic parents. That appears to be fair and reasonable because at least some of the genes inherited by a donor child from his or her genetic parent will be passed on by the donor child to his or her children. The amendment does not seek to provide any fuller identification about the genetic parent of a named ancestor than is provided under subsection (4)(b) to the donor child about his or her genetic parent. In both instances regulations will fix the amount of information provided. I beg to move.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I apologise for having spoken to the earlier amendment at the wrong time. However, I hope that now is the right time to speak to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Teviot. I seek clarification because I am concerned to know how, at the age of 18, anyone will know that

1485
they have the right to ask the authority about their origin. I am sorry to return to this point, but it is a basic matter in relation to the amendment.
Any child who is in possible line for succession to a title or grant, particularly in Scotland, would be concerned as to his position until he becomes 18. He might be counselled at the age of 14 and told: "Look, James, you cannot go to an authority and ask what your mother or your ancestor did before you were born, because nobody will tell you anything until you are 18 years of age; and therefore the matter will be held in abeyance until you are 18 when you can verify your genetic origin and situation".
I may have completely misunderstood the purpose of the amendment, but it seems to me that there is a lacuna in the system whereby children will be born by AID and they will never have the possibility of knowing their donor. That is the Government's policy which has been accepted by the House. How do children know that eventually, at the age of 18, they may have the right to inquire of the authority what their position is at that date in order to succeed to some title or grant?
I should be most grateful for clarification. I apologise if I am making a meal of the matter; it is something which worries me.
4.30 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I am worried by the idea that at the age of 18 a person who wants to marry somebody should find out whether or not that person is their brother or sister, or whatever, in view of the way in which young people live. Nowadays very often they have been living together since the age of 16, or illegally from before the age of 16. They may have a child or two to their names. It is thoroughly unrealistic to say that then, if they find out that they are brother or sister, they cannot get married, but if they are not so related they can get married. That situation could cause untold misery.
Either people should be able to find out whether they have been born by any of those processes at a younger age than 18, or they should not be able to obtain the information simply because they want to get married.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I agree with the principle of the amendment. It is right that someone should know whether they are about to marry someone to whom they are genetically related. I agree with my noble friend Lady Saltoun that 18 is probably not the correct age, but that matter can be looked into later. The principle of the amendment is correct in that people can discover whether or not they are genetically related. That situation should be extended beyond the first generation. In other words, one should be able to find out not only about brothers and sisters, but also whether one is related as a result of sharing grandparents.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I have listened to this debate and to other matters connected with it. As a nation we are getting into awful muddles about childbirth. People have children without being
1486
married when they are very young. I think that your Lordships should consider whether the truth should be known. Behind my feelings is the thoughts that if somebody is the son or daughter of a donor, the truth should be known. We will get into a deeper and deeper muddle by trying to protect people in a charitable way. The truth is the important matter.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, some noble Lords may have overlooked Clause 29(5). A young person under the age of 18 years who intends to marry may appoint an agent to apply to the authority for the information which is required. As I understand the matter, the authority will disclose the information to the young person.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, that section refers to parents. The amendment relates to grandparents.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk. At the end of the day the truth is more important than fiction. Surely we, as a state, have a duty to respect and honour the truth? That is all I should like to say in support of my noble friend.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should like to point out that Clause 29(5) provides that:
"A person who has not attained the age of 18 ('the minor') may by notice to the Authority specifying another person ('the intended spouse') as a person whom the minor proposed to marry require the Authority to comply with a request under subsection (6) below, and the Authority shall do so if—
(a) the information contained in the register shows that the minor was, or may have been, born in consequence of treatment services, and
(b) the minor has been given a suitable opportunity to receive proper counselling about the implications of compliance with the request."
Subsection (6) states that:
"The minor may request the Authority to give the minor notice stating whether or not the information contained in the register shows that, but for sections 26 to 28 of this Act, the minor and the intended spouse would or might be related."
That is as high as the matter can be put. The point is that the person need not be 18. I think that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and to some extent the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, have not fully taken that aspect of the provision into account.
I entirely agree with the view that truth is vitally important. However, there are situations in which confidentiality requires to be respected. Such a situation is dealt with by the amendment. The effect of the amendment would be to allow the descendants of children born as a result of the treatments to be licensed by the new authority the same rights as the children themselves to obtain information to which their ancestors would be entitled, that is to such non-identifying information as the authority may determine in regulations or to information which would tell them on application to the authority whether or not they had been born as a result of one of the licensed treatments. I understand the intention of the amendment very well and can see that it would assist children of future generations born to those who came into the world as a result of one of the treatments to be licensed under the Bill. It would, however, be a very wide ranging provision and I

1487
think that the Bill should confine the availability of sensitive and private information about the donor to those who result immediately from the donation.
They would be entirely free to pass on that medical and genetic information to their own children if they chose to do so. In many cases they might well want to do so, particularly, where information about genetic history was involved.
Your Lordships will remember the amendment which was agreed to on the last occasion. It concerned the need for the welfare of any child who was possibly born as a result of treatments to be considered before the treatment was given. That aspect of the matter will be elaborated upon in guidance. It may be that it would be right for a person born as a result of one of those treatments to pass on the information to his or her children who were born in the ordinary way. However, that is a different matter from giving, without limit, any descendants of theirs a right to that information by application to the authority. It is best to put this matter on the basis that the person immediately affected would be able to acquire the information. We would have discharged the obligation that would arise by making it possible for those born as a result of treatment to have access to such information. It would be better to leave the transmission of that information to succeeding generations—to the initiative of individual parents.
My noble friend asked how people would know whether or not to go to the authority. The application could be made by anyone. The authority is bound to respond to anyone, once the age of 18 has been attained, in respect of such information as the authority possesses. It would only occur to most people to seek information if they had been given an indication in some way or other that such was their circumstances. If one wanted to be sure, however, or one felt doubtful for any other reason, it would be open to go to the authority and obtain the information once one was 18 and had been counselled about the effect that that would have.
No doubt the sort of circumstances that would give rise to a special desire to find out would be that the parents had told the child, or that the child had learned it from some other source or had come to suspect it in some other way. I believe I heard schools suggested, and that is possible. Sometimes information is transmitted at school that would not be transmitted in other circumstances. The reliability of such information may be affected to some extent, so no doubt it would be wise to check up on information received in that way. The opportunity for doing so is certainly contained in the Bill.
It is important to keep in mind, in relation to the consideration that my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk and others have mentioned, that we are talking about a very small proportion of births as a result of treatments regulated by the Bill. The figure is about 2,000 a year, while in the population at large it is thought that about 5 per cent.—I have mentioned this figure previously—are not aware that their social father is not their genetic father.
1488
In these circumstances we have records under which, if a person wishes to make a check on this aspect, he or she is able to do so within the limits that the Bill provides. No such possibility exists in the ordinary case, as I have mentioned. That appears to me to be the best way of handling what is, on all counts, a difficult and delicate situation where parents have found it desirable, in the ordinary case, to go to their doctor and have special arrangements made and special help given in order to have children whom they are prepared to treat as their own.
As I said earlier in our debates on this Bill, generally speaking the children who are born by such treatments are highly wanted children because the treatments are not particularly pleasant for those involved. Here we have, as a typical case, a wanted child for whom the parents will wish very much to do their best as that child develops in the world. I believe that we may with some confidence leave it to the people who have brought these children into the world to look after them properly. As I said, they have the possibilities that the Bill gives but to go further would be to go too far and I therefore hope that my noble friend Lord Teviot will not press his amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I have to say that obviously I shall not press the amendment but I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I briefly explain why I do not intend to do so.
Some of my noble friends spoke in favour of the amendment as they are very unhappy about this matter. It is an unhappy chapter. On one point we are all agreed—that it is a highly sensitive area. We are all seeking to do our best, but we hold differing views. As I said previously, they are not opposing views but differing views.
I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor answered the point raised by my noble friend Lady Elles. I hope that he did because I am not clear as to the position and I do not think I could give an answer.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, who spoke about truth and confidentiality. I think that question must be left to your Lordships to make up your own minds. Perhaps I may just tell one very short story which was given to me by the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering. A couple had a child by this treatment. On a second occasion, as they did not know the parents, they felt it totally unfair to have another child where they could not ascertain details about the treatment, so they adopted. That may be a good thing.
We have had a very fair discussion but I think at this point we should leave the matter for another occasion. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 [Information to be provided to Registrar General]:
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 16, line 17, after ("child") insert ("or a woman is not the mother of a child").
The noble Lady said: My Lords, in Committee, reported in Hansard at col. 1270 on Tuesday 13th February, the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, said in reply to amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and myself:
"I think my noble friend Lord Teviot is asking that the authority should have records from which it can be determined whether a particular person has in fact been subject to one of these treatments at some time which might be related to the birth of a particular child. That is certainly something that one would want to consider".
It would appear that the records kept by the authority under Clause 13(2) would probably be adequate for identification purposes. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give an assurance that that is so.
It would also appear that Clause 30 may be adequate to meet the case where a person may have been born as a result of sperm donation but it does not appear to cover the case of a person born through egg donation. In certain cases, particularly in Scotland where succession through the female line is not unusual, it could be of some importance. Amendment No. 61 closes that gap by amending Clause 30(1). I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, subsection (1) of Clause 30 requires the authority to provide information to the Registrar General in cases where it is alleged that a man is not the father of a child and the Registrar General needs to have that information to determine whether the claim is well founded. For example, if a man who has been registered as the father of a child by virtue of being married to the child's mother subsequently denies being the father the Registrar General will need to find out whether the child might have been born as a result of treatment involving the use of donated sperm to which the man did not consent.
This amendment attempts to extend this provision to cases where it is alleged that a woman is not the mother of a child. However, such extension is unnecessary. It is a question of fact whether a woman has given birth to a child and the Registrar General would not need to have access to records held by the authority to establish that fact. If the entry in the Register of Births is incorrect, the registrar of births and deaths has power to correct the error in accordance with regulations made under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953.
Therefore, as regards registration, which is what we are dealing with here, the woman from whom the child is born is the mother. Therefore, the extension is not necessary. I hope in the light of that explanation the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, the trouble is that I cannot accept that a child born by egg donation is the child of the woman to whom the child was born. I regret that this is an area where I fundamentally disagree with the Government. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Restrictions on disclosure of information]:
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 16, line 43, at end insert—
("(cc) more than one hundred and fifteen years after the event to which the disclosed information relates,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment requires the authority to keep the contents of the register strictly confidential, apart from defined exceptions, while a person is given treatment services and the children born are still alive. However, there comes a time when all concerned are dead and there is no need to continue confidentiality. I draw an analogy here with the individual consensus records which, apart from certain narrowly defined exceptions, are kept strictly confidential for 100 years after the event but which can be freely consulted after 100 years.
Genealogists are eagerly awaiting the release of the 1891 census records on 2nd January 1992. Surely we can agree that the register held by the authority does not need to be kept confidential for all time. My amendment states that the ban Clause 31(1) on disclosure of information in the register does not apply 115 years after the date of the event to which the information relates. After 115 years everyone concerned will be dead, as far as the normal experience of survival shows, apart from an example which my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham mentioned.
That is why I have picked such a timespan. From then onwards those having historical, genealogical or other interests in the information can be allowed to have that information. I add to that the fact that this authority will be known as a fringe body. It will not fall under the aegis of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of that time unless the situation alters. It is not a public record. Many years ago I sat on the Advisory Council for Public Records and I felt very unhappy about the various fringe bodies of all kinds. They did not have an archive policy. I believe that the period of 115 years is perfectly in order. I also wish to remind your Lordships of an event which occurred 115 years ago, which was the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. Their Lordships did think of posterity. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is true that an important event occurred 115 years ago which was by no means confidential. As regards this amendment and as my noble friend has explained, it has the effect of allowing everyone access to records held by the authority 115 years after the events to which they relate. I expect that it would in practice, if it were accepted, assist great-grandchildren of children born as a result of these techniques possibly to acquire new information about their ancestry. No doubt it would also benefit those who wish to follow genealogy in an academic sense.
However, it would mean that, at an arbitrary date, what had not been revealed to anyone except the authority and possibly the Registrar General, would at an instant in time become available generally. When I say it would not have been revealed to

1491
anyone, I mean to anyone other than the people immediately affected. The effect of this could be quite marked not merely in giving information to the descendants of children born after licensed treatment, but also in giving information to descendants of gamete donors. These descendants of donors, even more than the descendants of children born after licensed treatment, would be faced with a new world, since, unlike the latter, they would hitherto have had no means of discovering that they were affected by the Act.
It is obvious that to give access to these records even after 115 years, might well open up great possibilities of litigation and the like. I believe that, by the time 115 years have gone by, a sufficient experience of the working of this Act will have been obtained for people to have a better view about what should be done than we have now. For my part I hope that your Lordships may feel that, if we can settle the essential ingredients of the control system for the present time, we can happily leave this matter to be dealt with by those who succeed us under whatever name or whatever circumstances. I believe that the subject may then be better understood.
While I perfectly understand my noble friend's motive in moving this amendment and also why he has selected the period of 115 years, particularly in the light of his experience in advising on public records, I believe that we should be wise to leave this matter out of the Bill, at least for the time being. In the light of that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, obviously, I am slightly disappointed, but I understand. I hope that people who are around in 115 years' time will read this debate, realise that we are not stiff and starchy and that we have dealt with this matter cheerfully and with humour and that we have thought of them. In that light, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper) moved Amendment No. 62A:
Page 17, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 41 and insert—
("35A. Personal data consisting of information showing that an identifiable individual was, or may have been, born in consequence of treatment services (within the meaning of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990) are exempt from the subject access provisions except so far as their disclosure under those provisions is made in accordance with section 29 of that Act (disclosure of certain information by Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority)."").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment has been introduced to clarify the exemption from the subject access provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984 which is provided for at present in Clause 31(8) of the Bill. This amendment substitutes a new provision in Part IV of the 1984 Act for that which Clause 31(8) at present provides. The effect of the amendment, which has been drawn up after detailed consultation with the Office of the Data Protection Registrar, is to widen the range of information which it is legitimate for subjects to gain access to.
As Clause 31(8) is at present drafted, persons receiving one of the treatments to be licensed by the new authority would have been prevented from seeking information which would be held on computers by the authority in the register it is required to keep under Clause 29. There seems no good reason why they should be prevented from seeking this information, and accordingly this amendment seeks to confine the exemption to information which would identify children born as a result of the treatments to be licensed by the Bill. I am sure it is right that this provision targets as accurately as possible the information which should not be made available—that is to say, information which should be exempt from the subject access provisions in the Data Protection Act 1984—and I am happy to commend it to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Amendment of Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 18, line 3, after ("embryo") insert (", of an egg in the process of fertilisation").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is one of the amendments introduced in clarification of the definition in Amendment No. 1 to which I have already spoken. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [Offences]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 63A:
Page 20, line 33, at end insert—
("(7A) Where a person to whom a licence applies or the nominal licensee makes or receives any payment in money or money's worth, other than a payment authorised by directions, in respect of any supply of gametes or embryos, he is guilty of an offence.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 63A provides that it shall be an offence to make or receive payment in money or money's worth in respect of any supply of gametes or embryos, unless the payment is authorised by directions. Amendment No. 65, which has been debated with Amendment No. 72, provides for a penalty of up to six months' imprisonment or a fine not exceeding level 5 for the offence. At present a fine on level 5 amounts to £2,000. I spoke to these two amendments together with Amendments Nos. 12 and 19 on the first day of Report stage.
At that time the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, raised an interesting point. He queried whether the phrase,
"payment in money or money's worth",
would cover all possible situations and suggested that another form of words might be preferable. I am grateful to him for that contribution to the debate. We are examining the point and if we find that the current wording is unsatisfactory we shall bring forward a government amendment at Third Reading to rectify it.
Amendment No. 63A is in substitution for Amendment No. 64, to which I spoke last week. The

1493
previous amendment provided that an offence could be committed only by the person holding the licence. The current amendment provides that the offence can be committed either by a person to whom the licence applies or the nominal licensee. The expression,
"a person to whom a licence applies",
has a special meaning in the Bill and includes the person responsible, any persons designated by him or the nominal licensee, or any person acting under the direction of the person responsible or a designated person.
We made this change because it seemed wrong to the Government that some person other than the person holding the licence could, for instance, receive money for gametes without being in breach of the law, whereas the person holding the licence would have committed an offence if he or she had done the same. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I shall no doubt be told by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that I am wasting time, but I should like to ask how this offence will be discovered.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I should like to say how much I welcome this amendment, which is relevant to earlier discussion at Report stage. It is most important to ensure that there is no trade in embryos, gametes and the like.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I too should like to welcome this amendment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and the noble Lord for their support of this amendment. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that the offence would be discovered in the normal course of registration of the licence by the authorities, as it seems to me.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I think we all know that illegal abortions were never registered or notified. It seems to me that anybody who will do this for money is hardly likely to register.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say that my intention was to clarify that in the course of the process of inspection this information would come to light.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 64 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
5 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 20, line 34, leave out ("or (7)") and insert ("(7) or (7A)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was discussed with Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 42 [Short title, commencement, transitional provision and repeal]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 23, line 18, leave out ("other").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 41. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 23, line 18, at end insert—
("(6) Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that any of the provisions of this Act shall extend, with such exceptions, adaptations and modifications (if any) as may be specified in the Order, to any of the Channel Islands.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 67 would make it possible for Her Majesty the Queen by Order in Council to extend the provisions of the Bill, either in whole or in part, to any of the Channel Islands. This provision is required in case the islands decide that they wish to be covered by this legislation and that it was not appropriate for them to enact legislation of their own in this matter. The amendment does not include the Isle of Man, as the authorities there have indicated that they wish to enact their own legislation on the matter. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Authority: Supplementary Provisions]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 24, line 29, at end insert ("and
(c) any person who is, or has been, directly concerned with commissioning or funding any research involving such keeping or use, or who has actively participated in any decision to do so.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 68, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 69 and 70. These amendments reflect the spirit of the amendment moved in Committee by my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk.
Amendment No. 68 would add to the groups of people who are disqualified for appointment as chairman or deputy chairman of the authority any person who is, or has been, directly concerned with commissioning or funding any research involving the keeping or use of gametes or embryos outside the body, or who has actively participated in any decision to do so.
Amendment No. 69 adds the group mentioned in Amendment No. 68 to the groups from which the Secretary of State is required to appoint at least a third but less than half of the other members of the authority.
Amendment No. 70 preserves the existing provision which requires the Secretary of State to appoint at least one member from each of the two original groups. He will therefore not be under a duty to appoint a person who has been involved with commissioning research to the authority.
The combined effect of these amendments, by adding persons who have been actively involved in commissioning research to those who are

1495
disqualified from being appointed as chairman or deputy chairman of the authority (that is to say, doctors and scientists involved in keeping or using embryos outside the body), ensures the majority of members will be persons who are not in any of these categories. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 69 and 70:
Page 24, line 31, leave out ("a) or (b)") and insert ("(a), (b) or (c)").
Page 24, line 32, leave out ("those paragraphs") and insert ('paragraphs (a) and (b)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 69 and 70.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote moved Amendment No. 70A:
Page 25, line 29, at end insert—
("() The Authority shall appoint to its staff competent inspectors in such numbers and with such qualifications as the Authority considers necessary to enforce the conditions of the licences granted to the premises and any other relevant provisions of this Act.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, at Committee stage I moved an amendment to Clause 33 dealing with the annual inspection of licensed premises and the appointment of inspectors. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor promised to consider these points and on that basis I withdrew my amendment.
I understand that the issue with regard to annual inspections is to be dealt with by an amendment to Clause 9 at Third Reading, about which I am very happy. However, the problem of the appointment of inspectors has not so far been dealt with and I understand that there is no intention to do so. I therefore tabled this amendment as I believe it to be of considerable importance. Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that in Schedule 1, paragraph 8(1) states:
"The Authority may appoint such employees as it thinks fit".
Amendment No. 70A to Schedule 1, to insert a new sub-paragraph after sub-paragraph (1), gives strength to that first sub-paragraph.
The amendment received widespread support from all parts of the Chamber at Committee stage. It is important because many of us who, after very considerable thought, voted for research did so on the basis that there would be the strictest possible regulation and control of the licences granted and of the premises to which licences were granted for conducting the research.
I should like to make the point that there is no possible implied criticism of the authority or the members who may be appointed to the authority. The object of the amendment is to strengthen their arm against imposed economies in the future and to ensure that there will be a strong core of inspectors available to carry out the duty of proper inspection, laid on the authority.
The amendment is intended to ensure that the authority has competent inspectors. It will have members who are expert in these affairs, as well as lay members, but they will be part-time. They may, to some extent, be involved in these affairs themselves, although one of the amendments which we have just passed gives good protection against that. However, they will be part time and not paid. In my view it is essential to have a small core—I emphasise "small"—of highly qualified expert inspectors in sufficient numbers to ensure the most rigorous and unbiased inspection to prevent any abuses—a point which has concerned many noble Lords during the passage of this Bill.
I emphasise "highly qualified". Many scientists who are knowledgeable in this field have emphasised to me that it would be very easy for someone who is not highly qualified in this field to have the wool pulled over his eyes and for work to be done which should not be done in accordance with the provisions of this Bill. We must ensure, in every possible way, that that does not occur.
I emphasise also that the amendment makes clear that,
"The Authority shall appoint to its staff competent inspectors in such numbers and with such qualifications as the Authority considers necessary".
If it believes that only one or four inspectors should be appointed, that is entirely up to the authority. It will strengthen the arm of the authority if we make absolutely clear, without a shadow of doubt, that it is its duty to appoint qualified people to undertake the inspection of licensed premises. I understand that an amendment will shortly be introduced which will provide for such inspections to take place annually. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify and strengthen the arm of the authority to enable it to carry out its duty. I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I supported the noble Viscount in Committee and I support him now. The authority is the key to securing public confidence in the operation of the Bill. Therefore it must be clear that if the authority does not have the capacity to appoint the sort of inspectors that the noble Viscount mentioned, its utility in this respect must be diminished. In my view, anything which would imperil the ability of the new body to secure public confidence would be tragic. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to accept the amendment.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I rise to express my support for the amendment. The Government may say that this issue is already covered by paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 1. However, although I understand the words in the subparagraph, they are nonetheless worrying. It reads,
"with the approval of the Secretary of State and the consent of the Treasury".
The amendment makes it more difficult for the Treasury to say, "Oh, you must economise. We cannot allow this". It gives greater strength to the authority in pleading its cause. I believe that a great number of licences are issued of which some of your Lordships may not be aware; for example, I am told

1497
that at the Manchester medical school there are no fewer than 100 licensees, and perhaps more. I only mention that figure—I hope that it is correct—to show that this is a very wide field and that the authority must be able to fulfil its duty. Therefore, although it could be pleaded that the existing provision covers the issue, I think that if the amendment as drafted by the noble Viscount were to be accepted it would give us all a great deal of comfort.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I must warn the House against creating more government inspectors. They are a terrible nuisance not only to the people they inspect but also to the bodies to which they belong. What should we call them—this is one of the important questions—embryo inspectors? I warn noble Lords that if we start a cadre of embryo inspectors they will be looking for a career. Then we shall be asked to create senior embryo inspectors. They will want to build empires and have superintendent embryo inspectors. I know about this from experience because I have been in the field of government inspectors all my life. There are never enough of them, they are difficult to recruit and they want a career. Even in the upper echelons of the legal profession in the Civil Service they want a career and an outlet.
Another consideration is the fact that these inspectors must know what it is that they are inspecting. That is not always easy to define. They must know more about embryos than those who are engaged in experimenting with them, otherwise they will not know whether the terms of the licences are being exceeded. Noble Lords have no idea what a complete nonsense this proposal is. It is no good the noble Viscount shaking his head in disagreement. I believe that this is entirely a matter for internal discipline.
One of the creations we achieved under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986—and I shall return to that subject in regard to another amendment—was the discipline of the laboratory in which the work was being carried out. There is an appointed officer to carry some responsibility for what goes on. I imagine that that could be the case with embryo research. However, despite my levity, I am quite serious about this issue. It is not the sort of inspection which can be covered by the conventional type of inspector.
Finally, who will employ these people? The Home Office has a whole range of inspectors; for example, factory inspectors and Home Office inspectors appointed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. There are never enough of them. Those are the details which we must not lose sight of in this connection. In my view, if it can be self-regulating now, it can be self-disciplined in the future. That is my feeling on the matter.
In any event, if the authority is given some power to appoint staff for its purposes I should have thought that that provision was sufficient. Again I warn the House that if we start creating another lot of government inspectors we shall find that they will behave like the ambulance men in the end: they will go around with their buckets and get a lot of money.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, I should like to express my support for the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, in their deep concern in the matter. I share that concern. I do not think that this is a frivolous matter or something to be laughed about outside the Chamber, as we have seen on television or read about in the press. It is a sacred and difficult decision. It is something about which many of us feel extremely deeply.
We are talking about human beings in embryo who are created, we believe, by God. I believe this as a Catholic and I know that many other people in their own faiths believe that these are human beings created by God, whether or not others agree. With respect, I must ignore the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I do not share his views. I support the views which I have tried to outline in just a few minutes.
I should like to know whether there really are enough inspectors to carry out the work. We are told that they will be appointed, but will they be people who have compassion for and understanding of what they are asked to inspect, or shall we be told later that there are not enough inspectors because it is difficult to recruit them? In such a situation the whole matter becomes even more of a shambles.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I should like to follow the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, by disagreeing with him partly on the basis of my experience as chairman for many years of the National Radiological Protection Board, which is a body that sets standards to protect people from ionising and other radiations. My experience in that connection throughout many difficult incidents has led me to believe that if this Bill were to become law it would succeed only if it achieved two aims, and only two aims.
First, the Bill must satisfy the public at large that what it permits to be done is not an affront to certain human and religious values which are implicit in the legislation. Secondly, within the prescribed limits of the legislation the doctors and scientists who are licensed are not impeded in their beneficial work. Those two themes have run through your Lordships' discussions during the debate on the Bill.
For both these requirements to be met and for the judgment of the public to be that this is good, the issue will be critically dependent in my view on the conduct of the employees of the authority. If their work is not above reproach the Bill and its procedures which will be discussed later tonight will come into disrepute, with adverse consequences for future potential beneficiaries of the research and for the advance of knowledge itself. In short, the Act and what it seeks to achieve will be entirely frustrated. Therefore it seems to me absolutely essential that the employees should be of the highest quality of competence and also of commitment. They must feel that their actions are animated by those human values which I mentioned earlier.
Noble Lords and the public will want assurance on this point. It seems to me that it would be entirely salutary and beneficial to incorporate the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote,

1499
into the Act where it would stand constantly to remind the authority of its duty and that the key to its successful discharge lies in its staff I hope therefore that the amendment can be accepted and that if it is not accepted some other form of equally satisfying reassurance can be given not only to your Lordships' House but to the public. I feel deeply that this will be a matter of great significance to everyone who examines the Bill and its final outcome and its workings.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, I wish to express my total agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has just said and to support my noble friend's amendment. I am delighted that both at Committee and Report stages your Lordships' House has supported research into the early embryo, but subject to strict statutory control by the proposed new authority. That qualification has been vital to me. It is important that when the new authority is set up it should have adequate staffing and teeth.
I know that the interim licensing authority has done marvellous work but it has found it extremely difficult to cover all the work of carrying out the frequent inspections of the various centres where the work is being done. It is important that the new authority, when it is established, should have adequate skilled staff able to carry out the kinds of inspections that my noble friend envisages in his amendment.
It may be, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has said, that this is covered by paragraph 8(1) of the schedule. However, I think that to accept the amendment would be a good indication of the strong feelings of many of us in your Lordships' House who very much support research. It would be a good indication of the strength of our feeling about the statutory licensing authority.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I believe that the amendment moved by the noble Viscount is wise and should be supported. Under paragraph 8 of the schedule the authority may appoint inspectors, but the point of the amendment is that it should be under a statutory duty to do so. The authority should be under such a duty, first, in order to ensure that the licence holders comply with the terms of the licence. The inspectors would be the eyes and ears of the authority. Secondly, we need the provision in order to reassure the public. For those two reasons I very much support the amendment.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I also support the amendment. I do not like the reason we have to have such an amendment, like my noble friend Lady Ryder. If we are dealing with such a Bill we must be quite sure that any inspectors are available when needed and that there are enough of them.
I find the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Houghton extraordinary, although I have always sympathised with him when he did not want experiments on animals. However, for some curious reason we are now surrounded by people demonstrating against experiments on human embryos. That seems to me to be a slight contradiction.
1500
If we are to have this, for heaven's sake let us have a proper inspectorate so that people do not go mad. With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, scientists are not known to be all that worried about the effect on the public outside. If the scientists become enthusiastic about their experiment, that is what counts. When passing such legislation it is important that there should be proper and adequate inspectors at all times.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I wish to repeat the words of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and add a note of warning. I believe that once the authority is set up, it will be carefully watched. When anyone—whether or not in public life—finds the authority making a mistake, he will be only too ready to come forward and make the authority's life difficult.
I have not previously spoken on the Bill but I have sat here and heard all the learned contributions. I was not worried about this amendment until the noble Lord referred to, among other things, the religious issue. I do not know whether the mover of the amendment intended that the words "competent" and "qualifications" should somehow include religious conviction. I am not prepared to let pass without opposition the idea that somebody is sufficiently qualified and competent in religious matters to satisfy me. Many other people in the country feel the same.
This is Report stage and I am not sure whether the mover is entitled to reply. If anyone else supports the amendment I wonder whether they would do me a favour. When they impose upon the authority the responsibility of appointing,
"competent inspectors in such numbers and with such qualifications as the Authority",
may determine, will they kindly tell the House what they think are the competent qualifications required? Unless we know that I think it is just as well to leave the Bill alone and give the authority a fair run.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I wish to add a brief word to what has been said by my noble friend. This is an important amendment and I do not think that we should prescribe what "competent" means. Normally an inspection team consists of three people with qualifications. I should have thought that we should have a scientist, a doctor and a lay person. Each of those three is as important as the others. Probably the fourth member should be a secretary to take notes of what happens in that inspectorate.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Sefton, certainly one of the experts should not necessarily be competent in religion but competent in what the team is required to inspect.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Caldecote has explained, he moved two amendments in relation to the inspection functions of the authority at Committee stage. The first of these was aimed at requiring the authority to visit annually premises which it licensed. I am happy to confirm to my noble friend that the Government will bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to deal with this point.

1501
In Amendment No. 70A he returns to the second leg of his earlier argument. His amendment would require the authority to,
"appoint … inspectors in such numbers and with such qualifications as the Authority considers necessary to enforce the conditions of the licences granted to the premises and any other relevant provisions"
in the legislation.
We take this matter seriously. I can appreciate the views of my noble friend. It is clearly essential that the authority is able to carry out its licensing function effectively. That must be common ground. Clearly to achieve this the authority will need to appoint well trained and experienced staff and have enough of them. I hope that goes some way to reassuring the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, and others. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that the authority will need inspectors as well as other appropriate staff. However, we shall bear some of his strictures in mind.
As has already been pointed out, the authority already has powers under Schedule 1 to appoint such staff as it thinks necessary. The authority's work will, rightly, be subjected to careful public scrutiny and Parliament will have the opportunity to receive its annual reports. We had thought that, given the nature and responsibility of the authority, those safeguards would be adequate to protect the interests involved. However, I appreciate the arguments that have been advanced. I do not believe that an amendment on these lines is essential, but I shall look at the point further to see whether, in the light of the concerns that have been expressed, some amendment can be made to place specifically on the face of the Bill what we believe is already its clear intention with regard to inspectors of premises licensed under the Bill. With that assurance I trust that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I am most grateful to those who have supported this amendment. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend Lady Hooper have given careful consideration to the points that I have raised. I normally admire the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, both as regards their logic and their sincerity. However, today, I was only able to admire his sincerity. As other noble Lords have said, if we do not have inspectors all the provisions for enforcement in this Bill are null and void.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who is chairman of the Medical Research Council, for supporting the point of this amendment. I listened carefully to what my noble friend Lady Hooper said as regards giving further consideration to the matter. I should say in fairness that this was precisely what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said last time. He said that he would give consideration to the points that I raised. That turned out to be a decision to take no further action.
However, I understood the noble Baroness to say that it was not a question of giving consideration to whether the provisions of the amendment will be
1502
put in a more suitable form but how they will be put in a form that meets the points that have been made from all parts of the House. So this is recognised by the whole House as an important point. On the understanding that an amendment will be tabled on Third Reading that deals with the substance of the amendment, and that it will not simply be considered and perhaps no action taken, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if Amendment No. 70B is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 72 to 76 as they will have been pre-empted. I now call Amendment No. 70B standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant.
Schedule 2 [Activities for which licences may be granted]:
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant moved Amendment No. 70B:
Page 26, line 44, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 46 and insert ("mixing sperm with the egg of a hamster, or other animal specified in directions, for the purpose of testing the fertility or normality of the sperm, but only where anything which forms is destroyed when the test is complete and, in any event, not later than the two cell stage").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the two amendments standing in my name, Amendments Nos. 70B and 81A are closely linked and relate to proposed changes to Schedule 2 of the Bill. Amendment No. 70B seeks to substitute the words of the amendment for those of paragraph 1(1)(f) of Schedule 2. The amendments relate to the hamster test which was fully discussed in Committee. At that time a number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Perth, expressed concern about the provision in the Bill, as it stood, relating to the mixing of human sperm with the egg of another species of animal. I explained that this related solely to the hamster test used at present to test the fertility of human sperm and also used to assess the normality of human sperm. I described how the test simply involved the mixing of human sperm with hamster eggs from which the outer capsule had been removed. Hamster eggs are particularly useful and appropriate for that test because of the ease with which the capsule can be removed.
The provision in the Bill, as it stood, referred to the resulting embryo. I was concerned about the use of those words because, as is clear from the nature of the test, there is no prospect that this mixture could ever form a viable embryo. That is true first because the genetic constitution of human and such animal cells is completely incompatible; secondly, because the incubation period is far too brief; and, thirdly, because even if the period of incubation were extended—that would be specifically precluded by the amendment which I have proposed—the eggs would immediately degenerate spontaneously as they have no developmental potential.
After the Committee had considered the issue, I had some discussions with the noble Earl, Lord Perth. He told me that he would be willing to support a revised amendment if the test were restricted to the use of hamster eggs only. However, when I

1503
subsequently had discussions with scientists they told me that there was a possibility that the eggs of some other animals may become more appropriate for use in this extremely important test of male fertility and of the normality of human sperm. They considered that it would be unfortunate to say the least if the use of eggs from other animals were to be precluded legally and such a change were to require amending legislation. I have tabled this amendment in the hope of clarifying the nature of the test and making it clear that anything which forms, certainly not an embryo, would be destroyed when the test was complete. In any event it would be destroyed not later than the two-cell stage. I beg to move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords——
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to speak first. As Amendments Nos. 74 and 81 standing in my name are related to this amendment, it is appropriate, I believe, that I should speak first. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, rightly explained, when we discussed this matter in Committee I found the idea of human sperm being mixed with the eggs of another animal so repugnant that I tried to move an amendment to delete the practice altogether. However, your Lordships argued strongly that the hamster test was an important method of testing fertility. I took my amendment to a Division but lost.
As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, I discussed with him whether we could limit such tests to hamster eggs only. Again, as he explained, he advised me that we should allow for the possibility of some other animal also being used. We drew up a joint amendment expressed in the terms of my Amendment No. 81; namely, that after approval by the Secretary of State and after Parliament had been informed, the use of other animals in such tests could be allowed. In other words the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and I were at one.
The noble Lord's amendment differs from mine in only one respect; namely, he uses the words "in directions" as to whether the use of the egg of another animal should be allowed. That would mean that for at least a year Parliament might not know what had happened. I believe that the issue of the use of an animal other than the hamster is very important. Therefore, I hope that my amendment will be accepted by your Lordships. I feel confident in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, would support that if the Government agreed to it.
I hope that what I am seeking is acceptable and that if the use of the egg of another animal is to be permitted parliamentary approval would be obtained for such action. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and I are at one.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, I am confused by two words in Amendment No. 70B, which we are now discussing, which reappear in Amendments Nos. 81 and 81A. Those words are "or normality". I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Walton, can explain how one can test sperm for normality merely by the
1504
fact that it is able to penetrate the outer coating of an egg, especially since the noble Lord has indicated that under his amendment, whether there is penetration or not, the test is complete not later than the two-cell stage. What conclusions are we to draw from those words "or normality of the sperm"?
5.45 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, in speaking to the amendment I should like to refer to Amendments Nos. 72 and 75, standing in my name, although those are not officially grouped with Amendment No. 70B, while reserving the right to mention them again if the amendment is not approved and they can be called.
I put down my Amendment No. 72 as a probing amendment to discover in more detail, if possible, the precise nature of the procedure that is used for testing human sperm by using it in conjunction with the eggs, or oocytes, if the noble Lord prefers the Greek word, of the hamster or some other species. Paragraph 1(1)(f) speaks of,
"testing the fertility of any human sperm by the penetration of the egg of another species".
I think that that is asking too much of the preposition "for". I should prefer to say, as I have put in Amendment No. 72:
"observing its efficacy in penetrating",
the egg of another species, if those are the right words and if that is what is done when this procedure is carried out. Whether "observing" or "efficacy" or "penetrating" are the right words I am not certain, and I should like to know.
The words proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, in Amendment No. 70B certainly seem to me to be preferable to the wording in the Bill from that point of view, but I feel that it is unsatisfactory and unnecessary to specify the hamster species here. I should prefer to say simply:
"mixing the sperm with the egg of any animal specified in directions".
I do not see the need to specify the fortunate or unfortunate hamster.
As the noble Lord has himself pointed out, his wording also removes any reference to any resulting embryo. As I understand it, and as I think he has just confirmed, no embryo can ever result from this procedure and so such a stage is never reached. There is never a resulting embryo. Amendment No. 70B goes on to require that anything which forms should be immediately destroyed when the test is complete. I am not happy about the phrase "anything which forms", which does not appear to be a very exact definition.
My own understanding had been that when the procedure is carried out there is no possibility of any viable product forming, so that no embryo can ever develop. Therefore, if that were the case, I see no reason for including in paragraph 1(1)(f) the words:
"but only where any resulting embryo is immediately destroyed".
That is why I put down Amendment No. 75 to delete that passage. Either there can be a resulting embryo, in which case we have been led astray, or if a resulting embryo cannot form we do not need to make any reference to the need to destroy it.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I should like to support the point of view put forward by my noble friend Lord Perth. This is a very important issue and Parliament should be kept informed. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, will withdraw his amendment, provided the Government will accept the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I have a small but serious point to raise. There are many things mentioned in this Bill which I have never seen before in any Act of Parliament. We are all embryologists now. We have read in a Bill which will become an Act of Parliament many things that we scarcely knew about before. I have never seen any previous Act of Parliament which mentioned a hamster by name. This is not a laughing matter; it is a serious one. I ask: what happens to the hamster? The mixed embryo is to be immediately destroyed. What happens to the hamster?
I do not know why your Lordships are so amused by this. I have a small constituency in the animal world and I must stand up for the hamster. I have never regarded guinea pigs as expendable or considered that rats and mice do not matter. They are all animals, some of them with remarkable intelligences. It is amazing what the human species has to learn from animals if it would only pay attention.
I want to know, quite seriously, whether the laboratories are covered by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That Act imposes very stringent conditions on the use of animals in research laboratories. I shall not elaborate on the conditions which apply to animals because it might be said that the conditions which apply to living animals are much stricter than those which apply to living embryos. However, I do not want that to become too complicated.
Quite seriously, what happens to the hamster? Is it destroyed or is it used again? It is important that we should know. The only other reference to animals that I have heard throughout the debates on the Bill occurred much earlier when one noble Lord said that we should not do this at all and that we should use more animals. That is the point. Someone must stand up and say that an animal should not be used as long as a human being will do. We must keep the matter in balance.
I am all in favour of the amendment because I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, has said. He has been a remarkable man in all our debates. I am not in any sense weakening what is proposed. I am simply asking, on behalf of the hamsters of this world, what happens to them when the embryos have been taken away and immediately destroyed. We shall have to overcome the suggestion that they would be in a mournful mood. I am most serious about the matter.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I think I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has gone into explicit detail in his amendment. However, listening to the discussions, I do not see anything wrong with paragraph 1(1)(f) of Schedule 2 as drafted by the Government.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in moving his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, indicated how it had developed. It arose from the concern expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in Committee. The idea is to make more explicit the proposal contained in paragraphs 1(1)(f). I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, for his commendation of the sub-paragraph, but, having considered what the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has provided we believe that it may be more express and therefore easier for noble Lords generally to understand.
The amendments to which I refer—Amendments Nos. 70B and 81 A—would make clear that the test to be authorised by a licence for treatment in paragraph 1(1)(f) of Schedule 2 and by a licence for research in paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 2, is primarily the "hamster test". The amendments would ensure that a licence for treatment or research could not authorise mixing sperm with the eggs of any species of animal other than the hamster unless that animal was specified in directions given by the authority under Clause 22.
In response to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, I believe that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, is correct in dealing with the matter as one of direction by the authority rather than of direction by the Secretary of State. However, I well understand the point that he wishes to make; namely, that Parliament should be informed of that approach. I am certainly willing to consider whether we should seek to engraft something of that kind in view of the concern that has been expressed. There is nothing hidden or under the counter about that. If it helps to tell people before one does it, that should be done. I believe that it is possible to work that into the structure of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Walton. That is the first purpose of the amendment. It would make it clear that the animal was a hamster unless there was a direction. I assume that that direction would be reported to, but not approved by, Parliament.
The second object of the amendments is to clarify the purposes for which the test may be used. They would make clear that a licence for treatment may authorise the test for the purpose of testing the fertility or normality of human sperm and that a licence for research may authorise the test for the purpose of developing more effective techniques for determining the fertility or normality of human sperm. The amendments would make clear that that was the purpose. They would make clear that the test may only be authorised by a licence for treatment or research where anything which forms as a result of the mixing of human sperm with the egg of a hamster is destroyed when the research is complete or the test is completed, according to which part it is in and, in any event, not later than the two-cell stage.
That approach is perhaps more accurate than that which was originally proposed. We were concerned that nothing should remain, as it were, and our information was that no embryo should be allowed to develop from it. The noble Lord has indicated that that is not quite the right way to go about it. I believe that his proposal is better than ours in that

1507
respect in order to assure Parliament and the public that there is no question of allowing a mixture of human sperm with that of the hamster to develop in any way whatever. That is the main object of the proposal. Even if it is not strictly necessary because the embryo might not develop anyway, it is as well to emphasise that point. That is why I believe that it is right to do so.
I shall leave the noble Lord, Lord Walton, to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, about the definition of normality for the purposes of the Bill. It seems to us to be all right but perhaps we are more easily satisfied on that scientific matter than is the noble Lord and perhaps there is good reason.
On the question of the hamster, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I should point out that we are dealing with the egg of the hamster. The hamster himself—
Noble Lords: Herself!
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I apologise. The hamster herself will be subject to the regime to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred. The laboratory animal would be subject to that regime in any event. There will be no damage to the hamster by the use of the hamster's egg, so the problem about which the noble Lord was concerned does not arise.
We should be able to deal with the amendments, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and we shall see how best that can be done. One way would be to deal with the matter in the annual report but not allow it to happen until after the annual report had been laid. The noble Earl was also concerned about the terms of the annual report which I am considering in any case. It might be possible to deal with that aspect.
Having listened to my comments, noble Lords may feel that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, should be acceptable. There may be questions about the precise detail requiring further refinement, but no doubt Third Reading could cope with that if it were necessary.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his careful consideration of this and the linking amendment. Essentially, the only difference between the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and myself is that he wishes to make it clear in the amendment that, if an animal other than a hamster were to be used for the test by direction of the proposed licensing authority, that would have to be reported to Parliament rather than being reported one year late in the report of the licensing authority. I am grateful for the noble and learned Lord's suggestion that it would be possible so to modify my amendment in order to make that a feasible possibility.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, the position with respect to normality is that it is now becoming clear from the research being done that the test, particularly at the two-cell stage, allows the research worker to study more effectively than any other method permits the chromosomal constitution of human sperms. This enables study of the male
1508
contribution to genetic abnormalities in the human embryo and the influence of environmental factors such as radiation. That is particularly relevant in the light of concerns expressed recently about radiation and human sperms in the neighbourhood of power stations. It is, I think, the reason for including the words "or normality" in this document.
In answer to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, about the words "anything which forms", I included those words specifically on legal advice because any other definition seemed to be singularly inappropriate. It is certainly not an embryo. It is very difficult to know what it is.
Finally, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, it is just as feasible to remove eggs from the female hamster, indeed for study in the course of this test—licensed obviously under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act—as it is to remove eggs from female human subjects. In the light of the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor I shall withdraw the amendment.
6 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I should say that I had intended that he should move his amendment. I would commend acceptance of the amendment and then any detail which might emerge could be settled at Third Reading.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, with that assurance from the noble and learned Lord I beg to move the amendment.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, perhaps I may rise to say a few words about what I understand is a matter of procedure. I was very happy that Amendment No. 74 was to be taken with Amendment No. 70B, the amendment that we are now discussing. However, that was done on the understanding that the words "in directions" would be further considered in the light of the assurance that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has given. I rise because I understand that under the procedure, if the amendment is accepted I cannot talk about Amendments Nos. 74 and 81. That is why I intervened at this point.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if Amendment No. 70B is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 72 to 76, including Amendment No. 74. Perhaps I should just make it absolutely clear that I have undertaken to consider how the special point made by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in Amendment No. 74 should be dealt with. Although I am subject to advice about it, I propose something along the lines that directions would be effective only after they had been reported to Parliament.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 71 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 72 to 76 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 77:
Page 27, line 2, at end insert—
("Section 1(1)(b) of this Act does not apply for the purposes of paragraph (f) above.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is not moved because it was an attempt to tidy up what we had. That has been superseded by the much better effort of the noble Lord, Lord Walton.
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 78 to 80 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant moved Amendment No. 81A:
Page 27, line 41, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert:
("(4) A licence under this paragraph may authorise mixing sperm with the egg of a hamster, or other animal specified in directions, for the purpose of developing more effective techniques for determining the fertility or normality of sperm, but only where anything which forms is destroyed when the research is complete and, in any event, not later than the two cell stage").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 82 and 83:
Page 27, line 42, leave out ("another species of") and insert ("any").
Page 27, line 44, at end insert—
("Section 1(1)(b) of this Act does not apply for the purposes of this subparagraph.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 82 was also part of the tidying up operation. The same applies to Amendment No. 83. I do not propose to move either of them.
[Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 28, line 2, leave out from ("licence") to end of line 6.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 84. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Consents to use of gametes or embryos]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 28, line 46, at end insert—
("(4) A consent under this Schedule may apply—
(a) to the use or storage of a particular embryo, or
(b) in the case of a person providing gametes, to the use or storage of any embryo whose creation may be brought about using those gametes,
and in the paragraph (b) case the terms of the consent may be varied, or the consent may be withdrawn, in accordance with this Schedule either generally or in relation to a particular embryo or particular embryos.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also
1510
to Amendments Nos. 87, 89, 90, 91 and 93. These are drafting amendments which have been prepared in response to the criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that the drafting of Schedule 3 was difficult to follow. I hope that he will be pleased with Parliamentary Counsel's second effort.
The point is that if one is providing gametes one cannot give consent in respect of a particular embryo but only to an embryo that may be made. In the event a number of embryos may subsequently be made. Amendment No. 85 makes clear that the consent applies to each of these embryos so that, for example, the reference to consent to the storage of the embryo in paragraph 8(2) includes a general consent given before any embryo was created.
This amendment also makes clear that one cannot revoke or vary such a general consent as it applies to any particular embryo. The remaining amendments in this group are consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 29, line 31, leave out ("is") and insert: ("was").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 86 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 88 and 92.
These amendments seek to clarify the consents which are required for the use of gametes for in vitro fertilisation and the subsequent use of embryos for storage of gametes and embryos. When prohibiting the use or storage of an embryo unless there is effective consent, paragraphs 6 and 8 of Schedule 3 refer to an embryo the creation of which is brought about in vitro. The use of the verb "is" implies that the consents which are required apply only to an embryo during the period of its creation. That is not what was intended, and by changing the drafting so that these paragraphs refer to an embryo, the creation of which was brought about in vitro, the amendments ensure that the consents are ongoing and apply to any embryo which has been created in vitro. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 87 to 93:
Page 29, line 34, leave out from second ("of") to end of line 35 and insert ("the embyro").
Page 29, line 36, leave out ("is") and insert ("was").
Page 29, line 39, leave out from first ("of") to ("and") in line 40 and insert ("the embyro").
Page 29, line 41, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
Page 30, line 5, leave out ("obtained") and insert ("taken").
Page 30, line 10, leave out ("is") and insert ("was").
Page 30, line 14, leave out ("obtained") and insert ("taken").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendment No. 87 with Amendment No. 85, to Amendment No. 88 with Amendment No. 86, to Amendments Nos. 89, 90 and 91 with Amendment No. 85, to Amendment No. 92 with Amendment No. 86 and to Amendment No. 93 with Amendment No. 85. With your Lordships' leave I shall move these amendments en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 94:
After Schedule 3, insert the following new schedule:
("STATUS: AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS
Family Law Reform Act 1969 (c.46)
I. In section 25 of the Family Law Reform Act 1969 (interpretation) at the end of the definition of "excluded" there is added to "section 27 of the Family Law Reform Act 1987 and to sections 26 to 28 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990".
Adoption Act 1976 (c.36.)
2. In section 15 of the Adoption Act 1976 (adoption by one person), in subsection (3)(a) (conditions for making an adoption order on application of one parent) after "found" there is inserted "or, by virtue of section 27 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, there is no other parent".
Family Law Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 (S.I. 1977/1250 (NI 17))
3. In Article 13 of the Family Law Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 (interpretation) at the end of the definition of "excluded" there is added "and to sections 26 to 28 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990".
Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 (c.28.)
4. In section 15 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 (adoption by one person), in subsection (3)(a) (conditions for making an adoption order on applicaton of one parent) after "found" there is inserted "or, by virtue of section 27 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, there is no other parent".
Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/2203 (NI 22))
5. In Article 15 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (adoption by one person), in paragraph (3)(a) (conditions for making an adoption order on the application of one parent) after "found" there is inserted "or, by virtue of section 27 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, there is no other parent".
Human Organ Transplants Act 1989 (c.31.)
6. Sections 26 to 28 of this Act do not apply for the purposes of section 2 of the Human Organ Transplants Act 1989 (restrictions on transplants between persons not genetically related).
Human Organ Transplants (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/2408 (NI 12))
7. Sections 26 to 28 of this Act do not apply for the purposes of Article 2 of the Human Organ Transplants (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (restrictions on transplants between persons not genetically related).").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these are consequential amendments designed to ensure that certain provisions in the Bill are reflected in other Acts of Parliament. This is a matter of consequential detail which I am in a position to explain should your Lordships wish a further explanation. They are consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

River Tees Barrage and Crossing Bill [H.L.]
6.10 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
As at Second Reading, I draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that I am the deputy chairman of Teesside Development Corporation, the promoters of the Bill. It was inevitable that such a major project would attract petitioners concerned about a number of aspects of the possible effects of the work to be carried out. The corporation's board was aware of the possible objections and immediately set in train studies to deal with them.
1512
Most, if not all, of the petitioners were satisfied before or during the Committee stage of the Bill.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that the Government, in establishing urban development corporations, had two broad objectives. The first was to clear up dereliction. The second was in so doing to create employment. The Teesside Development Corporation has responsibility for the biggest area of all the urban development corporations. Indeed I believe that the area is greater than all the other areas combined. I mention that because I believe that an imaginative scheme such as that contained in this Bill is essential for the development of the Teesside area.
Developer confidence in Teesside is extremely high at present but development of the Teesdale site is crucially dependent on the infrastructure proposals incorporated in the Bill. Already a long list of interested developers are concerned to know that the infrastructure will be provided at the earliest possible date. There is no doubt that confidence will be disspated if lengthy delays occur with the Bill.
We are talking about some 8,000 jobs and an investment which will exceed £350 million, all of which will require the provision of roads and bridges. Initially there was particular concern about wildlife and water quality. In order to satisfy that concern, the corporation undertook to carry out further tests and to make the reports available to all interested parties. That undertaking has been honoured.
When I tell your Lordships that the National Rivers Authority, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have been satisfied, together with local organisations, I hope it will be agreed that the most strenuous efforts have been made to ensure that legitimate objections have been met.
I wish to pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee under the most admirable chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Benson. I was present at most of the committee's sittings and it would not have been possible for any committee to be more thorough or comprehensive. There was no aspect which was not subjected to the most rigorous examination. That in itself—quite apart from the other matters that I have mentioned—gives me the utmost confidence in recommending the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Dormand of Easington.)
Lord Benson: My Lords, I was the chairman of the Select Committee which examined this Private Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, for the comments that he has made. The committee of which I was chairman felt that there were a few small matters to which I ought to draw the attention of the House merely by way of information.
There are four such matters. The first two are entirely procedural. The second two are individual to the Bill itself. First, we felt some anxiety at the length of time it takes to pass a Private Bill through the machinery of Parliament. The Bill was lodged in November 1988 and we were told—and it seems likely—that it will not go through the second

1513
Chamber until the end of this year. That will be a period of two years. I know that there are some special features about the Bill; but that is a very long time.
The process is very costly and the administrative expenses of the developer continue all that time. It is a subject that has already been examined by the joint review on Private Bill procedure which reported in 1988. It considered whether there might be a single Select Committee instead of two. I do not propose to go into that. I merely make the point that we thought it was a very ponderous machinery.
A more important point arose. One of the petitioners might have given evidence that could be of crucial importance in considering the Bill. However, the petition was withdrawn before the Select Committee sat. But in the course of the Select Committee we were told that that petitioner might present his petition in the second Chamber and it might then have been of considerable importance. We felt embarrassed that we were reporting to this House without hearing what that petitioner said because if his evidence was of crucial importance we might have given a wrong or misleading report to the House. Again I do not know what the solution is, but I mention that procedural point which I consider important.
The second procedural point is this. We found very early in our proceedings that it was a technical Bill. We needed the proofs of evidence of witnesses beforehand so that we could study the proofs, understand the technical problems and ask the right questions. It would also have the advantage of preventing one of the parties to the Bill ambushing another. In this respect I think that I am pushing at an open door. The Joint Committee on Private Bill procedure recommends that procedure in its report. I hope that it will be adopted in future. I am sure that it will help Select Committee procedures.
The first of the individual points relating to the Bill was a matter of importance. The Bill was lodged in November 1988 but the environmental impact assessment was not lodged until May or June 1989. There was no evil intent in this. I think that the developer—the promoter of the Bill—was anxious to go ahead as quickly as possible. The fact remains that that delay meant that a great deal of time and cost were spent by petitioners who examined the Bill without having that assessment before them. I believe that I again push at an open door. The joint review procedure recommended that the assessment should always be available at the time that the Bill is lodged. If that were done as a routine, it would be helpful.
The last point with which I wish to bother the House is a small matter. One of the petitioners had a great many clauses in the original petition. However, when it came before the Select Committee for examination, most of them were dropped. The petitioner concentrated on one subject only. That was a request that we should delay our hearing for three to four months. It was a perfectly fair request, not made with any ill intent. However, we were well into the procedure of the examination of the Bill. If we had been told that that was the only point that he wished to raise we could probably have settled
1514
that simple question of postponement very quickly and easily. If that had been so, we could have saved a good deal of time and expense.
I do not wish to trouble your Lordships further. I thought that those matters were worth drawing to your Lordships' attention, and the Select Committee having considered carefully, also felt that I should do so. Of course, I have put those matters in a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, the Chairman of Committees, so that he may be aware of the points.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Benson, raised these procedural points. He and I have corresponded and I believe that we are agreed on many aspects of the points which he put forward. On the other hand, as he knows, there are difficulties and we are doing our best to sort them out.
First, I thank him and his committee for doing a first-class job, as the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, said. Sometimes we find it difficult to get people to serve on these committees as the work is quite exacting, and we are very grateful to this committee for its hard work over a three-week period.
Many of the matters the noble Lord raised were commented on by the Joint Committee of both Houses on Private Bill procedure. However, I realise that some of the procedural points are very difficult to solve. It is true that it is a fairly cumbersome procedure which goes through two Houses, but, on the other hand, one of the conclusions of the Joint Committee was that many Private Bill procedures seem to support promoters rather more than the petitioners. There is a slight balance of advantage to the promoters. Anything which seeks to push that balance further to the advantage of the promoters is not very welcome. Any idea of a single committee may not be as happy a solution as it appears at first glance.
As the noble Lord said, in two instances he is pushing at an open door. The Joint Committee recommended that written proofs should be exchanged and we hope that that will be the position in future. Also, it was agreed that it can be helpful for petitioners to indicate at the outset any change in their position since a petition was deposited.
Furthermore, we are now giving active consideration to the Joint Committee's other recommendation in favour of the deposit of environmental assessment statements with works Bills. Indeed, that would have assisted the committee on the River Tees Bill, and again, I hope that that will be put right in future Bills. Therefore, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for putting those points on the record. It is always useful to know the experience of the Select Committees and I repeat that I am most grateful to him for the work of his committee.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I appreciate and acknowledge the protocol in these matters; namely, that this is not a party issue but a Private Bill. Nevertheless, speaking from the Front Bench, I am pleased warmly to welcome this Bill and I wish

1515
it a speedy and unharmed voyage through another place. I am certain that not only has my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington performed a useful function but he must feel a great deal of satisfaction and pride, in view of his connections with the broader community of Teesside, at the part which he has played in this very useful piece of legislation.
I was also interested in what he said about taking the advice and guidance of the National Rivers Authority, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I did not hear him say this but I understand that the committee was able to take into account and incorporate into the Bill, as amendments, matters which could be described as protection clauses for the conservation interests in the Bill.
This is a matter which is all about jobs and economic regeneration. Nevertheless, I know that the area of Teesside has suffered dreadfully from dereliction and appalling landscape and environmental detriment in general over the years as part of the aftermath of the industrial revolution. I believe that it is very good that the promoters of the Bill are anxious to play their part. As the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, has told us, this measure is designed to produce 8,000 jobs and to bring into the community hundreds of millions of pounds of investment which will be good not only for the investor but also for the community.
I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Benson, said about the aggravation of delay. There cannot be a Member sitting in your Lordships' House who at some stage has not felt frustrated by such delays. I also listened to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who said that easy solutions do not appear to these problems and, if they appear to be easy, on examination they are not always the ideal solutions.
As regards the Private Bill procedures, we must be exceedingly careful not only that they are used properly but that they are not abused. There has been much dissatisfaction at the fact that sometimes the route of a Private Bill is abused by promoters who can avoid scrutiny in other places by promoting legislation through Parliament. Therefore, there is a duty on both Houses to be even more vigilant than they may otherwise be to ensure that the Bill is properly considered. I am certainly very pleased that we have this Bill. From my knowledge of the North-East I can appreciate the energy, drive and initiative of the development corporation in promoting this Bill. I give it a very warm welcome.
Lord Reay: My Lords, it may be helpful if I give the House a brief summary of the Government's position on the Bill now brought before us for Third Reading. The Government fully support the objectives of this Bill. The successful development of the Teesdale site is crucially important to the Teesside Development Corporation's strategy for the regeneration of the area. The Government are satisfied that the construction of the barrage and bridges will maximise the investment potential of this site and will be cost-effective when set against the wider benefits of the scheme.
1516
The Government have examined the detailed economic appraisal of the corporation's proposals for this site, and on the basis of the cost estimates contained in that appraisal have agreed to make up to £57 million of grant-in-aid available to Teesside Development Corporation to implement the scheme if Parliament so agrees.
Since Second Reading, a considerable amount of research has been undertaken into the environmental and ecological implications of the barrage. Officials have been studying this research and have largely concluded that ameliorative measures proposed by Teesside Development Corporation to counteract any possible adverse effects of the barrage are likely to deal with these effects in a satisfactory manner. A further statement will be made when the Bill is considered in another place.
The committee of your Lordships' House has allowed the Bill to proceed after detailed scrutiny. For petitioners and others who remain dissatisfied with the provisions of the Bill, there will be a further opportunity for them to petition against the Bill in another place. I hope, therefore, that in the usual conventional way your Lordships will agree to allow the Bill to proceed.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. In so doing, I wish to thank all noble Lords who have made contributions to such an important measure. I must pay special tribute to the speech this evening of the noble Lord, Lord Benson. We are aware of the most valuable contribution which he always makes to the work of your Lordships' House. I hope that the important and constructive points that he made will receive due notice by the authorities of the House. They would lead to improvements in the manner in which we conduct our business and, therefore, in the quality of the legislation.
I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, intervened to bring immediate consideration to the important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Benson. I appreciate that there are difficulties—things are never quite as easy as one imagines—but I hope that those concerned with such matters will take due notice and give serious consideration to the points raised by the noble Lord. His chairmanship was as good as any that could have been undertaken in such circumstances.
I wish to make only one point about the presentation of the Bill. The development corporation is aware that some people and organisations believed that all the necessary tests should have been completed before the Bill was presented. That is an understandable viewpoint. However, the corporation—and as deputy chairman I share responsibility—reached its decision to proceed with the Bill before the results of all the tests were known in the knowledge that the initial but major studies were favourable. There were two postponements in order to meet objections to the environmental assessment and the statement was ready by June.

1517
I was born in the North-East of England and I have lived there all my life. During my time in another place and in your Lordships' House much of my effort has been directed towards improving the quality of life in that area. I believe that the measure before us this evening will make an important contribution towards that objective in a part of the region which sorely needs that improvement. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Normand of Easington.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Chlorofluorocarbons (Control) Bill [H.L.]
6.32 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Timetables]:
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert—
("(e) any substitute for ozone-depleting compounds that damage the ozone layer or contribute to the greenhouse effect more than the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide by 1st January 2000.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, in Committee I considered that one of my amendments was not correctly drafted so as to indicate my specific purpose. The main purpose is to avoid CFCs being replaced by other gases or compounds which could be equally or partially dangerous to the environment; that is, by harming the ozone layer or increasing the greenhouse effect.
I have redrafted the amendment taking into account what was said in Committee. Gases such as HCFCs have a proven deleterious effect on the greenhouse syndrome. Some scientists argue that while HCFCs are in use the hole in the Antarctic ozone layer will never recover. The other particular gas is HFC134A, which also has a deleterious effect on the greenhouse syndrome.
ICI is already planning to open two plants to produce HFC134; one in Runcorn and one in the United States. That appears to be an answer to the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, during Committee. He said:
"This is often best achieved through codes of practice and voluntary agreements rather than the blunt instrument of legislation. The relatively high cost of such chemicals will provide a good incentive for this".—[Official Report, 22/2/90; col. 448.]
The fact that ICI has already made those plans shows that the argument is not valid. Companies manufacturing such compounds and gases are already preparing to do so in this country and in the United States and we cannot afford to allow that to happen. As was said by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, in introducing the debate on his Select Committee report, we cannot base our policy towards this fundamental issue for humanity on the "no regrets" attitude. We must take action before anything is scientifically proven, if it ever is.
As was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and by many noble Lords during the passage of the Bill through this House, while we are abolishing the production of the CFCs we must beware that we do not manufacture other compounds or gases to replace them which, while they may not have the same disastrous effect on the ozone layer, have a bad effect on other aspects of the environment; in particular on the greenhouse effect.
In my previous amendment I did not give a timetable and I used the word "potential" which was much too vague. In my present amendment I have omitted the word "potential" and made the issue more specific. I have also introduced a timetable which, as the noble Baroness said previously, greatly concentrates the mind. Therefore, I suggest to the House that we should include in the prohibition:
"any substitute for ozone-depleting compounds that damage the ozone layer or contribute to the greenhouse effect more than the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide by 1st January 2000."
The date is taken from the estimate given by the United Nations Environmental Programme. It appears to be a reasonable date, worked out internationally. If the Bill is to be seen as a British contribution to what is invitably an international and awesome problem I can do no better than suggest to the House that the programme has given us a good lead. It is not exaggerated. The date has been worked out by the members of the United Nations Environmental Programme. It is therefore practical. I move that it should be included in the Bill.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord's amendment is similar in purpose to the amendment that he moved at Committee stage. While the noble Lord has tried to deal with some of the criticisms made then, the amendment does not meet the main problem. It is still making the best the enemy of the good.
Many of the substitutes for the most damaging chemicals now in use still have an ozone-depleting potential, even though that may be only 2 to 5 per cent. of current figures. Even those which have no chlorine content and therefore no ozone-depleting potential have a greenhouse-warming potential well in excess of that associated with carbon dioxide. It is, however, important to remember that the volume of those chemicals will never remotely match the volumes of carbon dioxide which are emitted. We must also remember that most of the substitute chemicals are not yet commercially available and will only become so on present plans by the middle years of the decade. If we were to impose a requirement for those chemicals to be phased out within 10 years from now, they would in all probability never be put into production at all. Without the commercial availability of those chemicals we should not be able to achieve the first objective of getting rid of the highly damaging chemicals that are currently in use. That would be disastrous both for the ozone layer and for global warming.
We need a strategy which will allow us sharply to reduce the peak chlorine loading of the atmosphere—that is to say, the maximum concentration of accumulated ozone-depleting

1519
chemicals—below four parts per billion. If we can do that, we can minimise the risk of creating an Arctic ozone hole to match that in the Antarctic. There must be a rapid withdrawal of the high ozone-depleting chemicals as quickly as possible. That is what the Government are seeking to do in negotiations to revise the Montreal Protocol. That is why the substitutes are essential.
Once we have dealt with the peak loading, the next objective is to get atmospheric chlorine levels back below two parts per billion, at which level, the scientists tell us, we can expect the Antarctic hole to start to close. That will require responsible use of the new chemicals and their replacement in turn, as chemicals with lower or no ozone-depleting potential become available. It will also require the use of those chemicals only where reasonable alternative technologies are not available. Perhaps we should rediscover the virtues of cardboard boxes instead of polystyrene for packaging wherever possible.
The greenhouse-warming potential of the new chemicals is another concern, but a real one. It seems that the new chemicals will all have greenhouse potentials greater than carbon dioxide, whose significance as a greenhouse gas arises from the volumes of it that are emitted. However, the new chemicals are an order of magnitude better than the major CFCs in this respect. If there is no replacement we will not be able to deal with the main problem.
The matter is more complex than that because the greenhouse characteristics of any substitutes are not just determined by their impact when they are released. If, for example, their refrigeration characteristics require a much heavier energy consumption to achieve the same result, that could simply increase the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from power stations.
While I share the noble Lord's concern for vigorous action to protect the ozone layer, I do not believe that his amendment will achieve his objective. The Government are currently negotiating, in agreement with our European Community partners, amendments to the Montreal Protocol which will respect the scientific advice and deliver an effective programme to reduce the threat to the ozone layer.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I should like to intervene briefly. I support the objective of the amendment. There is a dilemma which I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has taken on board, and that is the practical politics of a parliamentary timetable in getting this Bill or any Bill through another place—because that is where it starts from. We are seeking to iron out difficulties when the real objective is to get some speeding up of the timetable.
I received in the post today a document from a body called the Refrigeration Industry Board which has a great deal to say about this matter. The Minister has referred to the Montreal Protocol and amendments designed to bring about satisfactory content and a timetable to achieve what we all want. I support the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, in what he is
1520
trying to do: as a parliamentarian he is taking account of a criticism at one stage and trying to put it right at the next stage, which is tonight. Is the noble Lord in a position to tell us to what extent he has been able to take advice either from the Refrigeration Industry Board or any other body which will counter the arguments put by the Minister? The Minister said that the amendment was counterproductive to that which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, had in mind.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, has rightly reminded the House that at Committee stage I expressed great sympathy with his amendment. My problem was that it contained no timetable. I felt that if the amendment had been accepted at that stage and inserted into the Bill, it might have meant that the time limit was 1995. I felt that that was not possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Reay, has told us that current compounds that are being developed have a 2 to 5 per cent. impact compared with CFCs. That is a great advance. The amendment only asks that further research should be undertaken so that we can avoid the damage to the ozone layer by the year 2000; that is a period of 10 years. Enormous advances have been made since the danger of CFCs became obvious to this country and to the world at large. I mentioned in my speech at Second Reading that tremendous advances are already being made in recovering the CFCs in refrigerators, not only from the gases but from the foam.
I should have thought that the year 2000 is a reasonable limit. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, stated that he is negotiating with other countries. I know for certain that Scandinavia is hoping to achieve that situation in 1998–99. If they can have a programme on that scale, so can this country. As I have said more than once during the passage of the Bill, as a country we must set the pace and lead the world. We do not have to wait until everybody else is slowly following us. I certainly support this amendment and I hope that the House will do the same.
There is only one slight problem. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, may not have noticed that the subsection already contains a paragraph (e). He must either re-letter that as paragraph (f) or call his amendment paragraph (f). I am sure that the problem can be overcome.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I have one small point to make. I refer to the words "greenhouse effect". Are those words exact enough? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, will consider the words "global warming" as being accurate for what he seeks. While most of us think we know what the greenhouse effect is, it is a somewhat woolly expression.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I accept the spirit in which that criticism is made and perhaps on Third Reading we can consider a change of wording. I shall certainly take advice and I shall be glad to have the advice of the noble Lord.

1521
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred to the lettering of the paragraph. I took advice from the Public Bill Office and was told that paragraph (e) automatically becomes paragraph (f).
On the more substantive arguments put by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, I draw two points to his attention. He referred to the volume of carbon dioxide being emitted but in doing so he missed the phrase in the amendment which draws attention to "the equivalent amount". In other words, we are not talking about volumes but about the contrast between these new gases and compounds that are being produced and carbon dioxide in the same amounts. Therefore, the argument that a great deal more carbon dioxide is emitted is irrelevant to the discussion.
The second point concerns the correspondence I have received, to which I referred on Second Reading and in Committee, from the Bird Group of Companies whose representatives are coming here to see me tomorrow. They claim to have devised already substances which will replace CFCs in the manufacture of refrigerators. A great deal of research is being conducted, both commercially and academically, and, like the noble Baroness, I should have thought that giving 10 years to phase out these gases is reasonable. As the noble Baroness said, the Scandinavians are aiming to achieve that objective in less time.
Whether we are referring to the greenhouse effect or global warming, do we have 10 years so far as ozone gaps are concerned? Do we have 10 years to spare? I suggest that giving a full 10 years to find suitable substitutes for CFCs which are not dangerous to other aspects of the environment is a modest objective. As the noble Baroness said, if we are to claim genuinely that we are giving a lead to the world, that does not seem to be any exaggeration in regard to finding substitutes for CFCs which are not in themselves dangerous or harmful to the environment. On those grounds I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Development Plans
6.55 p.m.
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to implement the proposals in the 1989 White Paper The Future of Development Plans, in particular those concerning regional guidance and county structure plans.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have given to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, advance notice of the questions I shall put about the White Paper as supplemented by the draft planning policy guidance paper of November 1989. As in a previous discussion, I declare an interest in Consortium Developments Limited and as a vice-president of the Town and Country Planning Association.
There is confusion in the media. On 9th February the environment correspondent of the Financial Times reported that the White Paper had been "pigeon-holed" and "left to gather dust". However,
1522
on 9th March the chief political correspondent of The Times said that we could expect legislation in the next Session. Hence the need for my Question this evening.
Of course, it was Mr. Ridley's White Paper. The new Minister, Mr. Patten, was put in power to soften the Conservative image. He is a keen supporter of Mr. Ridley's poll tax. We see him on television smiling and nodding as the Prime Minister takes the flak about it at Question Time. On the other hand, every day he tries to distance himself from Mr. Ridley decking out with green trimmings many of the skeletons he finds in Mr. Ridley's cupboards at the department and trimming policies in the hope of obtaining votes for the Conservative Party. He fosters—if I may use a tease—a sort of cuddly teddy bear image, hoping to reassure, by contrast to the aesthetic Mr. Ridley. Wonder of wonders, after 10 years in which local government has been despised, denigrated and emasculated by Ministers, he seeks to make friends and comfort shire councillors.
In the circumstances, my Question is serious: is legislation still planned and is, as The Times reports, the role of the county councils to be more preserved than Mr. Ridley, at least, intended?
We can sympathise with the aims of the White Paper to simplify and speed up the planning system. Yes, structure plans have in some cases become too detailed. They are out of date when finally adopted and approved by Ministers. Alterations are needed immediately and are in turn out of date when they are finally adopted and approved. Local plans cover only a minority of districts.
Having said that, the White Paper is in my view incompletely thought out and, most important of all, distinctly unbalanced when we examine its details. The proposed replacement system is riot in doubt. It is a new pyramid or cascade. National guidance, if any, is from Ministers at the top. Regional guidance, based on submissions to Ministers by grouped local authorities, is in the middle. At the bottom there are very slimmed-down county planning policies and detailed district planning policies consistent with the regional policy and with each other.
The weakest part of the White Paper concerns the all-important regional guidance which will govern county and district policies. No fewer than 15 national bodies—the RICS, the surveyors, the RTPI, the town planners, the TCPA, CBI and NFU, for example—made a joint submission to the DOE that the,
"weakest part of the proposals in the White Paper is its handling of the strategic … aspect".
This, I repeat, is the most important part of the framework governing the stages at county and district level. However, the paragraphs describing it in Part III of the White Paper are perfunctory, to say the least. In Part III, where the detailed procedures for plan-making are supposed to be found, it is not dealt with at all.
Therefore, we need to ask some important questions. First, is regional guidance, still not properly set out, to be given legislative force—binding "statutory recognition", as Mr. Patten put it in a November speech to the Town and

1523
Country Planning Association? If so, then we really must have a lot more detail about what it is to cover and how it is to be drawn up.
Secondly, the White Paper apparently leaves it to interested counties to get together in groups like SERPLAN for the South-East region—whose chairman, I am delighted to see, has joined us this evening—to propose draft regional guidance. Is it really to be as haphazard as this? Are the groups to contain just the ones who are willing to get together and then to get the force of law? Is there to be no departmental scheme to get regional bodies under way or is regional guidance in some areas at least to be merely ministerial order enforced by law?
Thirdly, there is one yawning gap. The new slimline county policies, and the district policies at the bottom, will be examined in public before a panel or an inspector, but what about regional guidance? No public examination is to be permitted and the supplemental planning paper indicates that it will be protected from challenge at public inquiries. How undemocratic can we get? I foresee applications for judicial review and High Court cases based on denial of natural justice if this provision is put into law.
Furthermore, what the White Paper calls the "definite range of subjects" that are to be covered by the new slimline county policies are set out in the White Paper but no parallel range is given for the proposed regional guidance. Will that be remedied? If not, and when we are legislating for the new system, how will we know what is intended? The Town and Country Planning Association has put forward an excellent draft formulation of what regional guidance should cover, particularly mentioning issues that are too big to be left to counties or what we might call "hot potatoes" that county councillors will not wish to handle in regional bodies. There is a great danger of "pass the parcel" or the sheer avoidance of difficult issues in the regional groupings based, as such attitudes often can be, on orders to the participating county councillors from representatives of the counties back in their electoral areas.
Why is there no attempt to broaden the approach of bodies like SERPLAN, perhaps not as far as the former regional planning councils, and certainly not, I emphasise, by opening up the membership to interested business or conservation bodies? Is it really the case that the Secretary of State is content, as the chairman of SERPLAN informs me, that such bodies should simply be the mouthpiece of local authorities. Should there not be at least some guidance on effective outside consultation with other interests. Once the Minister has looked at the findings and agreed them, can we give legislative authority to this guidance, if none of it has taken place in public, so that the public may know about it?
Of course, getting an identity of view with outside parties is impossible, because planning is too difficult for that. However, the building of sympathy and understanding; a sense of shared responsibility about the future of the region, could be cultivated to replace the suspicion that exists about SERPLAN. Should there not be some guidance about the
1524
methodology to be followed in drawing up guidance and for the research that will be needed at regional level? I repeat that things should not be done behind closed doors, particularly if the decisions are to be given legislative force.
I end with some questions about the county and district policies which form the bottom rungs of the new ladder. Apparently the Secretary of State is to relinquish his power to approve these plans, but he retains reserve powers. Will he have a statutory duty to secure consistency with regional guidance and decisions down the line, as well as to remedy obvious flaws brought out at the proposed public examination by a panel or an inspector?
The Royal Institute of British Architects has voiced a particular concern about district plans and I draw it to the Minister's attention. The old pre-1968 development plan system became discredited largely because the then single-tier county plans were overloaded with site-specific proposals causing extensive objections and long delays. The system became discredited. That situation will surely return in the case of the new district planning policies if, as is proposed in paragraph 27 of the accompanying PPG paper, plans are to become almost immune from challenge when adopted, almost inflexible against interpretation and unable to be challenged before inspectors hearing appeals.
Individuals and developers will naturally have to plump for putting their proposals forward at the district plan stage, as in the old discredited system, with all the dangers of overloading that killed off that system. I hope that the Government have taken on board this criticism from the RIBA and that they are prepared to look again at paragraph 27.
Lastly, I turn to the issue of demand for homes and market forces. What a fall there has been from the mid-1980s, when Ministers wanted to make room for these forces in the planning regime! The White Paper of 1985 called Lifting the Burden and now, alas, of happy memory only, said:
"development plans are one, but only one, of the material considerations that must be taken into account in dealing with planning applications".
That White Paper was drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and he told me so at the time. I wonder if all that has now been dropped. I ask whether it is significant that market forces and demand are now banished completely from mention in the 1989 White Paper, despite the findings, for example, of Coopers & Lybrand, in a report commissioned by the DoE, that councils cannot estimate and provide for market demand. The report states that,
"ministers should ensure that, in any appeal decision, adequate weight is given to market demand—and seen to be so given".
Of course we must take great care to protect the environment in this small island. In case I am challenged, on a personal note I am proud to have done my own share, for example, in making a beautiful town at Telford out of coal tips and in being a special adviser to the European Commission during the drafting of directives to protect the environment and water quality. But there must also be balance. I suspect that, in the rush to put on green trimmings in this White Paper, the Government are

1525
losing the courage of their convictions about the legitimate role of market forces, the need for homes and the right to challenge plans that, in some cases, will not be seen to be democratically drawn up and open to challenge. In other cases people will not be allowed to question plans that may be parochial, narrow-sighted and out of date.
That is a danger towards which we might be drifting as a result of this White Paper. Most disturbingly, it looks as if the Minister wants to create certainty in planning by abdicating much of his role that has been enshrined in legislation for 40 years; namely, being an actual part of the planning system, there to grasp nettles, to insist on the wider view and to provide a certain flexibility which has been the cornerstone of our system. In particular, I hope that the Minister will assure me that the highly restricted wording of paragraph 27 in the accompanying planning paper will be reconsidered.
7.9 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the joy of watching a Labour Peer lecturing the Tory Front Bench on the virtues of Adam Smith and accusing them of failing in their duty passes all understanding. This is an immensely important subject. It goes without saying that good buildings or great landscapes can be destroyed in an instant but the results of that destruction last forever. Therefore, it is with genuine pleasure that I saw the subject which the noble Lord had put down as an Unstarred Question.
The White Paper seems to me to be a model of clarity, even though on occasions it uses unnecessary adjectives. In paragraph 1.2, where the importance of development plans is stated, the last sentence reads:
"The need now is for a system which is flexible and responsive in providing for these changes but which maintains its protection of those areas whose continued conservation is important to the future quality of life in Britain".
That seems to me to be an objective with which we can all agree and to which we should all give support.
Similarly, paragraph 2.13 on the roles of the counties is a model of clarity and common sense. Equally, the procedures for plan-making and their general principles (in paragraph 3.2) again command attention and respect. However, a small frisson of worry entered my mind when I read in paragraph 3.18 that Secretaries of State may be permitted,
"more selective intervention than at present".
That could be a licence to meddle. Unfortunately ambitous men who enter politics are energetic and not idle. One could give idle Secretaries of State the ability to meddle, but it is dangerous to allow energetic and ambitious ones that privilege.
I have shown a genuine welcome to the White Paper, but I hope 1 may add a plea for policies in the countryside which I think should be beneficial. It is even possible to argue that the occasional small house or small business should be allowed in green belt areas. Incidentally, it is true that most National Trust treasures, like my old home, Clandon, would now be refused planning permission and certainly disobey building regulations. It is not what happens in a building that matters; it is its shape and size. It is much more sensible that a barn in Wales or
1526
Surrey—both counties subject to very different pressures, but pressures all the same—should be occupied and used, be it by industry or as a house, than that they should be allowed to fall down. It is the impact on the environment rather than the use which should be measured and, above all, controlled.
Is there enough flexibility in these new proposals? The environmental damage done by blanket planting of conifers needs no further emphasis; it is almost too well known. That planting also is unfortunately not subject to planning control. The development of huge mono-class housing estates, with few shops, pubs or light industry, makes for commuter communities and boring towns.
We have a very decent development near my home, but it is nothing but houses. It is a great pity that there is not a greater variety of houses in that development and, furthermore, that there is not the odd small business among the houses, be it a small garage or blacksmith's shop—that perhaps shows my historical inclinations. Small businesses should be allowed in housing estates; they help to liven them up.
London Docklands has provided an example of very successful rejuvenation of urban dereliction. There is still an immense amount left to do.
In the year that England regained the Ashes after the war my father took the family on a canal holiday. In those days the canal boat had to be driven. Five of us went chugging along the canals through Birmingham, which incidentally has more miles of canal than Venice—a useless piece of information for your Lordships. While travelling the canals in Birmingham we were surrounded by active, fascinating buildings full of people working and bustling with trade and industry. I accept that industry has changed; some would say perhaps not fast enough. However, my family and I took a similar journey only two years ago; we chose it because we thought it might be as interesting as the journey of my perhaps golden years of childhood. It turned out that where the warehouses and small factories had once been there was nothing but dereliction and empty space. Before we use up precious countryside we must use derelict land.
We then reach the parts of the White Paper which, although they may not need alteration, should be taken into account by the Secretary of State when legislation is introduced—which bears out the regional point made by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. How do the White Paper proposals allow for the fact that it should be more sensible to build on wasteland in Birmingham, Newcastle or London before greenfield sites in Humberside or Washington are used? Of course we must think big on some occasions; of course we have occasionally to use greenfield sites, but our land resources are small. They are not as rationed as those of the Low Countries or Singapore, but they are certainly more restricted than those of France, Germany and most other European countries.
With that caveat—I accept I may here be asking Secretaries of State to meddle, which is something of which I disapprove—I give the White Paper my wholehearted support.
7.15 p.m.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, I believe it would be helpful to your Lordships if I try to explain the role of SERPLAN, the London and South-East Regional Planning Conference, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. This is a regional standing conference of local authorities and I have the honour of being its chairman in succession to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford.
The conference is made up of elected members of the county councils in the South-East and representatives of the district councils and all the London boroughs, each of whom is responsible, by statute, for the preparation of development plans and for development control.
The conference is the mechanism for enabling these 143 authorities to give their concerted view to government on a regional basis, the region containing around 17 million people. However, before doing so they consult widely all interested parties, which include the housebuilders and the consortium of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. During the consultation process of our document Into the Next Century we had a 60 per cent. response rate from around 150 groups consulted, which is high in this type of exercise. I believe that it would be very foolish to alter the composition of the conference by including or co-opting unelected representatives and I hope the Minister will support this view in his reply.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I start by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, the first few minutes of whose speech I missed. The House has been collapsing rather rapidly tonight and I apologise to him, but he had the courtesy to advise me of some of the points he intended to raise. He certainly raised them in the part of his address that I heard, and they are very pertinent questions. We await the Minister's reply with interest, but I do not intend to pursue them much further than that.
I do not claim to be a planning expert but I do not think that I am alone in saying that I am somewhat mystified as to what is the Government's current attitude to the role of the county structure plan. One returns to the consultation paper of September 1986 which states quite clearly in paragraph 46 that it was the ultimate intention of the Government to abolish structure plans. At the time, when I was in the other place, I thought that that was a mistake. Part V of the White Paper of more recent date still talks about replacing structure plans. However, in the latest guidance notes issued on 27th November 1989 it is quite clear that they are to continue to play a major role in the planning process. Paragraph 30 actually states that the primary function of regional planning guidance is to provide the necessary framework for the preparation of structure plans; presumably, therefore, they are to continue. If that is the case, I very much welcome it.
I also very much welcome the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, on the matter. I do not know much about SERPLAN, although I know that
1528
the Isle of Wight is a member. I am a great believer in local government and I still desperately want to see local elected members playing a full part in any sort of regional structures. I think that SERPLAN is the only one which has thus far got off the ground.
Perhaps when he comes to reply to the debate the Minister will confirm that the structure plan is here to stay. A great deal of work has been put into such plans. Indeed, even my old constituency has reached the second process, revised it and passed it through. I believe that we now have local plans for every part of the island.
On the whole I think that the latest guidance notes are to be greatly welcomed. The RICS, to which I still belong, says that the document represents the clearest restatement for some time of the Government's support for the planning system. It further notes that it also represents some change of emphasis in direction from the policy framework outlined as recently as January 1989. I have been in trouble before with Members of this House for criticising a certain Secretary of State. Therefore, I do not intend to do so tonight. However, if there has been a change of emphasis it is very much to be welcomed. I wish all speed to the new Secretary of State. That is all to the good. I say that because, despite its imperfections, our present planning system has served the country well.
One of the greatest problems besetting planning authorities today is lack of qualified staff. They have been inundated with applications and therefore development control has been under great pressure and has obviously been given priority, although some quite outrageous delays have taken place—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, will agree with this—and decisions have been delayed. Such situations can be extremely costly.
One can only have sympathy for the officers who have been under pressure from developers and councillors alike. I must say that some councillors have behaved quite disgracefully towards their officers. It is no wonder that advertisements for senior staff go unanswered. Even now, with property off the boil, suitable staff are very hard to find. I know of a particular case in my old part of the world where advertisement after advertisement brought no response whatever. In fact, I believe the parties concerned are interviewing today just one respondent who applied for the position of a senior member of planning staff. That is the kind of problem which authorities are facing.
There is much to be said for the chartered surveyors' proposal contained in their answer to the recent guidance notes that so far as concerns development plans, work should be contracted out to the private sector, subject of course to safeguards to prevent conflicts of interest. I should imagine that that would appeal to the present Administration. I certainly support it. It would take pressure off the hard-pressed local planning authorities, though whether it would bring about the desirable aim, which the White Paper and the guidance notes mention, of producing regional planning guidance for the whole of England by the early 1990s is certainly questionable. It is highly desirable but I wonder whether it is really a possibility, to say

1529
nothing of the need to complete as soon as possible local plan coverage for the whole of England and Wales. There is a long way to go yet in that respect.
Firm time-scales will surely have to be laid down in any future legislation if targets are to be met. At the same time, the Government must realise the pressure under which local government is working. That is something which I am afraid to say is sadly lacking in this Administration. In fact, I do not think that they have ever really understood the real problems faced by local government.
I should like to conclude with a reference to some very depressing statistics issued today by the Department of the Environment. They show that homelessness continues to increase at an alarming rate. In the last quarter of 1989 the numbers of acceptances were up on the same period of 1988—that is, the last quarter of each year—by about 7,800. I heard the housing manager of Newham say today that in his borough there are 1,700 families in temporary accommodation. That is an appalling statistic.
Therefore, there is a need to identify suitable sites, especially in urban areas. I certainly agree with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in this respect. There are huge areas around Birmingham which could be developed. I also took my family there many years ago. We went on a canal trip. We chose the month of April to do so, but it was not the best time of the year. These days I pass through Birmingham about twice a week and there are enormous areas available—for example, the Lea Valley and many other areas—where we can put the land assembly together and deal with the situation.
Finally, as a final word, I plead that planning will put its act together because it has a big role to play in this respect. It has to discover the land, assemble it and build properties on it which can be let at an affordable rent. That need has never been greater. As I said, planners have a key role to play in this process and they should be greatly encouraged to take part. In my view the sooner that is done the better.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I should like to pay the same kind of warm tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, as have other contributors to this short debate. He has given us the opportunity to discuss the matter. Nevertheless, none of us will kid ourselves or anyone else that that which transpires from this debate will be of a major character. However, it provides a good opportunity for those who from various standpoints have some experience in planning matters and in local government to take part. All of us have a deep interest in ensuring that our countryside is protected, that our industry is expanded and that homes are provided for our people.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, was one which contained very well-balanced and reasonable arguments. I should like now to deal with the first one. The Minister could be helpful not just to the House but also to other people outside if he could be a little more precise about the legislation on development plans and planning legislation in
1530
general. We were all led to believe at about this time last year that a slot would be made available in the timetable for such matters. However, that opportunity slipped away. I have with me the article which appeared in The Times and to which the noble Lord, Lord Northcliffe, referred.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): It was Lord Northfield!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Well, as we know, the cliff is on the edge of the field. However, it is an environmentally sensitive subject.
The Minister can tell us whether there is a distinct prospect that the Queen's Speech this year will bring forward some legislation. There is a great deal of uncertainty about the current situation. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, certainly wanted to know a little more about the status of county development plans and I want to comment on what the Minister and his colleagues are saying both in the White Paper and in the planning guidance notes about the raison d'être for the strategic planning nexus.
I should also like to add my support to the general view that the Government's proposals imply support for the development plan system. That is something which I welcome. The alternative to not having a system would undoubtedly be anarchy and would bring chaos. I am not speaking in a partisan way when I say to the Minister that I have a great deal of sympathy for him and his colleagues in their efforts to try to get the matter right. They know that they will never satisfy everyone and at times they will wonder whether they will be able to satisfy anyone. But it has to be done and they have that responsibility. Therefore we are looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about future legislation.
In the past the Government have played down the importance of development plans, stating that conformity with such plans is only one of a number of issues which should be considered when local authorities decide whether to approve planning applications. In the recent past numerous decisions taken by local authorities to refuse planning applications because they were inconsistent with development plans have been overturned by government inspectors on appeal.
I should like to hear the Minister say something about the premise which I shall now outline. We must take care and trouble at all levels of involvement statutorily—that is, locally, county-wise, regionally and nationally—to lay down guidelines. We do not wish to have something written in tablets of stone that cannot be altered. Care is taken to lay down what can happen in respect of land zoning in each part of the city, county or country, and a local planning committee acts in accordance with its own plans. However. what hope is there if someone appeals against that decision and finds on appeal that the plan which was approved locally, regionally and nationally is negatived by a decision of the Minister?
I know what the Minister and his colleagues will say. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, quite properly

1531
alluded to it. They will say that there always needs to be some person who has the ability, despite all that has happened, to say no. I am speaking now from my local knowledge of Enfield where I was chairman of a planning committee many years ago. I still keep in touch; I live there; I read the local papers and meet various local people. Generally there is dissatisfaction that when a council acts in accordance with the structure plan that is laid down, appeals go to the Minister and are accepted.
I should like the Minister to tell us more about the allusions in the White Paper to the matters that are kept for the strategic level. I do not have the direct reference but regarding matters that should be examined strategically there is no reference to tourism, recreation or conservation policies. The Minister can help people outside if he subscribes to the view that in the 1990s we need to try to anticipate transport changes, energy needs and environmental and conservation actions so that they are all taken into account.
Perhaps the Minister would also tell us how he and his colleagues envisage that conformity will be secured between the district development plans and the regional guidance and county statements. It is all very well to speak in isolation but there needs to be the ability to look at what is happening and say, "Yes, that is in conformity with the plans", and it is not so grotesque and out of place that people say that the plan is not working at all. The White Paper says little about how this conformity between the district development plans, the regional guidance and county statements can be secured. Can the Minister help us on that?
I take very much to heart what the noble Lord, Lord Ross, said about the staff. At present the planning department staff are greatly stretched and overworked. I do not notice anything in the documents that I have read to indicate that the Minister or the department take into account the need for adequate staff. He might say that changes can be made, but there is no provision for that. Will he tell us whether his colleagues acknowledge that we want not planning approvals but proper scrutiny of planning applications so that when they are approved it is by people who know their business? I should like the Minister to say something on that.
Will he also take on board an inconsistency between the approach outlined in the White Paper and that in circular 3/88 concerning the treatment of urban development corporations and enterprise areas in the development plans? The White Paper suggests that proposals for UDC and enterprise zone areas should not be included in district development plans. Circular 3/88, on the other hand, applies in the metropolitan areas and requires that a UDC be consulted regarding its proposals, which should then be included in the UDP. I believe that the provisions of circular 3/88 are valid. Proposals for the UDC areas should be included in district plans.
Reference was quite properly made by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, to the need to be consistent. He referred to Lifting the Burden. One of the matters that concerned me in my research into this subject was that, while there is a need for speed and
1532
certainty, we must also ensure that proper account is taken of a great many matters, not least housing. That should be to the fore, but so should employment. If the Government are keen on generating jobs and providing sufficient land for housing, we need to hear from the Minister how the proposals in the plan and policy guidance notes take account of that.
Reference was made to the need to get this right. The Minister might say that this is not appropriate, but I wish to say a word or two about the absence of the proper manner of consulting organisations and people who are affected by the plans. The noble Lord must know that in the past 10 years, besides a great many other things of which he can be proud on behalf of his Government, there has been a growth of organisations set up primarily to articulate on behalf of groups of people. It may be the Ramblers' Association, which has existed not just for 10 years but for a long time, or other bodies, and great issues like the Channel Tunnel. I should like the Minister to tell us where he sees the proper and adequate consultation of ordinary people fitting into the grand scheme of development control.
He must also say something about the Government's approach to regeneration. Reference was made to the London Docklands. Although the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, made kind remarks about the development, if we look back at the past 10 years and the five years before that there are lessons to be learnt about the way in which the will, needs and desires of the local people—that is people power as opposed to property or money power—should be taken into account. There is an absence, for instance, of proper transport and rail links to serve the area. If those were not an afterthought, they certainly came far too late and soured and damaged the impression of the area to many people.
The energy of many people can be harnessed and it can be helpful not just to the local community but to the country. The Minister should also tell us a little about the vexed question of commercial developers and the manner in which over the past 10 years by offering, I shall not say inducements or sweeteners, but they appear to come to some arrangement to provide for a local need of the community. They have thereby added something attractive to their planning application. Local government in 1990 is stretched and will sometimes look more favourably on a planning application which carries some community benefit that is not necessarily in the best planning interests of the area.
The debate has been useful. Much more can be said. I remind the Minister that my main concern is to ensure that there is some consistency between the various levels of planning. He should recognise that in 1990 there is great interest not just from developers but from little people.
I welcome very much the start that has been made by the new Secretary of State. I think he is a breath of fresh air by comparison with his predecessor. He appears to have started off on the right level. He strikes me as being someone who takes this aspect of his work seriously. I wish him well in what is undoubtedly a difficult job. Once more I repeat my

1533
gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for what he has had to say to us tonight.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I think we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for prompting this debate. We are at a stage when thinking on the role of the planning system is developing rapidly. I believe we have the opportunity to move towards a system which will command much greater public confidence. I welcome this opportunity to set out the Government's position and to respond to the points which noble Lords have made.
I shall respond initially to my noble friend Lord Onslow, who made a reasonable point which was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, with regard to canals. That is an area for which I have personal responsibility. I can assure both noble Lords that great endeavours are being undertaken at this moment from Gas Street Basin to Limehouse Dock to ensure that derelict land is brought back into use and is turned into creative areas of employment and future residential care.
Before I proceed a yard further, I should also point out that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, asked whether the Government had a commitment to public infrastructure. If one looks at the great and heroic endeavours in regard to the Channel Tunnel and at the infrastructure that will arise from that, it is fair to say that there has been no greater commitment since 1945 towards creating true success in our infrastructure. That commitment has been allowed to take place by the enterprise culture.
In the White Paper The Future of Development Plans, issued in January last year, we addressed the criticisms that have been levelled against the development plan system. These included the lengthy approval times for structure plans; the use of informal rather than statutory local plans; the over-detailed coverage in structure plans of matters which properly belong in local plans; and the extension of plans to incorporate non-land use issues.
Plans were taking several years to reach adoption or approval and quickly became out of date. Consequently they could not provide a satisfactory basis for decisions on planning applications or appeals. There was a lack of public confidence in the system and concern that plans were not being respected and that too many important planning decisions were being taken on an ad hoc basis. The reform of the system set out in the White Paper is intended to provide clear and succinct plans which are easily understood by all who need to know about the planning proposals for an area. It intends to provide plans which provide for the views of the local community to be taken fully into account. That is our message about local choice.
Of course, we are all well aware that local communities have to be realistic. They cannot just veto all new development in their areas. They have to play a sensible part in meeting the wider needs of the country. To do that in sensible planning at the local level, they must have a strategic framework within which to make their choices. The White Paper proposed that the framework should be provided by
1534
regional guidance and statements of county planning policies.
We propose that regional planning guidance should be extended to provide an effective policy in the context of development plans. This is the aspect of the White Paper proposals which we have strengthened in the recent draft policy guidance note and which has been widely welcomed and is being taken up in regions outside the South-East. In developing regional guidance we are not signalling any return to the over-elaborate strategies of the 1960s and 1970s. The aim is to provide a clear basis for dealing with those planning issues which transcend the boundaries between individual counties in a region.
The arrangements in the South-East region, and the role of SERPLAN, are relatively well known. At this point I should give thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, who gave a succinct description of the enormously important role that has been fulfilled successfully—that is the most important thing—by SERPLAN. However, I stress that the central feature of these arrangements is the dialogue between government and the local planning authorities of the region, acting together through their standing conference. We would not suggest that the SERPLAN arrangements are a model to be slavishly followed in every detail in other regions. But experience suggests that a similar approach is likely to be of value elsewhere in producing effective regional planning guidance.
At this point I wish to comment on some of the specific points which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, made and which he very graciously informed me of before coming to your Lordships' House this evening. Regional guidance will not have legislative force. It would hardly remain guidance if it did so. However, under the Government's proposals the present discretionary system for the formulation and issue of guidance would become part of the statutory planning process; and in drawing up policies and development plans local authorities would be legally required to have regard to such guidance.
At present local authorities themselves take the initiative in setting up arrangements for preparing advice at regional level. We encourage them to do so. If regional guidance does become part of the statutory process, it will become more important for local authorities to act effectively in this way. At present we see no need for compulsion.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister explain what the words "have regard to" mean?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, having had the honour and privilege over the past two years of replying to amendments from the Opposition Front Bench, I think it is fair to say that the words "have regard to" mean exactly what they say. Those words do not have the definition that the noble Lord would like them to have. That is why I shall go no further tonight in saying what the words "have regard to" mean. I have never done so on any previous occasion. Those words mean exactly what they say.

1535
Regional guidance would by definition not be given in great detail, but local authorities would be bound to take account of it when they drew up policies and development plans. Where guidance proposes county figures for housing provision, for instance, we should expect counties to come forward with plans broadly in accordance with those figures. The Secretary of State will have reserve powers to ensure that this happens. Its purpose would be to guide plan-making authorities whose proposals are subject to examination in public or at a public inquiry as well as others having an interest in or with the development of land.
The experience with SERPLAN indicates that such a regional local government body is capable of forming responsible views and advice about a region as a whole, as distinct from matters of only local significance. We shall certainly be giving advice about the range and content of regional guidance, and are ready to consider suggestions about how this may best be done.
Similarly, we are open to suggestions about the procedures for consultation. We already encourage SERPLAN to consult widely before formulating advice, which is in itself subject to a more formal consultation procedure which is presented to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The detailed methodologies adopted in the preparation of regional guidance will need to ensure that guidance is appropriate to the circumstances of each region.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, the noble Lord has been helpful in what he has said about regional guidance. However, will he also say whether the Government will consider the point I made, that if regional guidance is to be part of the statutory process thought should be given to some of its work being carried out in public? It cannot be enforced if it is done behind closed doors.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, asked a question to which there is a perfectly adequate answer—namely, that SERPLAN represents people who have been elected by the people. We wish to have full and adequate consultation. SERPLAN represents the elected representatives of the people, and that is why I believe it to be a satisfactory and admirable example.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, with respect, the noble Lord has not answered my question. That type of body has become part of the statutory process. However, although they meet in public at county level, when they meet at regional level they meet in private. That is to be given the force of law or at least will become part of the statutory process. I ask only for thought to be given to the possibility that some of that process should be open and seen to be open.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, will find my answer inadaquate. Nevertheless, I say to him that the process is entirely democratic because it takes place openly. Those decisions which are made at a higher
1536
level, in a process which he may regard as inadequate, are made adequately and openly by democratically elected representatives at a lower level, and that creates the basis for the achievement of SERPLAN.
The new statements of county planning policies proposed in the White Paper would be slimmer than the present structure plans and would concentrate on a defined range of land use planning issues. They would provide the framework within which the districts could work up their detailed development control policies and proposals in mandatory district-wide plans. Counties would be able to adopt their own statements. That would free them from the delays caused by submitting plans to the Secretary of State. He would retain reserve powers of intervention, which would be strengthened so that he could direct modification or the call-in of a county statement—for instance, so as to secure consistency between housing figures in regional guidance and the provision made in a county's statement.
We proposed, too, that the present requirement for districts to obtain a certificate of conformity from the county before putting their plans on deposit should be dropped. Instead there would be a requirement for district plans to be consistent with the county statement of planning policies. The inspector would consider the question of consistency at the public inquiry into the local plan.
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, raised a number of specific points about the risk of parochialism in district plans and the need for plans to make adequate provision for market demand. As I have mentioned, though it will be for counties and districts to adopt their own plans, my right honourable friend will have flexible reserve powers of intervention. He will be able to use those powers to ensure that districts' plans make adequate total provision for housing and industrial development, judged against the requirements of regional guidance and the county statement. Our message about "local choice" has never implied that districts will be allowed to get away with inadequate and unrealistic provision.
The noble Lord also questioned whether plans can adequately allow for market forces. There is a balance to be struck here. We believe that there are benefits for all players in the planning process if we can move towards an improved development plan framework which offers greater certainty about what will and will not be permitted. However, plans themselves must be realistic about market demand. For instance, it is no use making all the provision for new housing at the wrong end of the town where no one wants to live.
Equally, plans cannot be completely prescriptive. They cannot anticipate every need and opportunity for development. Planning applications will continue to be considered on their merits, having regard to all material considerations. We are not moving towards a rigid zoning system. It will still be for the planning authority to justify refusing permission, rather than for the developer to justify his application. We are, however, suggesting that more weight should be given in this process to plans which reflect local needs and local priorities.

1537
Your Lordships will understand that I cannot give any firm indication tonight of the likely timing of legislation, although the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, was hoping that I would provide the answer this evening. However, there is much we can be doing now to move towards the objectives set out in the White Paper—which I believe command very general support.
I have already mentioned that work is in hand to extend the coverage of regional guidance. The noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, has described what is happening in the South East. In East Anglia the planning authorities, acting through the Standing Conference of East Anglian Local Authorities, have submitted a statement to my right honourable friend, who is considering his response. That response will be in the form of draft regional planning guidance, which will be published for consultation before the guidance is finally issued. In the South-West region the planning authorities have embarked on a similar exercise in the West Country Strategic Conference. In other regions counties are forming themselves into regional planning conferences. We welcome that.
On structure plans, the guidance we issued in November in the draft planning policy guidance note advised counties what they can be doing now to simplify the scope and format of their structure plans, bringing them into line with the concise statements envisaged in the White Paper.
The guidance note gave us an opportunity to confirm the importance of structure plans in the strategic planning process. I know that concern was expressed last year, following the publication of the White Paper, that our proposals would weaken the strategic planning role of the counties. I hope that the PPG has served to convince people of our belief that there is a key continuing role for the counties in the planning process. The issues still to be settled are essentially about mechanisms rather than matters of principle. We shall be considering those in preparing a final version of the PPG for publication later in the spring and in the run-up to legislation.
My noble friend Lord Onslow referred to redundant land. I hope that I covered that point with my description of the requirements regarding canals.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, drew the attention of your Lordships' House to the need for greater certainty and that committees should be able to be confident that the policies embodied in adopted plans would not be overturned on appeal. At the same time the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, from the Benches behind the noble Lord, Lord Graham, argued the case for greater flexibility. Therefore, I should like to think that we have reached a happy medium between the two, and I shall argue the point no further.
Reference was also made to the state of appeals and the position of strategic planning, and the relationship between energy and transport was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. It is fair to say that we shall have debates on those subjects later during this Session and I am sure that the noble Lord would not wish me to
1538
describe—in the awful words of modern jargon—the interface between energy, transport and planning, because I should have to keep your Lordships here until a very late hour indeed.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Go on!
Lord Hesketh: I shall decline the encouragement of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and continue to my conclusion. We are keen to develop a planning system which commands greater public confidence and offers greater certainty. There are benefits not only for local communities but also for developers if plans are realistic in making adequate provision for development, as they must be. It is a precondition of the confidence we seek that plans should have been discussed and tested in the public arena before they are adopted.
However, there is always a balance to be struck between discussion and consultation on the one hand and reaching some firm conclusions as a basis for action on the other. We have to devise mechanisms which get that balance right. I am not convinced by what has been said tonight that the mechanisms that we already have and the improvements we intend to make to them are as flawed as has been suggested. Nevertheless, the extension and strengthening of regional guidance and the reform of the development plan system will give us the opportunity to look at those arrangements afresh. I can assure noble Lords that the points which have been made tonight, and more widely in response to the draft PPG, will be carefully considered. I hope that the Unstarred Question of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, will have contributed to a better form of planning in this country.

Heathrow Express Railway Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

Capital Allowances Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes before eight o'clock.