Lords Sitting of 14 February 1991

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

M.4 Widening Estimates
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the latest estimate of the cost of widening the M.4 motorway to four lanes between the Chiswick flyover and Junction 12.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the estimated cost of the schemes for widening the M.4 motorway between Junction 4B, the M.25, and Junction 12 was announced as £130.9 million in the report Trunk Roads. England Into the 1990s, published in February 1990. Consultants appointed by the Department of Transport are evaluating the options for increasing the capacity of the motorway and more precise estimates of cost will be made when that work is completed. The section of M.4 between the Chiswick flyover and the M.25 is included in a study of the M.4 and A.4 corridor with the objective of improving the efficiency of the existing roads.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most obliged to the Minister for that very informative Answer. I am sure he will agree that a lot of money is involved. Is he aware that the widening of the motor way would serve to attract extra population and additional development to an area which is already over-populated and over-developed? Does he agree, and is he aware, that the nearside lane of this stretch of the M.4, even at peak periods, is often quite empty? Before spending £130.9 million, would it not be better to try to make better use of the existing lanes of the motor way either through additional speed restrictions or by allowing passing on the nearside as well as the offside?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that there is a recognised need for further capacity on this road. At some places along the stretch which the noble Lord identified it is already operating at more than double its design capacity. Therefore, I am not sure that it is necessarily true that additional development in the area would be attracted. As regards lane discipline, we want to see high-volume utilisation and productivity from our existing motorways without compromising safety. The Highway Code makes it quite clear that where possible people should use the nearside lane. The fact is that on this road at certain times all three lanes are fully occupied.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, has thought been given to the effects of congestion on the roads into inner London if four lanes were provided up to but not beyond the Chiswick flyover?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in my original Answer I sought to make clear that there are particular proposals for four lanes which extend only as far as the M.25. The piece of road between the M.25 and the Chiswick flyover is the subject of a separate study to make maximum use of the existing road.
Lord Milky: My Lords, will the Minister consider whether the department can give more publicity to the need for adherence to the Highway Code standards for driving on motorways? There are still people who drive from London to Scotland in the middle lane; they never move from one lane to another. No matter which three-lane motorway one travels on the inner lane is nearly always empty.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords. We are commissioning research at the moment which will help us to decide whether changes are needed in our advice to drivers. In the meantime we shall be stressing in our publicity campaigns the importance of good lane discipline on motorways.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, of passing on the inside (that is, the left side) in order to make use of the inner lane, is one of the most dangerous practices to be seen on motorways? Is he aware that many of us who have driven in France, and even more so in Italy, and who have experienced drivers passing on the inside (the right side over there) feel that the practice exposes both drivers to the maximum danger of collision and that it should be heavily prosecuted?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I did not answer that particular point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. As my noble friend has said, we would have to think extremely carefully before making any decision allowing passing on the nearside.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that what he has just said about passing on the nearside is to be welcomed? I wholly endorse the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. As regards the points raised by my noble friend Lord Stoddart, is the Minister intending that there should be an environmental impact assessment? If so, would that not cover at least some of the points which have been mentioned and perhaps many more?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Certainly, my Lords. All widening options will be assessed in terms of their impact on existing communities: for example, the landscape, agriculture, nature conservation, heritage values and recreation.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, with great deference to those noble Lords who have spoken about passing on the inside lane, traffic in Park Lane in both directions passes on the nearside or in the outside lane according to whether those lanes are empty. Lane hopping does not take place. The traffic appears to flow quite safely.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is not a motorway. It is not the M.4. I hope that traffic is keeping within the speed limit allowed in Park Lane which I suspect is 30 miles per hour.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, can my noble friend advise whether any consideration has been given to making the Chiswick flyover three lanes? To the best of my knowledge, the flyover is the only dual carriageway between Knightsbridge and the M.4 itself.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I said in my original Answer that between the elevated section of the Chiswick flyover and the M.25 junction, a study is already being carried out into the A.4-M.4 corridor. It is due to be completed in the spring. The aim of the study is to improve the efficiency and safe use of the existing A.4-M.4 by optimisation of traffic routing. Once the study is complete we shall consult the local authorities and the BAA on the results.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider giving instructions to dispatch riders who, both on motorways and in towns, suddenly arrive on the nearside and are therefore invisible in the rear mirror?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, enforcement of the law on roads is a matter for the police. They do not have limitless resources. Where possible they should prosecute when actions of that kind take place.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, have the Government considered whether £130.9 million spent on public transport might be preferable?
Lord Brabazon of Tara; My Lords, record levels of money are being spent on public transport at the moment. However, that will not solve the problem of congestion on our main inter-urban roads. A balanced policy is being pursued which aims to improve all forms of transport including railways, so that each can make a proper contribution towards a safer, more efficient and less environmentally damaging transport system.

The Gulf: Ceasefire Statement
3.10 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they were informed in advance of the United States' intention to state jointly with the Soviet Union, a non-combatant power, the conditions on which the United States would cease fire in the Gulf.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the US-Soviet joint statement of 29th January reflects what has been our agreed policy for a very long time.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the statement we are talking about is the so-called Baker/Bessmertnykh statement of that date. It says in part that a cessation of hostilities would be possible if Iraq would make an unequivocal commitment to withdraw from Kuwait backed by immediate concrete steps leading to full compliance with the Security Council resolutions. Does the noble Earl agree that it is therefore a constructive, forward-looking and helpful statement? But would it not nevertheless be wise to ensure that the United States consulted us about statements of this importance before they were made in case the next one is less constructive and forward-looking?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is no need to have prior notice of a statement that is simply a reaffirmation of what is agreed policy.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as our involvement in the Gulf conflict is expressly authorised by the United Nations, is the noble Earl aware that we warmly welcome the current meeting of the Security Council? Can he indicate what new initiative, if any, the Government will be proposing at this important meeting and whether the point raised by my noble friend Lord Kennet will form part of the discussion which takes place today?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is right in saying that this is an important meeting of the Security Council. It is equally important that the Security Council should not blur in any way the signal being sent to Iraq that it must abide by the 12 powerful resolutions. That we shall seek to endorse today.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, am I not right in thinking that the White House had some objections to the statement of 29th January? Can the noble Earl say whether or not the Government agree with those objections?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not think that is a matter for the Government.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the noble Earl seriously say that if there is a disagreement between the White House and the Secretary of State in the United States the British Government have no view on it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is not what I said.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, will the noble Earl be so good as to tell us what he did say in response to my question? I said that I understood that the White House had repudiated some aspects of the statement of 29th January. I asked whether Her Majesty's Government agreed or disagreed with those reservations.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, that is what he thought. As I understand the situation, the statement did nothing but reaffirm existing policy.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that at a time of great international complexity the asking of questions designed to illustrate problems among our allies is not in the best interests of the joint effort?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall try to answer the questions put by Members of your Lordships' House.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that since we are a belligerent we are at least entitled to have our views taken into account about the objects of the war?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no one said otherwise.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not true that relations between the British Government and the President of the United States are close and

213
continuous and that the two are permanently in consultation? There seems to be no rupture or disagreement among them, which is to the credit of both parties.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is partly right. That is the case not only with the President of the United States but with every other member of the Administration.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, when I asked the noble Earl the same question regarding the American/Soviet statement and whether the Government agreed with it, he refused to answer. Do I now understand him to say that that agreement reflects the policy of the British Government? If so, will Her Majesty's Government say categorically and publicly that their policy now is to cease hostilities the moment a commitment to withdraw is given by Saddam Hussein?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I repeat that the statement is simply a reaffirmation of our agreed policy.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a commitment by anyone who consistently breaks his word is valueless?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is very true.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that we are now in a very valuable position? If we endorse the statement, we shall not be demanding an actual withdrawal but saying that we shall be satisfied with steps leading to and commitments to withdrawal. That is a substantial advance and the Government are to be congratulated on it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there has been absolutely no change in the Government's position which requires the fulfilment of the 12 United Nations Security Council resolutions.

Unemployment: Statistics
3.16 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the total number of unemployed at the latest available date.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, in January 1991 seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom was 1,888,500.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, what kind of economic miracle has produced virtually 2 million unemployed after 12 years of power, particularly—and this is very important—as unemployment is increasing in every region of the country and in every kind of job? Above all, does not the disgraceful figure which I he Minister has given us today and the rate of increase demonstrate that this Government are composed of economic illiterates and that in trying to reduce inflation they are prepared to pay the price of thousands of jobs being sacrificed for many months to
214
come? Will he deny that there are now 70,000 fewer vacancies every month? If he does deny it, what is the figure?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord tries to view this economy as if it is not part of the global picture. All increases in unemployment are regrettable. No one should under-estimate the difficulties which unemployment can cause to the individuals concerned. However, it remains that the United Kingdom still has one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the European Community. In 1979 United Kingdom unemployment was broadly similar to the European Community average, but now it is considerably lower. The United Kingdom unemployment rate is lower than that of France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Denmark. In recent months there have been rises in unemployment across the industrialised world in countries such as the United States and Italy and even steeper rises in Canada and Australia.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, and I have shared with others considerable concern over many years for the employment position in the North of England? Is he further aware that the unemployment rate on 31st January 1990 in the northern region was 9 per cent. and that the rate on 31st January this year was 9.6 per cent.? Does he agree that, taking into due account the recession which we know is temporary, this is not an unsatisfactory position?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend illustrates an interesting position. However, I take issue with him on the figures. The figures that I have indicate that the percentage of those unemployed in the northern area is now only 9.2. It is true to say that the increase in the number of unemployed has been less in the North than it has been in the South.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that unemployment in the southern region is steaming on? Is he further aware that the number of vacancies has fallen considerably? There are vacancies not only among industrial workers but among bank managers, accountants and the like? The problem is very serious indeed. Will the Government take urgent action to make real cuts in interest rates, not in months but now?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the rates of unemployment in many of the areas suggested by the noble Lord have historically been very low. Therefore, sometimes a small increase in the number of unemployed in those areas may well result in a relatively large percentage increase in the unemployment rate, but the rate for those areas, again, remains very low. The number of vacancies at jobcentres in January was 143,000 which was an increase of 15,000 since December, although I would not say that that indicated a trend. Of course, only one-third of all vacancies are reported to jobcentres.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, as the unemployment rate looks like increasing still further, are the Government considering introducing any special measures such as temporary work schemes along the lines of the old community programme?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we have a very full youth training programme. We are spending £750 million this coming year on ET which is still by any standards a considerable programme. However, it has become clear that training is not always the most appropriate solution to the problems faced by the long-term unemployed. Indeed, other forms of help including assistance with job search or securing an interview can often be much more effective.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the global figure which he gave in his reply to my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington shows an increase for last year of 112,000 job losses in the manufacturing sector and that that represents a 550 per cent. decline compared to the year before when the figure was only 20,000? Are we not, therefore, in a position where manufacturing industry in this country is being damaged almost beyond repair? Further, what hope is there of getting some social order, and being able to reduce some of the misery caused by increased unemployment, with a cut of a half per cent. in the bank rate?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to want to write down the manufacturing industry. The current downturn comes after three years in which manufacturing output grew at an average rate of 5.5 per cent. and investment grew at 8.75 per cent. I agree with him that the number of jobs in manufacturing are at the same level as they were in about 1987. However, having said that, the amount of output has grown considerably, as I suggested, as indeed has investment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, mentioned my name and the northern region, will the Minister comment upon the fact that, although the Government have had 12 years of unrivalled power, the unemployment rate of that area is the highest in the country outside of Northern Ireland?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords; I accept that fact.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we are always grateful when the noble Viscount can accept a fact from the Opposition and we congratulate him for so doing. However, is he aware that manufacturing output is now falling rather sharply and that it is only a matter of time before it falls to the level that it was in 1979? But, leaving aside that aspect which concerned the noble Viscount's previous answer, is he aware that the figure he gave us for the monthly unemployed is the seasonally adjusted one and that the gross figure is 1,959,747? That represents an increase of 109,366 over the month before. Can he tell us how that figure becomes seasonally adjusted down to a 46,000 increase?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord an explanation. Between December and January unemployment would normally increase by about 65,000 because of seasonal influences, irrespective of trend. It is also often the case that the unadjusted figure falls while the seasonally adjusted figure rises. For example, in May of last year the unadjusted
216
unemployment figure fell by 48,000 while seasonally adjusted unemployment increased by 4,000, reflecting the seasonal influences that unemployment usually falls by about 52,000 between April and May.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, when did the Department of Employment last look at its seasonal adjustments?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the figures which have been given on a seasonally adjusted basis have been consistent throughout the period.

Jobcentre Staff: Training
3.24 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are taking to ensure that jobcentre staff receive training about age discrimination and the problems of older workers.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, jobcentre staff have been given instructions and guidance on challenging age limits on vacancies notified by employers. Jobclub leaders are also aware of the particular problems faced by older people and have been given appropriate guidance.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. However, is he aware that last year a survey of older workers in the age group with which we are concerned revealed that 80 per cent. of those who had attended interviews but had been refused jobs, even though they had the necessary skills, were of the opinion that this was due to the age factor? If that is the case, will the Government be prepared to consider introducing appropriate legislation, as has been done in other countries?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government's view is that employers must make full use of the talents of older workers, especially as the number of young people declines. We believe that all employers should treat all applicants on merit and abandon the use of arbitrary age limits in recruitment. Older people can often bring valuable qualities of skill, experience and reliability to a job and employers must be prepared to be flexible in their own interests as well as those of the people who apply for the jobs.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the Minister aware that most people over the age of 50—that is the age group about which we are talking, not the over-seventies—would prefer to make a contribution to society rather than being classed, as it appeared from yesterday's debate, as being a drain on younger people in the working population? That opportunity must be made available to them because they have the necessary skills and talent.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness. In fact, there are more than 4.5 million people in employment aged 50 or over. That figure represents 20 per cent. of the working population.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the noble Viscount recall that the survey mentioned by my noble friend

217
Lord Dean of Beswick pointed out, among other things, that two-thirds of employers are still doing nothing about the projected shortage of skills and labour? Is there not, therefore, a need for legislation to prevent some of the discrimination which still exists in regard to older workers?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government do not believe that legislation is the right way to tackle age discrimination. In certain circumstances, the age of an applicant can have a bearing on his or her suitability for a job. In our view, the employer is in the best position to make a judgment of that nature. Legislation that attempted to take account of that would be difficult to devise and even more difficult to enforce.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are numerous cases on record which show that when jobs are advertised in the press and various other places the age requirement is often stated in the advertisement? Do the Government have an opinion on that practice? Is not that going too far and should not such activity be outlawed?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have with me a copy or the instructions which have been circulated to jobcentres. It would not be appropriate for jobcentres to refuse to accept advertisements for vacancies which stipulate age limits as they are not illegal. However, our instructions state that, even if an employer insists on specifying an age restriction in an advertisement for a vacancy, it should not prevent staff from approaching him on behalf of clients whom they consider to be suitable for the vacancy but who do not fall within the specified age range.
Bareness Phillips: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are two simple pieces of legislation that he can use as specimens—the sex discrimination and race discrimination legislation?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government do not believe that age discrimination is on a par with race and sex discrimination from which a person can suffer unfairly at any stage in life.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in the House we accept the principle of the older the better?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Hear, hear!
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend is right. There are many wise heads on old shoulders.

Child Support Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for the assessment, collection and enforcement of periodical maintenance payable by certain parents with respect to children of theirs who are not in their care; for the collection and enforcement of certain other kinds of maintenance; and for connected purposes.
218
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Llanelli Borough Council (Dafen Estuary) Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Torquay Market Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.

Business of the House: Debates, 20th February
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Allen of Abbeydale and the Lord Annan set down for 20th February shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to each debate.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Farm Diversification Grant (Variation) Scheme 1991
3.32 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington)The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington) rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 15th January 1991 be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, your Lordships may recall that the farm diversification grant scheme, or FDGS, was introduced in 1988 with the purpose of providing pump-priming assistance to farmers who wish to diversify into non-agricultural profit-making enterprises on their farms. Grant is available at 25 per cent. on investments of up to £35,000. So far just over 3,000 applications have been received in the United Kingdom and of those over 2,100 have been approved. That means that the scheme has stimulated over £40 million of planned investment in diversified activities.
We chose with care, and after extensive consultation, the types of enterprise which would blend well with the farm business and fit comfortably in the rural environment. The final choice of activities seems to have been a good one with the whole range of eligible activities being taken up by enterprising farmers. However, there have been some wide variations in the level of uptake between different enterprises. Of course, that is to be expected where the availability of resources, location of the farm and available labour will to some extent dictate the type of enterprise

219
embarked upon. Since the start of the scheme, 45 per cent. of all applications have been in respect of the provision of tourist accommodation. That covers the provision of bed and breakfast accommodation, permanent caravan sites, camping sites, conversion of traditional barns for camping and the restoration and conversion of redundant farm buildings to provide self-catering accommodation in cottages, chalets or flats. The average grant-aidable investment for tourist accommodation is currently £28,000, compared with £26,000 for the scheme as a whole. However, the expected profit of about £3,000 per annum is the lowest rate of return by far for any enterprise covered by the scheme.
These are essentially pump-priming grants but we have to stop priming the pump before we flood the market. That particular form of diversification has proved so popular with farmers that it no longer needs the extra stimulus of grant aid and can now develop in line with market forces. It has been an attractive investment because it is more familiar to many farmers and offers capital appreciation as well as income.
The Government have therefore decided that the scheme should be altered to concentrate the available resources on those types of enterprise which yield better rates of return to farmers. The instrument before us therefore removes, with one exception, all types of tourist accommodation from the list of enterprises eligible for capital grant under the FDGS.
The exception to which I have just referred is that of bunkhouse and camping barns, which are a relatively new concept designed for the hardy walker and cyclist. They are, in effect, stone tents offering protection from the weather, basic cooking, washing and toilet facilities, and nothing else. As their name implies, they are created by the simple, relatively inexpensive conversion of traditional farm buildings, often well away from the farmstead. Because they are usually linked in "chains", with people spending just one night in each, they require a considerable amount of planning and marketing and the overall success depends upon completing all the links in the chain. That, we feel, justifies the continuation of grant-aid for that type of accommodation.
The fact that we shall no longer be offering grant towards capital investment in tourist accommodation does not mean that we do not think it a worthwhile investment. Each farmer must take a commercial decision as to what is the best investment for the circumstances of the particular farm. Because it is important that farmers evaluate their investments and market them properly we are keeping our grants for feasibility studies and marketing on the current range of tourist accommodation. It is our hope that more farmers will take advantage of that admirable aid.
I stress also that all other grants under the scheme will continue to be available. We shall also, of course, be honouring our commitment to pay grant to those farmers whose plans for tourist accommodation have already been approved and to those whose
220
applications were received before this instrument came into force. I commend the instrument to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 15th January 1991 be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Trumpington.)
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the purpose of the order. She confirmed the information already made public in a news release from her ministry on 15th January last. Having read that release, and having listened to what she said this afternoon, I am reminded of part of the old adage, "Thrice blest is he who gets in first", because in another place as recently as 13th February (col. 490) in reply to a Question her ministerial colleague said that, to avoid a deadline rush, there had been no specific consultations with organisations about the changes. The NFU regrets the cut in support, as many farmers say that bed and breakfast accommodation in the farmhouse is the best possible alternative.
The ministry's news release to which I have referred says that the change is designed to concentrate grants upon enterprises yielding the highest returns to farmers. The Minister confirmed that view this afternoon when she said that bed and breakfast (tourism, as it is called) currently yields a return of only 10 per cent., though there is capital appreciation on the converted building. I should like to ask the Minister, first, how those rates of capital return are calculated. For example, 31 per cent. is quoted as being the rate of return on craft shops and 39 per cent. on farm shops. To one whose capital is so very modest, those returns seems fantastic. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell me, or write to me if she cannot reply today, whether the figures quoted in the news release are actual figures or merely notional figures devised by the consultants to whom she referred.
The feasibility study and grants for the employment of marketing agents are to continue for all types of farm tourist accommodation. As the order now restricts grant to simple hostel-type shelters known as camping barns and bunkhouse barns (further defined by the Minister this afternoon), I wonder whether marketing agents in that context are still necessary. If they are necessary, why are the fees to be paid to them under the scheme (which she says is a pump-priming scheme) to continue as generously in the future as they have done in the past?
Can the noble Baroness also say, on the general issue, whether her ministry thinks that, when, on the advice of the tourist promotion bodies in this country, providers of other types of tourist accommodation are nearly all trading up, the bunkhouse will really appeal to any but a small minority of people? In those circumstances, far from priming the pump, we may be witnessing the decline of a scheme which, on the basis of the noble Baroness's own figures, clearly made a material contribution at an important time in helping farmers to diversify. In spite of the remarks I have made and the questions I have asked, we shall not oppose the order this afternoon.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it was not my intention to intervene but I see that most of my farming friends on these Benches have gone back to their northern fastnesses. They have no doubt done so in order to to lay fresh straw on the floors of their camping barns and bunkhouses.
Today is St. Valentine's Day and many in your Lordships' House who have read the Evening Standard this week will be anxious to know the answer to a very important question: has anybody found a rhyme to go with "Baroness Trumpington"?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I shall answer the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, first. I thank him for his rather lukewarm welcome to the measure. He referred to the rates of return: they are taken from farmers' own forecasts when putting in their plans for investment. The noble Lord may be interested to know that the present total grant commitment within the UK is £11.2 million, of which £5.2 million has so far been paid to farmers.
Nobody has mentioned it this afternoon but this was considered to be an unfair grant when dealing with small hotels because it puts them at a great disadvantage. That was another reason why we took this step. Grant is available under our Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme for the renovation of traditional farm buildings which are and will be retained in agricultural use. In addition, in rural development areas in England grant may also be available from the Rural Development Commission for the renovation of traditional farm buildings. Grant is still also available for buildings in connection with other enterprises under the FDGS.
I believe that we must continue to maintain our feasibility grants, even though, as the noble Lord is aware, the uptake has been poor. I think that farmers are foolish not to take advantage of this facility before embarking on various enterprises. Finally, I look forward to receiving a Valentine from the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, even though it is late in the day!
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, the Minister may not have this information, as it concerns her description of the stone building for which the grant would be permitted. It took me back to when I lived and worked on a farm and my pigs had better accommodation than seems to be suggested for the individuals who wish to spend nights in the barns. For example, what are the facilities for lavatories and washing? One would not be permitted to put up a building of another kind for people staying overnight in a town. Perhaps the Minister will explain whether the accommodation would be suitable in every sense, although it is only for one night.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the bunkhouse and camping barns are a relatively new venture in a different sector of the market. There is a need for more investment in it, to establish chains of suitable night stops which can be marketed as a package to walkers and others on this kind of holiday. It is also a means of preserving old barns—something which is greatly to be sought after.
222
I am not quite sure why the noble Baroness queries the simplicity of the arrangement, since, when one is young and active, walking through the hills and dales in the summer, if one can get a good meal and can wash, one is usually too tired to care about anything else.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Traffic Areas (Reorganisation) Order 1990
3.45 pm
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 19th December 1990 be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first order standing in my name on the Order Paper and, with the leave of the House, I shall speak also to the second order for 1991.
First I wish to explain why we are taking two orders on the same subject. The reason is that at a very late stage we detected an omission from the 1990 order. Cumbria had been left out of the definition of the revised north western traffic area, and the 1991 order amends that deficiency in the 1990 order.
The 1990 order is the main order. Subject to the approval of your Lordships' House and with effect from 1st June 1991, this order will reduce the number of traffic areas covering Great Britain from nine to eight. It will establish a new pattern of traffic area boundaries. The changes form part of a reorganisation of work which involves the closure of the traffic area offices in Newcastle, Nottingham and London.
I hope not to detain your Lordships for too long, but I think it would be useful if I described the present composition of the traffic area organisation, before explaining why we wish to reorganise it. The present organisation consists of nine traffic areas and eight traffic commissioners, one of whom is responsible for two areas. There are 11 traffic area offices, one for each area except the north eastern and eastern traffic areas, which have historically been served by two offices.
In June 1989, my department commissioned a review by Mr. John Palmer of the functions of the traffic commissioners and the traffic area offices. We were conscious that a number of legislative and other planned changes would affect the role and workload of the traffic commissioners and their staff. We wanted to ensure that these did not unduly affect the efficiency and standards of performance of the organisation as a whole.
The resulting report—the Palmer Report—found that, although the workload of the traffic commissioners had changed only a little in recent years, the workload of the staff in the traffic area offices was reducing fast, and would reduce even further as statutory and other administrative changes in their functions were implemented.
These changes involved the transfer of a large amount of executive work to some of the department's executive agencies. Examples are the transfer of responsibility for driver test bookings to the Driving

223
Standards Agency, which took place in 1989. Responsibility for issuing HGV and PSV drivers' licences is transferring to the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency with effect from 1st April this year.
We agreed with the Palmer Report that there was a need to preserve the efficiency of the traffic area organisation through and beyond this period of change. Thus we looked at a variety of options for altering the structure of the organisation to ensure that it matched its reducing workload.
The department considered a number of options for organisational change. It was eventually concluded that the organisation best suited to meet future needs involved the closure of the traffic area offices in Newcastle and Nottingham and the abolition of a separate metropolitan traffic area; a reduction in the number of traffic areas from nine to eight, and some consequential adjustments to the traffic area boundaries to reflect the redistribution of work among the remaining offices and commissioners, and to bring them fully into line with county boundaries.
These proposals will result in an organisation of fewer but more viable offices, sensibly located in their areas and offering scope for further improvements in efficiency. The organisation is largely self-financing, through licence fees paid by the road transport industries. The new structure will reduce staff numbers by around 8 per cent. and the cost of the organisation by an estimated £600,000 per annum.
The new traffic area boundaries are described in Article 4 and Schedule 1 to the order. The western traffic area will be extended to include the counties of Oxfordshire, Berkshire, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. The eastern traffic area will lose Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire to the north western and north eastern areas respectively. But it will be extended south and westwards to include the counties of Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire and Essex. The remainder of the present south eastern traffic area will be combined with the remainder of the present metropolitan traffic area to form a new area comprising London, Sussex, Surrey and Kent.
We have thoroughly consulted the bus and freight industries, local government associations and other professional and judicial organisations with an interest in the work of the traffic areas. We also consulted the trades unions, and in particular the traffic commissioners themselves. The vast majority of those affected recognised that this reorganisation would preserve efficiency and standards of performance.
The traffic commissioners, who are perhaps most directly affected, agree that the new structure will meet the changing needs of the traffic area organisation. They are in particular pleased with the disposition of the new boundaries as they will introduce a greater degree of consistency in their respective workloads.
At this stage perhaps I should offer your Lordships a brief guide to the main provisions of the 1990 order which, as so often, looks rather complex and technical for what I have described as a relatively simple measure. The main operative provision is Article 4.
224
That brings the new boundaries into force on 1st June 1991, and the new boundaries are defined by reference to Schedule 1.
The remaining articles deal with internal matters which are uncompleted on reorganisation date, such as public inquiries about proposed operating centres.
Schedule 2 deals with the treatment of applications for licences that are still to be processed when the boundary changes take effect. These provisions are intended to minimise the disturbance to the road transport industries and have been carefully drafted in consultation with the relevant trade associations.
As I have explained, the 1991 order amends Schedule 1 of the 1990 order so that Cumbria is included in the definition of the revised north western traffic area. This is a modest administrative reform, and I commend both orders to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 19th December 1990 be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the orders. I am sure that the good citizens of Cumbria will rejoice in the streets tonight when they discover that the omission has been rectified. I wish to raise a number of points which give rise to some concern. I am sure the Minister will be able to answer those points as I gave him notice of them before the debate.
First, as regards the closure of the traffic area office in Newcastle, the Minister will know that that has been opposed by the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Authority, the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive and by a number of the metropolitan district councils in that area. To what extent were the views of those bodies taken into account by the department? As I understand it, their anxieties encompass the following points. The matter of prime concern to them is the fact that the new proposals leave some conurbations—for example, those in the North-East—somewhat remote from an area office. How can that situation be expected to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the administration of the operator licensing system, as the previous Minister responsible for roads and traffic asserted would be the case in his press statement of 19th June last?
If divisional offices acting on behalf of the traffic area offices are to go, is it not much more probable that the result will be an inferior service compared with that provided under the previous arrangements? I know that to some degree this is a matter of conjecture, but I should like to hear further comment from the Minister. Will the Minister also indicate whether he has any proposals for divisional offices?
Secondly, there appears to have been a failure on the part of the Department of Transport to take advantage of the restructuring of the area offices so as to increase resources for the traffic commissioners, particularly as regards their responsibility for policing the operation of bus services under the Transport Act 1985. After all, the reorganisation which this order seeks to achieve is part and parcel of the

225
Government's response to the Palmer Report to which the Minister alluded. That report concerns a review of the traffic area organisation.
A number of organisations including the Association of Metropolitan Authorities have expressed concerns—those concerns were noted in the report—that no systematic monitoring of registered bus services was carried out by the commissioners. That is an extremely serious matter. It was manifestly clear from the report that what happens at present is that the traffic commissioners only use their powers, affecting bus operators who fail to operate bus services in accordance with the registration details lodged under the 1985 Act, when serious and substantial complaints of failure to run registered services are brought to their notice. That situation is not good enough. The public are entitled to know that the 1985 Act is being properly and efficiently implemented and enforced. I do not believe that what the Minister said today in that regard is likely to allay those concerns. After all, the spirit of the relevant provisions in Sections 6 and 111 of the 1985 Act is that operators must run bus services in accordance with registered particulars and, furthermore, that it falls to the traffic commissioners to police and enforce that duty.
I wonder whether the Minister is aware that there is a considerable contrast between the operation of the Airports Act 1986 and the Transport Act 1985. The Airports Act provides that the Civil Aviation Authority should act only on complaints that have been received, whereas there is no such provision for the traffic commissioners in the Transport Act 1985. If Parliament had wanted to impose such a restriction it would have done so through legislation. What appears to be happening is that the traffic commissioners are imposing the restriction on themselves. I suggest that the reason is that they do not have adequate resources to carry out their duties as Parliament has deemed appropriate, notwithstanding what the Minister said. I raise the point because although the order makes some attempt to make the traffic commissioners more efficient, the fact is that they simply do not have the resources to enable them to carry out their present responsibilities.
In addition to the questions which I have already put to the Minister, I hope he will say whether he considers that the performance of the traffic commissioners as regards the policing of the operation of bus services under the 1985 Act is satisfactory in the light of the concerns expressed by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and other such bodies. Is the department taking any steps to remedy any deficiencies in their performance?
I conclude by saying that what worries many organisations is, first, that the traffic commissioners will be required to cover larger areas without any commensurate increase in staff. Indeed the reverse will happen. It appears that they will have fewer staff. That could well lead to greater delays on the part of the commissioners in giving information to local authorities regarding bus service registrations. Can the Minister allay those anxieties?
226
Secondly, it appears that the commissioners' resources—for example in monitoring bus services in the light of complaints—will be stretched further than ever. I hope the Minister will reply to those two points as well as to those I made earlier.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I have one question for the Minister and I apologise deeply for the fact that I have not given him notice of it. However, I am sure he knows the answer. In 1947 Mr. Attlee asked me to become a parliamentary secretary at the Ministry of Transport. I was deeply grateful for that appointment. At that time I found myself embroiled in a dispute about appointments to that distinguished body of men, the road traffic commissioners.
I was asked to approve an advertisement which stated that applicants for those posts could not be appointed unless they had reached the minimum required age of 40. As I was not then 40, I asked why such an age was thought to be appropriate. I was told that the duties of a traffic commissioner were much more responsible and onerous than those of a parliamentary secretary at the Ministry of Transport. I am sure the Minister totally disagrees with that view. I made a most vigorous protest and I was promised that further consideration would be given to the matter. Has a reform been introduced?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his reception of the order. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, for reminding us of his former distinguished career in the Ministry of Transport. I do not yet know whether I shall be able to answer his question. If not, I undertake to write to the noble Lord. I am sure that we must have done something between 1947 and now but whether it will please the noble Lord I do not know.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to the closure of the Newcastle office. All views were taken into account. There have always been large urban areas without traffic area offices. Liverpool is an example. The noble Lord was also concerned about bus services. There is systematic checking of bus operators. Enforcement staff will continue to be available to commissioners for the purposes of regulating public transport requirements, including bus services.
Turning to the question of the commissioners' resources, enforcement in respect of goods and passenger vehicle operators and vehicles is being increased. More vehicles are being inspected and the resources made available for enforcement have matched the requirements of the traffic commissioners. I believe that they are being used more effectively.
As regards voluntary and local bus services, traffic commissioners can call upon the services of traffic examiners to monitor bus services where there is a significant volume of complaints. Following one of the recommendations of the Palmer Report we are considering employing temporary staff to carry out such duties. An experiment along those lines is being

227
set up in the south eastern traffic area. I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied with that reply; we must hope that the experiment is successful.
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, asked about the age limit for traffic commissioner appointments. There is no statutory minimum age limit. We look for people with the necessary aptitude and experience in transport; so obviously something has changed since 1947.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Traffic Areas (Reorganisation) Order 1991
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved that the order laid before the House on 12th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1991
4.2 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th December 1990 be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the order I should like to speak at the same time to the draft Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Compensation Limit) Order 1991 and Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order 1991.
The legislation provides that the maximum payable under some of the elements of industrial tribunal awards and redundancy payments must be reviewed each year while others can be reviewed as and when the Secretary of State thinks fit. We think it right to increase all the monetary elements of those awards this year, though by varying amounts.
The first order, the draft Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1991, has been laid in accordance with Section 148 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. The legislation requires the Secretary of State to review in each calendar year the upper limit on the amount of a week's pay for calculating redundancy payments, the basic and additional awards for unfair dismissal, and debts that can be paid under the insolvency provisions of the Act. The legislation also requires the Secretary of State to review the limit on the amount of guarantee pay due to an employee in respect of any day on which he is temporarily laid off.
In carrying out the review the Secretary of State must consider the general level of earnings in Great Britain at the time of the review, the national economic situation as a whole and any other matters he considers relevant. Although there is no statutory obligation on the Government to consult about the
228
limits it has been our practice to do so. This time we have again sought the views of a wide range of organisations. We propose that the limit on the amount of a week's pay should increase from £184 to £198 and the limit on the daily amount of guarantee pay from £12·65 to £13·65.
I turn to the Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Compensation Limit) Order 1991 which has been laid before the House in accordance with Section 75(2) of the 1978 Act. It concerns the limit on the award which compensates successful applicants for the loss of earnings and benefits they suffer as a result of being unfairly dismissed. The limit on this award also applies to compensation payable in certain cases involving unreasonable exclusion or expulsion from a trade union, sex or race discrimination and refusal of employment on grounds of membership or non-membership of a trade union. This limit is not subject to annual review but may be increased from time to time. It was last raised with effect from 1st April 1989 and we consider that a further increase from the current level of £8,925 would be appropriate this year. We are therefore proposing a substantial increase to £10,000.
I turn finally to the draft Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order 1991. This has been laid before the House in accordance with Section 73(4B) and 75A(7) of the 1978 Act. Again the limits are not subject to annual review but may be reviewed from time to time.
The awards covered by the order apply to dismissal for trade union membership or activities or non-membership of a union. The minimum basic award will be increased from £2,520 to £2,650 and the limits which apply to the calculation of the special award will be increased from £12,550, £25,040 and £18,795 to £13,180, £26,290 and £19,735 respectively. I commend the orders to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th December 1990 be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the three orders. I shall not detain the House since we are discussing upgradings. But can the Minister give an indication of what the increases represent in percentage terms? Are they in accordance with the increase in the cost of living index? Having said that, we shall not oppose the orders as they provide for increases.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for having introduced the orders. In reviewing the limits on the amounts payable to employees under the 1978 Act the Secretary of State is obliged to take into account both the general level of earnings and the national economic situation as a whole. In fixing the increases at about 8 per cent. in the case of the first order the Government have acted reasonably. However, I cannot let this moment pass without referring briefly to the circumstances in which the increases are being made.

229
Under the first order the amounts are payable in respect of redundancy, the insolvency of employers and so on. The unemployment figures released today indicate all too clearly how great is the increase in the number of people who now qualify for payment. They are a stark reminder of the way in which the Government's economic policies have failed to protect employment and have thus exacerbated the very problem that the orders are intended to relieve. Having said that, we are willing to accept the orders.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will be able to give some further explanation of the figures, particularly those in the Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order. In one of the other orders that we are discussing—the Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Compensation Limit) Order—a quite substantial increase is made, to a round figure of £10,000. That is understandable.
However, if one looks at the order to which I previously referred, the Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order, one sees somewhat finicky increases, if I may be allowed to say so, to not very obvious figures; for example, £2,520 to £2,650; and £25,040 to £26,290. Those figures have an air of precision which I suspect is slightly bogus. Finally, in Article 2(4) there is an increase from £18,795 to £19,735.
Two points arise. Surely, when one increases these figures, which, as my noble friend explained, is not done annually but when Her Majesty's Government believe it to be the due time, it would be sensible to increase them to a round figure and not add to the complexity of administration by adopting these apparently precise and detailed figures involving quite small denominations. Surely, that would be the more sensible: and practical way and would save a certain amount of time on administration.
Secondly, I should be grateful if my noble friend can explain whether the figures to which I referred relate to a particular percentage of increase. I must confess that I am not enough of a mathematician to be able to make the calculation for myself. I rather suspect that the noble Earl may be in the same position However, I see that reinforcements are on the way to him. Perhaps he can say whether the very odd looking figures before us represent exactly the same percentage increase or whether there is any variation in the percentage elements in those increases.
These are important matters for the people concerned. The sums are quite substantial and apply to people who, for one reason or another, face very real personal difficulties. Therefore I think it right that your Lordships' House should pay some attention to them. Although I am sure that the intentions of the Government are wholly admirable—as all the intentions of the present Government are wholly admirable—before your Lordships' House accepts the proposition that is sought, perhaps it ought to be satisfied that the increases are made on a rational and defensible basis and one that will not cause unnecessary administrative delay or expense.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, perhaps I may reply first to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, and give him some examples with regard to the first order. The current maximum limit on a week's pay is £184 and, as I said in my opening speech, this will rise to £198. That is an increase of 7.5 per cent. The figure of 7.5 per cent. also refers to redundancy payments and insolvency payments and a basic award for unfair dismissal. However for guarantee payments, as I said, the current maximum is £12.65 which is increasing to f13.65—an increase of 7.9 per cent. I hope that that gives the noble Lord an idea of some of the percentage increases.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, rightly referred to the problem of unemployment and increasing unemployment. It is important that these payments and awards should reflect the real world in terms of cost of living, earnings and the economy in general. Following widespread consultation, we believe that these increases are appropriate.
I shall now attempt to give an answer to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. As he pointed out, he may not be a mathematician; and I certainly am not. The limit payable on a week's pay has been increased regularly and the current proposals represent what we consider to be equitable, taking into account all the relevant circumstances. The proportionate greater increase in the compensatory award reflects the fact that this award was not increased in 1990 while the smaller increase in the basic and special awards recognises that those awards are already high. In general there is no magic formula by which we can arrive at the correct level of increase. It is a matter purely of judgment, balancing various factors and trying to arrive at a sensible compromise.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that noble Lords will be satisfied.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he explain why it was not possible to have rounded figures and why we must have such detailed and small figures which must cause a good deal of unnecessary trouble and perhaps some confusion to the beneficiaries?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I do not have a specific answer to that point. I refer to what I said earlier; namely, that there is no magic formula by which to arrive at these figures.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order 1991
4.14 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th December 1990 be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Compensation Limit) Order 1991
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th December 1990 be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1991
4.15 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead)The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th January 1991 be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the order is to update food safety law in Northern Ireland to allow for greater consumer protection and to provide a sufficiently flexible system to cater for future developments in food technology. The order will do for Northern Ireland what the Food Safety Act 1990 will be doing for Great Britain.
The order will increase consumer protection by providing more effective powers of enforcement and by clarifying certain offences. It provides that it will be an offence to render food injurious to health. This largely re-enacts an existing offence under the Food (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 but it will now additionally apply to food which is in possession for sale.
The order creates a new offence of selling food which does not comply with food safety requirements —this is, food which has been rendered injurious to health, which is unfit for human consumption or which is so contaminated that it would not be reasonable to expect it to be used for human consumption. If enforcement authorities discover that part of a batch of food does not comply with food safety requirements, then the whole of the batch may be presumed not to comply unless the owner of the food proves otherwise. Again, this provision applies to food in possession for sale or in preparation for sale and under Article 8 enforcement authorities will have power to inspect, detain or seize food suspected of not complying with food safety requirements.
Article 9 of the order will introduce a system of legally enforceable improvement notices whereby, if an enforcement officer has reasonable grounds for believing that a food business fails to comply with food hygiene or food processing regulations, he may serve a notice on the proprietor requiring him to take measures to remedy the defects within a given period. Failure to comply with an improvement notice will be an offence.
Following conviction for an offence under food safety law, a court will be empowered to make a prohibition order (under Article 10) to close down
232
food premises which are not sanitary, to prohibit premises from being used for particular kinds of food businesses, to prevent the use of a piece of equipment or a particular process, or to prohibit a person from carrying on or managing any food business, on public health grounds. Where an enforcement officer is satisfied that the carrying on of a business involves a risk of injury to health, he may impose (under Article 11) an emergency prohibition notice stopping the operation of the business in its entirety or prohibiting a particular procedure or the use of a particular piece of equipment. Where an enforcement officer has imposed an emergency prohibition notice, he must apply to a court within three days for the issue of an emergency prohibition order.
Article 12 is a new provision permitting departments to make emergency control orders prohibiting commercial operations in respect of food, food sources or contact materials where it appears that such operations involve imminent risk of danger to health. Up to now, the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland has relied entirely on voluntary arrangements with manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers to have a hazardous food withdrawn from sale. One is talking about, for instance, a particular batch of food which because of the inspection procedure might suddenly be discovered to be a great hazard to health. The voluntary procedure involves media coverage to alert the public, and notification to district councils to ensure that the food is withdrawn from sale. I hope very much that those existing voluntary arrangements will continue. However, the power to order a food to be withheld or withdrawn from sale will now be available where co-operation is not forthcoming. There will be power for officials of the Department of Agriculture to issue emergency control orders in respect of foods which have been contaminated and have left an area designated under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1986.
The order re-enacts the offence of selling food not of the nature, quality or substance demanded by the consumer. The provision will apply to actual sales only where the sale is to the purchaser's prejudice. The type of offence covered can be foreign bodies in food, or food which is contaminated but perhaps not so contaminated as to make it unsafe for human consumption. In the case where it is unsafe for human consumption it will be dealt with under the earlier provisions on unsafe food.
Article 14 makes it an offence to label, advertise or present food in a false or misleading way. The existing offence under the current Food (Northern Ireland) Order is limited to the labelling or advertising of food.
The order also introduces wide-ranging and flexible regulation-making powers. These are necessary to provide the detailed controls needed on the composition, labelling and hygiene of food, residues in food, materials and articles in contact with food and to permit and control novel foods and processes.
Under Article 22 regulations will also require that food handlers should undergo compulsory hygiene training. In Article 18 powers will also be given to

233
require the registration or licensing of food businesses. Registration will apply generally and will ensure that district councils are aware of the existence and nature of any food business in their area. Licensing will be limited to businesses where novel foods are produced or novel processes carried out, and to milk producers and dairies. The regulation-making powers are supplemented by provisions to enable any European Community obligation to be implemented.
Certain of the regulation-making powers will, when appropriate, apply to food sources such as live animals. That will permit effective enforcement of provisions on antibiotic residues in animals or pesticide residues in foodstuffs. There is a general provision in Article 15 which puts that into effect. Those are the main provisions on enforcement and consumer protection.
Article 19 of the order also provides for the enforcement authorities—which are the district councils—to bypass the immediate offender and to take action against the real offender. An example would be where defective food might be purchased in a supermarket and the retailer would be the apparent offender and the first point of inquiry. It might become apparent that the manufacturer of the food was the real offender and that it was clearly not the fault of the retailer. Action could then be taken directly against the manufacturer. This "bypass" provision should be read together with a new defence in Article 20 whereby a person charged with an offence may prove that he,
"took all reasonable precautions and exercised all 'due diligence' to avoid committing the offence".
There are circumstances in which a person may satisfy that defence; for instance, where a retailer buys goods under the brand name of the supplier. The retailer can be deemed to comply with the defence if he can prove that the offence was the fault of someone else and that he could not have known that an offence was being committed.
The remaining provisions of the order deal with the analysis of food, the necessary powers of entry and arrangements for prosecutions. It will be an offence under the order to obstruct an enforcement officer.
Enforcement of the order generally will be by authorised officers of district councils. To ensure uniform enforcement, power will be provided for the Department of Health and Social Services to issue codes o practice on the execution and enforcement of the legislation and to issue directions on specific steps to be taken to give effect to codes of practice. District councils will also be required to submit returns to the department.
It is recognised that the additional duties imposed on district councils under the order and the regulations will require greater resources for enforcement. Accordingly arrangements have been made for additional money for the 1991–92 financial year and indeed for future financial years. Additionally, under regulations district councils will be empowered to charge for training of food handlers and for certain enforcement functions. I am convinced
234
that the order will make a very real contribution to the protection of the consumer by ensuring that food is safe to eat. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th January 1991 be approved.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his explanation of the purpose of this important legislation and for piloting the House through its main provisions. I confess that I have had the benefit of advice from my noble friend Lord Gallacher to whom we on these Benches look for guidance on food safety and agricultural matters, since I have no expertise in this field.
The Minister implied that the order mirrors the provisions of the Food Safety Act 1990 which operates on the mainland. It is not apparent from the Explanatory Note on page 47 that that is so. It would have been helpful if that signpost had appeared somewhere in the Explanatory Note. However, that is not meant as a criticism.
Some of the issues now before us were on the distant horizon when the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, was in charge of agriculture in Northern Ireland. Many of the questions which I then addressed to the Minister are as relevant today as they were at that time. I have about eight questions for the Minister. They seek information; they are not awkward questions.
Will the Minister indicate the breadth of the consultations which have taken place with the trade bodies and the consumer organisations in Northern Ireland on the order? As the order replicates the Food Safety Act 1990 to a considerable extent, we shall be interested to learn what consultations there were in Northern Ireland when the 1990 Act was on the drawing board at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in London. Will the Minister inform us of the position in the years preceding the 1990 Act? Was Northern Ireland adequately consulted?
We welcome Article 22 which authorises the district councils and the Department of Agriculture to provide training courses in food hygiene for food handlers. Are any new arrangements being made by the district councils or the department for the provision of training?
I turn to the timetable for the implementation of the provisions of the order. Is it intended that, broadly speaking, the timetable will follow that of the mainland or is there likely to be a time lag? Whatever the timetable, can the Minister assure the House that it will be given full publicity so that all the Northern Ireland firms which will be affected will know in good time of the impending changes?
The Minister has explained that the order will be supported by codes of practice. I had not appreciated the fact that there will be more than one code. Legislation makes increasingly more use of codes of practice. Will the Minister tell the House what are the principal matters that will be covered by the codes? The question may be more complex than I had originally anticipated because I had thought that there would be only one code of practice.

235
Is the Minister satisfied that when the order and the codes of practice are in place they will be properly enforced in an even-handed way? He referred to the officers who will be required to ensure that enforcement is executed. Are enough trained officers and public analysts available to execute enforcement? Are there shortages of such skills in Northern Ireland?
I was glad to hear the Minister confirm that extra money will be made available to Northern Ireland to enable it to meet the costs of the additional burden of enforcing the order. I understand that when the mainland legislation was passed in 1990 about £30 million of extra money was made available. Can the Minister tell the House how much extra funding will be made available to help Northern Ireland meet the costs of enforcement and the additional training required under Article 22?
Finally, I understand that a major area of controversy under the Food and Safety Act 1990 included enabling powers since used to permit the sale of irradiated food suitably labelled at the point of sale and the licensing of plants permitted to undertake irradiation. Are similar provisions being made for Northern Ireland? From my reading of the order that point is not clear. Given the controversy that arose in this country, we shall be interested to know the response of the consumer organisations in Northern Ireland.
I have no more questions to ask the Minister but I shall listen to his replies with great interest.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the clarity of his exposition of the order. We on these Benches support the laudable aims of consumer protection and the Government's wish to improve food safety. That is a matter of great and legitimate public concern in Northern Ireland as it is on the mainland. We on these Benches do not intend to impede the passage of the order.
I have only one issue that I wish to raise and I hope that it is not awkward. It is close to the interests of Northern Ireland and, I suspect, to your Lordships' House. It is the sale by mail order of smoked salmon. Smoked salmon and other smoked fish is an important and growing industry in Northern Ireland. By reasons of geography a great many of such sales are conducted by mail order, although not all. As a result of the snow last Friday evening I was stuck in Belfast Airport. I spent a happy time purchasing smoked salmon, consuming some of it and repatriating the rest to London. Therefore, the subject is indeed fresh in my mind.
Noble Lords who have read The Times today will have seen a most moving article by Mr. Bernard Levin headed, "Nanny puts her hooks in". It deals with the problem of the sale of smoked fish by mail order. As a result of the wide powers given to the Government under this order, I am uncertain whether it is intended that the prohibition on the sale of smoked salmon by mail order should apply to Northern Ireland. Noble Lords may know that as yet Scotland has been
236
exempted from the provision. There is a good reason for that; smoked salmon is an important industry in Scotland. However, smoked fish in an important and growing industry in Northern Ireland and one which I hope the Government will encourage.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships and to my noble friend for being a few seconds late in entering the Chamber to hear his lucid explanation of the order. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was kind enough to mention that the last time that such an order came before this House I was in the position now held by my noble friend. He has explained the order with commendable brevity. I wish to ask for only one reassurance. Am I correct in believing that all the measures outlined in the order have been cleared with the food technology department of the Department of Agriculture, including the marvellous scientists at New Ford Road? I am sure that everything they put forward about food technology and production has been included in the order. However, I hope that my noble friend can give me that reassurance.
I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that, as regards consumer protection, the Ulster housewife wastes no opportunity in making herself and her views known. However, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Holme, believes that everyone in Northern Ireland, let alone Ministers and my noble friend, spends a lifetime eating smoked salmon. That may appear to be the case but I hasten to assure your Lordships that I spent my time promoting the whole spectrum of food in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I gave the food industry the motto which I understand belongs to the Coldstream Guards: nulli secundus. It does not mean "no second helpings"; it means "second to none". I was keen to promote the industry. Everything that has been said by my noble friend today will assure everyone around the world that Ulster's food and its food industry are leading in the world. I hope that my noble friend can reassure me that other government departments have had input into the order.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful for your Lordships' reception of the order. I shall first reply to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who was kind enough to indicate the questions that he had in mind. First, there were no consultations in Northern Ireland on the Food Safety Act 1990 because it does not extend to Northern Ireland. However, it is right to bear in mind that the explanatory memorandum was being drafted when the Great Britain legislation was going through Parliament. When the proposals were being published, some 250 consultees were contacted in Northern Ireland and, therefore, there was full consultation with local authorities and various organisations.
As regards further consultation, I hope that it will be to the satisfaction of the noble Lord that under Article 47(3) of the order regulations must be subject to full consultation. With the exception of regulations relating to emergency control orders—by definition we should not be able to consult on those—the enforcement of European Community legislation and

237
orders requiring information or samples to be made available, the regulations under Article 47 must be subject to full consultation.
The noble Lord asked me about training arrangements. A consultation document has been issued by the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland and the main aim of the training arrangements will be to build on existing good practice. Therefore, training already provided by firms will almost certainly continue but it will be buttressed by training provided by district councils and further education colleges.
The noble Lord asked me whether there are examples of training which are up and running. I understand that further education colleges either have or have in mind courses which will cost about £30 per person As the consultation document makes clear, we hope to enable businesses to choose from a wide variety of training arrangements at a range of costs and so try to minimise costs for smaller businesses.
The noble Lord asked me about the timetable for the order. It is likely that the main provisions will be brought in two months after the date on which the order is made. The main regulations on registration and hygiene training will be made at the same time as those for Great Britain. The Great Britain legislation first began to come into effect on 1st January of this year but I believe that it is phased according to various provisions. That is why, coincidentally, the provisions will be coming into effect at the same time as those for Great Britain. We very much hope that the regulations under this order will be made towards the end of May.
The noble Lord then asked me about the codes of practice. He is absolutely right that there will be various codes; for example, on inspection procedures in general, including the seizing and detention of unfit food, the sampling and analysis of food and improvement notices. I emphasise that they will be statutory and subject to the proper laying procedures. Of course, they will be subject to Article 47 and, therefore, to proper consultation. We intend that they will march the codes being made in Great Britain in the same way as the order is supposed to match, broadly speaking, the Great Britain legislation. I hope that the codes will be issued by about the end of May.
Finally, the noble Lord asked me about irradiation. The powers for bringing into effect irradiation are Article 15 providing for regulating the process, Schedule 1 providing for licensing the process and Article 18 providing for licensing the premises concerned. The noble Lord had every right to ask me what the opinion on this process was in Northern Ireland. I say quite openly that that is mixed as far as we know from consultations. There are those in favour and those against. Even though this may be familiar ground to the House, perhaps I may make two observations. The two most important points about irradiation are the inspection of premises provided for in the order, which is enormously important; and, secondly, there are the requirements for labelling so that people will be able to choose by consulting the label whether they wish to buy irradiated food.
238
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked me an important question about mail order for smoked fish and salmon. I am sorry that, although he enjoyed the smoked salmon which he was eating, it was on occasion when he was delayed for a long time. The noble Lord's question is important. At present that matter is being considered by the Department of Health and Social Security in Northern Ireland in conjunction with the Ministry of Agriculture in London. The issue being looked at is whether the food hygiene regulations in present law apply to smoked salmon. What is not being looked at is the relevance of smoked salmon to this order. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not believe that there is a sinister move to try to draw smoked salmon into the order. At present the existing corpus of law as it relates to mail order smoked salmon is being considered.
Finally, I thank my noble friend Lord Lyell for intervening in this debate. He worked tirelessly for the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland and is well remembered for that. He asked whether all the measures have been cleared with the Department of Agriculture. Under this order certain functions will be for the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland alone; for example, the licensing of milk producers and dairies is to be carried out by DANI. Certain of the regulation making powers relating to residues will be for the Department of Agriculture and not for the Department of Health and Social Security.
I hope that I have answered all the questions put to me. Perhaps I may return to the point at which I started. The intention of this order is to put the law in Northern Ireland on the same footing as that for Great Britain because of the food safety legislation which was enacted in the last Session.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Community Shipping Measures: ECC Report
4.47 p.m.
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton Lord Oliver of Aylmerton rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Community Shipping Measures (28th Report, 1989–90, HL Paper 90).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I should like to begin by expressing on behalf of the House as well as myself my gratitude to the members of Sub-Committee E and to the witnesses who gave very useful oral and written evidence on which the Select Committee's report on Community shipping measures is founded.
As noble Lords will, I hope, have seen, the report and the accompanying evidence constitute a fairly lengthy document. I do not believe that it would be appropriate in the time allotted to attempt to summarise either the evidence or the 24 paragraphs of the report which contain the committee's opinions. However, I seek to say a few words about the general background to the Community proposals addressed in the report and then to draw attention to what appear

239
to me to be the five most important and, in some ways perhaps, controversial aspects of the proposed measures.
The United Kingdom has traditionally prided itself on being a maritime nation. The proud boast of the Promenade concerts that "Britannia Rules the Waves" may no longer be even figuratively true; nevertheless, shipping represents not only a vital factor in national planning for defence, particularly at present, but is also an important sector of the national economy. That is so not merely in terms of registered tonnage but also in terms of the invisible contribution made by shipping services, management, chartering, financing, classifications, surveying, insurance and so on. Those activities have been built up and are centred on London.
Yet the past 20 years have witnessed an accelerated decline in the size not only of British but also of Community merchant fleets. Between 1980 and 1988 the tonnage was practically halved. Between 1970 and 1980 the Community share of the world fleet declined by about 3 per cent. to 29.7 per cent. However, in the ensuing eight years it fell to 15.4 per cent. The decline was not only in Community ownership but also in Community registration which, as a proportion of world shipping, slumped by over 28 per cent. in the period from 1981 to 1987. The causes of this have not been difficult to identify. Reduced worldwide demand for shipping services has produced a fall in freight rates. Flagging out of vessels, with the consequent lower wage and social security costs, has enabled ship owners, utilising open and offshore registries, to reduce operating expenses and to sharpen competition with Community registered shipping. At the same time the Community is facing fierce competition from the Far East and from developing countries, and all this has of course most serious consequences within the Community not only because of the effect on the employment and training of seafarers but also because of its impact on the shipbuilding industry and shipping services generally, and the obvious defence and strategic implications of a decline in the size and viability of national merchant fleets.
It is against that background that the European Commission, in September 1989, sent to the council a communication in which it proposed a series of measures which were intended to halt and, indeed, even to reverse the decline. There were proposed three council regulations dealing respectively with the establishment of a community shipping register, the definition of a community shipowner for the purposes of community legislation, and cabotage—that is to say, the provision of marine transport services between different ports within the same member state. In addition the Commission proposed a recommendation on improving the effectiveness of port state control within the Community.
Let me deal first with the concept of a Community shipping register. What has been proposed is a new European registry to be known as EUROS which is intended to confer certain advantages, and which will not supplant but will supplement national shipping registries so that ships taking advantage of it will fly
240
not one but two flags; the EUROS flag and that of the national registry. The great majority of the witnesses who gave evidence to Sub-Committee E's inquiry gave this proposal a fairly lukewarm reception. The central idea was that this should be a parallel registry which would impose certain minimum requirements regarding wages, social security, and employment of community seafarers, but would be accorded certain advantages such as ease of transfer between national registries and preferential rights to carry food relief cargoes.
The view of most of the witnesses was that this was no more than a bit of symbolic window-dressing of no practical utility. An empty box, was how it was described by one witness. The committee's view, which is contained in paragraphs 65 to 67 of the report, is that it displays a rather more serious vice than mere lack of utility. Unhappily we live in a world in which flags of convenience proliferate, and in which ship owners who are minded to do so can reduce not only their costs but their responsibilities by registering their vessels in registries which have no genuine link at all with the nationality of the owners or of the crew, or of the centre of management, and which are selected purely and simply for the financial advantages which can be obtained.
The creation of yet another registry alongside the national registry of each member state is, in the committee's view, no more than the creation of yet another flag of convenience. It holds no attraction at all in the way of safety and operating standards which are not equally available by registration under the national flag. Indeed, it is doubtful how far the Community has or can readily establish machinery for the discharge of the duties of a flag state to ships on its registry. In the event of an incident on board or on the high seas it adds further complexity to an already complex legal situation. Like any other flag of convenience its sole attraction is financial and although, I suppose, it might be said to provide a symbolic assertion of European unity, the committee felt that this was not the way to tackle the very real problems of the Community fleet in meeting competition.
By establishing potentially a common flag the proposal might of course be said to bypass the problems that may arise in transferring ships between registries of member states, and there is indeed much to be said for easing transfer of ships between national registries within the Community. But the committee felt that this was an end that could profitably be pursued quite outside the framework of EUROS, as indeed has now been done at the Council of Transport Ministers last December.
By way of a side note I should perhaps say that there is a serious question here as to whether, and to what extent, such a transfer should be limited by the requirement of a genuine link between a ship and its state of registry, but it is questionable in any event how far that could usefully be debated in advance of the decision of the European Court in the Factortame case, the hearing of which has now, I believe, taken place.
There is also much to be said for encouraging and regulating the mutual recognition of seafarers' qualifications, but the committee again felt that this end was much better pursued on a general basis, and it agreed with the view of the Department of Transport that this would ultimately be best achieved by a specific directive. The committee's final conclusion, therefore, was that the EUROS registry proposal —and in particular the suggestion that it should be backed by a discretionary allocation of food aid cargoes, which runs quite counter to the general principles of the Community texts on tendering for contracts—is misconceived and unhelpful.
Other aspects of the Commission's proposals, however, provide a much more fertile ground for exploration. Let me take first the question of the need to legislate on freedom to provide cabotage services. Noble Lords may be aware that the United Kingdom does not impose any restrictions on the provision of shipping services between United Kingdom ports, so that there is nothing to prevent, for instance, a Greek ship owner from running a ferry service between Liverpool and the Isle of Man if he thought it to his advantage, so long as he complies with local regulations.
Some other member states—in particular the Mediterranean states—exclude nationals and firms of other Community states from cabotage services. The committee would very much welcome the lifting of all cabotage restrictions, but it rejected entirely the concept that this should be a privilege of ships flying the EUROS flag. The freedom to supply such services is a necessary step in the completion of the internal market in its own right, and should not be linked to a requirement of registration in an artificially created EUROS registry.
It has to be recognised that some member states, particularly Greece, with an extensive network of island communities, have special problems which might justify either the imposition of public service obligations as a condition of the exercise of cabotage rights, or the limitation of the trade to vessels of a certain gross registered tonnage. But there should not, in principle, be any restriction on the free exercise of cabotage rights within the Community, except such as may be necessary on a transitional basis or in order to guarantee continuity of service. In its 1986 report on European Maritime Transport Policy the committee expressed the view that the then existing restrictions on freedom to provide shipping services within the Community should be abolished. The picture has not changed, and the committee remains of that view.
Next, in drawing the House's attention to the report, I ought briefly to refer to the information document which accompanied the Commission's proposals and which is contained in Appendix 5 of the report at page 42. Noble Lords will be aware that Article 92 of the treaty proscribes the provision of state aids to particular enterprises, which will have the effect of distorting competition within the Common Market. The ability of countries outside the Community through financial and fiscal measures, or the operation of flags of convenience—or indeed
242
simply through their lower wage structures—to undercut the rates capable of being offered by Community fleets has, almost of necessity, involved member states in providing, through state aids or fiscal reliefs, the means to enable their own domestic fleets to compete in the world market.
The problem is well-illustrated, for example, by reference to crew costs. Evidence given to the committee established that the cost of operating a 15,000 gross registered tonnage container vessel with a third world crew is some 350,000 dollars per annum. If it were to be operated with a Dutch crew it would cost 1,286,000 dollars.
But, of course, the use of fiscal reliefs to bolster national shipping and shipbuilding against competition from the third world may also, because each member state has its own idiosyncratic fiscal measures, have the effect of distorting competition in the internal market from other member states. The committee therefore welcomed the information document to which I have referred, which contains guidelines on the use of fiscal and financial measures, establishing as the criteria that aid measures must not be out of proportion to the aim of restoring a competitive Community fleet—and I emphasise the word "Community"—and that a ceiling should be calculated on the basis of the cost gap between the lowest cost Community flag and a typical flag of convenience.
It would not be appropriate for me to attempt to comment in any detail on the various forms of aid referred to in the document, save to say that the committee was particularly attracted to the provision of assistance for training costs. Evidence given to the committee suggested that the shortage of skilled seafarers was in danger of becoming acute and not easily capable of being reversed.
There was also a very imaginative proposal by the European Parliament to replace taxes levied on shipowners and on the wages of crews by a single tax on vessels linked to age and tonnage. The committee was compelled to the conclusion, however, that this would not be within the powers provided by the treaty. Whether and, if so, what fiscal assistance or relief should be given must be, and remain, a matter for Parliament. The committee did not feel it appropriate to do more than to underline the importance to the United Kingdom of maintaining a strong merchant fleet, from the point of view both of defence and of the economy, and, in the latter context, bearing in mind the desirability of maintaining London as the centre for the numerous ancillary activities connected with shipping.
There are two other aspects of the report to which I should perhaps draw attention. The first concerns the composition of crews on vessels in the Community fleets. Member states have their own individual regulations about this in relation to their own registries, but the EUROS proposal involved a compulsory requirement that all officers and at least half of the crew members should be citizens of a Community state. While the committee recognised the desirability of crewing Community ships so far as

243
possible with Community personnel, it did not think it right that this should be imposed compulsorily by Community legislation.
However, the proposal brought to the fore another problem which was not embraced in the Commission's proposals; that is, the desirability that crew members should have a common language. The committee was very disturbed by evidence concerning the "Scandinavian Star" disaster and the inability of crew members in an emergency to communicate not only with passengers but with each other. This is a problem which all national authorities, including our own, ought to be examining urgently.
Finally, I should like to say just a word about port state control. The Commission's recommendation encourages the ratification of a number of international agreements relating to such things as load lines, pollution, safety and so on, and the implementation of a memorandum of understanding to which all member states are party.
In a climate in which a ship is sailing the high seas without ever visiting its state of registration, because it flies a flag of convenience, the responsibility for enforcing standards of safety must devolve more and more upon the ports which are visited. The memorandum of understanding between European states, to which I have referred, sets a target of inspection of 25 per cent. of foreign ships visiting ports in those states which are parties to the memorandum. But the evidence before the committee of the effectiveness of port inspections was conflicting.
As is stated in paragraph 86 of the report, the committee does not question that the United Kingdom adequately fulfils the requirements of the memorandum. Nevertheless, it expresses concern at the decline in the number of ships inspected by the Department of Transport, which it infers to be due to inadequate resources available to the inspectorate. There was a suggestion in the evidence that small ships in small ports are escaping inspection on a significant scale. If that is so, there is an obvious risk of potential disaster and no doubt the House will welcome some reassurance on that point.
I thought it right to draw attention to those specific points, but of course there are a number of other important matters which are covered by the report; for instance, the importance of clarifying—and this is a matter of considerable economic importance—the position of consortia and inter-modal services under Community rules, and the need for shipbuilding and shipping operations to be taken up by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. In the end, however, the report speaks for itself and the committee's recommendations are summarised—I hope helpfully —in paragraphs 88 to 101 in Part IV. I hope that the report commends itself to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Community Shipping Measures (28th Report, 1989–90, HL Paper 90).—(Lord Oliver of Aylmerton.)
5.6 p.m.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow: My Lords, I should like to begin my maiden speech by saying how grateful I am for all the many kindnesses and courtesies which I have already received in the short time that I have been a Member of your Lordships' House. Having been in this place for such a brief time, I had no intention of attempting to speak so soon after my introduction. The debate this afternoon is on the shipping industry and, in my capacity as president of the General Council of British Shipping and chairman of P&O—still, I may say, one of the world's leading shipping companies—some of your Lordships were kind enough to suggest that my views might be of some interest. I hope that your Lordships will bear with my inexperience in debate.
I should first like to congratulate the Select Committee on producing such a cogent and helpful report and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, on his very clear introduction to it. I particularly welcome the Select Committee's report because it focuses on issues raised by the joint government and industry working party on British shipping, chaired by the then Secretary of State for Transport and myself and published last September.
There is a consensus running through the European Commission's proposals on shipping, through the report of the Select Committee and through the UK joint working party report. It is that a strong merchant fleet is essential for Europe but vital for Britain, not only for our international trade but also for our strategic needs. If we are to retain and enhance a strong merchant fleet, government must act now.
It is worth reminding ourselves of the significance of Great Britain being an island. Ninety-five per cent. of our trade in and out is still transported by sea. The Channel Tunnel will not change this significantly. British shipping is one of the biggest contributors to our invisible earnings —£4 billion a year. On top of that is the £1 billion plus earned from the maritime related activities of the City of London. Furthermore, what is vital in all this is that we have a fleet which is British registered, flying the red ensign, because shipping is our fourth arm of defence and has been for some 400 years.
This fact is all too often overlooked, but it is embedded in our history. The Elizabethan fleets, the Crimea, the African wars, both world wars, the defence of the Falklands and now the invasion of Kuwait, all focus on the strategic, military and civil needs for British ships and British seafarers. These are the reasons why the joint working party defined British shipping as, "a vital national asset" —a conclusion reached by five Ministers of State.
In Europe shipping faces strong competition from third world countries. The European Commission has wisely concluded that it is necessary to consider measures to reduce the disparities in operating costs between Community shipping fleets and their foreign competitors. Unfortunately, British shipping does not even have the fiscal advantages already enjoyed by our European Continental competitors. We cannot

245
pretend that the British flag is other than in decline. The joint working party report makes it abundantly clear that we are at the crossroads. Sadly, the rate at which British-owned ships are registering under foreign flags is accelerating. Competition leaves us no choice.
The United Kingdom has pressing and immediate needs: 75 per cent. of our merchant ships will need replacing in this decade. We are building new ships, yet the rate of renewal for UK-owned vessels is virtually the lowest of all Community countries. Very large sums of money are involved. Fifty million pounds is required for a new container ship or a large freight ferry; £150 million to £200 million is required to replace "Canberra". We are building ships today with the very latest technology which will take us straight through to the years 2010 to 2020. The three variables of cost are the flag state's regulatory requirements, capital and crew.
On the regulations, the joint working party recommended a number of changes. The Department of Transport is making good progress in implementing them. The world has changed a great deal since the framework for regulating the industry was laid down by the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. The joint working party recommended a short enabling Bill to place shipping on the same footing as civil aviation. I hope that that can be introduced this year.
There is also the cost of capital. Again, the joint working party studied the impact of national tax arrangements on the capital costs of 15 countries, mainly in Europe. It concluded that British companies were fat worse off than most of their European competitors. It also concluded that the prospects for eliminating support in other countries are not encouraging. As regards the cost of crews, there can be a gap of several hundred thousand pounds per annum between the cost of employing a British crew and a crew of highly competent seafarers from the Far East.
We also have to meet the growing shortage of qualified seafarers which currently exists in developed countries, particularly among officers, and again particularly in Britain. Well-trained and well-motivated seafarers are an absolute essential to a successful shipping enterprise. The Commission has put forward proposals to help address these matters and to a great extent I share the Select Committee's views on the suggestions. Because of the nature of this debate, I have inevitably concentrated on those areas where there are problems and challenges and where action is urgently needed. But I should like to conclude on a positive note.
Today British shipping is more efficient and better managed than for many years past. We are well placed to take advantage of the upturn in world trade which will undoubtedly come. Maintaining the City of London as the maritime centre of the world must be based on a powerful UK-registered fleet. That will meet both our economic and strategic needs. I make no apologies for concentrating in my speech on British shipping because any debate in your Lordships' House
246
about shipping will be entirely academic without a powerful British merchant fleet manned by British seafarers and flying the red duster.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, it is my very pleasant duty to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, on his maiden speech; and I think that I can best do that by saying that I wish that the Benches had been crowded to hear what he had to say about this very vital industry that we are discussing this evening. It is quite certain that the industry has found in the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, and his presidency of the General Council of British Shipping, a most energetic and authoritative voice.
This House now has a most eloquent voice added to it on these matters and I am sure that we shall want to listen to the noble Lord and to his advice, especially on this matter as well as on others. I first became aware of his talents through Motability. He was the chairman and I was a humble member of the committee. I then saw clearly what he would have to offer to any industry in which he found his mark. The shipping industry has certainly been the one in which he has expressed himself. I am very grateful to him, and the nation should be also, for the work that he is doing in that sphere.
I express my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, and to his committee, for the splendid report which has been produced; not only for its conclusions, but also for the mass of information which has been drawn out from the bodies which the committee asked to produce evidence. All the appendices are worth reading for that reason. I also wish to say with what envy I listened to the noble and learned Lord's lucid and concise summary of the many pages contained in the report. I wish that I could do the same. We are very much in his debt for what he has done.
In the course of his remarks the noble and learned Lord pointed to a number of conclusions which the committee reached. While I wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, in some of the things he said, I also wish to say in a sentence or two my reactions to what the noble and learned Lord had to say. It is only respectful that I should do so. He correctly said that the proposed EUROS parallel register had received a lukewarm reception from witnesses. The committee's conclusion was rather harsher than the way it was put by the noble and learned Lord. The committee said that it was misconceived and unhelpful. In that case there is no need for me to say more. I absolutely agree. Although it would no doubt have higher standards than some of the flags of convenience to which he referred, to some extent it is window dressing and evades the real problems that certainly this country has to face in the world of shipping. I shall try to avoid using the phrase "a level field" in talking about shipping and seafaring, though I am sorry to say that it appears in the report. This country has the greatest concern about these matters.
I now turn to the question of cabotage. To one who has had some slight connection with the shipping

247
industry and observed it from afar over many years, I have been astonished and shocked at the manner in which our coastwise trade has declined over the past 40 years. It is absolutely astonishing that a nation like ours should have allowed its coastwise trade to disappear into the hands of others in the way that it has.
I was given a new argument as to why we should not have allowed that to happen. It is an argument that will perhaps appeal to the environmentalists. I am told that one gallon of diesel can move 500 times more freight when used in a ship than in a heavy goods vehicle. That is an astonishing statistic, if it is true. The clever economists work these things out and I dare say that they can prove almost anything; but if that is so then certainly in environmental terms we could conclude a remarkable benefit from that. It is a fact that we have taken rather less care of our coastwise trade than we should have done.
The committee said that it would welcome liberalisation overall, but I am bound to say to the noble and learned Lord that I see little prospect of that happening unless another Chaim Weizmann can be found, of whom it was said that he made the seemingly impossible happen. That is about the fairest summary one can make of that proposition.
On financial and fiscal aids, the committee pointed to the useful document that had been produced. Here I must emphasise to the noble Lord who will reply that while aid measures must not be out of proportion to the objective of restoring competitiveness, as I understand was the conclusion both of the Community and of the committee, nevertheless fiscal and financial aids are a matter for national competence. That point was very clearly established by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, and his committee. It therefore falls to the Treasury to determine what, if any, measure of aid should be applicable to British shipping.
The report drawn up by the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, and Mr. Cecil Parkinson when he was Secretary of State is a very valuable document. However, the terms of reference—I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, had to agree to this emasculation as otherwise he would not have got Cecil Parkinson along with him—meant that they had to exclude from the report any consideration of fiscal or financial matters. Therefore, while the report is worth reading and has some useful proposals to make, it is rather like Hamlet without the prince. I do not see any way in which we can hope to prosper unless there is some fiscal or financial aid from the Government.
Those are my reflections. I hope I have paid due respect to the report of the committee. There are one or two other matters on which I should like to comment. In doing so I hope not to overlook all that has been said by the noble and learned Lord. I want to ask the Government quite pointedly about their attitude and policy. They have an opportunity to explain it this evening. Shipping is a cyclical industry which is now at one of the critical points in its development. We go from feast to famine in the
248
shipping industry. Either many new ships are being built or everyone is saying that there is no prospect of building any ships at all. We are now at the point, as the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, reminded us in his report, when over the next decade there is likely to be a substantial shipbuilding programme. How far is Britain to be part of this? I regret that our shipbuilding industry has been wiped out for all practical purposes. We shall have no part in that aspect of what is to take place unless there are dramatic changes.
How much of a future does British shipping have in this changing situation in which, as the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, reminded us, we are engaged? As he rightly said, and indeed as the report states, shipping is a vital national asset. We must get that point through to the Treasury. I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate will take back that message. I am sure it is the view held by everyone who studies the problem and thinks about it. It is a vital asset. It is not just a desirable industry and an occupation that we should keep going; it is a vital asset. That consideration ought to determine where the Government stand on this issue.
I agree that the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, about the dramatic decline in the size of the British fleet rather overstate the picture because of the number of ships "flagged out"; that is to say, placed under flags of convenience while still under British ownership. That defence is used by those who wish to say that much is well with the British shipping industry. I agree that we should take those ships into account; but they are not wholly under our control. In any case, ships that are placed under a flag of convenience lose British jobs, lose British revenue and lose British influence in many ways. There are understandable reasons why they have been flagged out. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, said, it is partly because of the increased costs of running British ships. He quoted one comparison. Another comparison was given in evidence to his committee. It was told that it costs two or three times as much to run a ship under the British flag as it does under a flag of convenience crewed by other nationals.
There is another reason why we should not be complacent about flags of convenience and assume that much is well if we have British ships sailing under other flags. I refer to the defence aspect. Those who follow these matters will have observed that in the Gulf war some foreign crews manning UK vessels have refused to sail to the Gulf. In some cases they have done so because of regard for their personal safety and in other cases because the financial inducements have not been sufficient. Orders may be issued to a British ship. The Ministry of Defence, instead of commercially chartering it, may decide for defence purposes to requisition it. The orders may be issued, but who will come when those orders are given? We cannot be certain what will happen. The defence consideration is another reason why we cannot be complacent about flags of convenience and

249
why ships should be brought not only under British ownership but under the British flag as soon as possible.
At Question Time yesterday I asked a supplementary question about what was happening regarding the strategic maritime review. The review arose out of the joint working party's report, which was prepared by the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, and Mr. Parkinson when he was the Secretary of State. Paragraph 2.18 of the report states:
"The extent to which the country's strategic defence requirements will continue to be met"—
that is, by UK registered shipping—
"does not form part of our review and is subject to separate study by the Government".
I thought it perfectly reasonable to ask the noble Earl, Lord Arran, who, after all, answers in this House for the Ministry of Defence, about that review. I was slightly surprised when he said that he really did not know and that perhaps he could write to me about it. I do not know what value or importance is being attached to the review but it does strike me as slightly surprising if the Minister who answers in this House for the department is not even aware of what is taking place. Perhaps we can have an answer today as the noble Earl promised in a most courteous way to write to me.
To be fair, the Government have taken some action, with the passage of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, to assist the industry. However, their policy and attitude need much clearer definition. The evidence given to the committee by the Department of Transport was, with respect to the Minister, fairly complacent and out of this world. Page 61 of the department's evidence deals with the Government's policy. It states:
"The Government is concerned to see an efficient, entrepreneurial Community fleet. It believes this will best be achieved in a free market, without subsidy".
I should like to believe in Father Christmas too. That is certainly not a policy. It may be an aspiration—it must be a hope, I suppose—but it does not represent what the Government should be doing. Our American friends would no doubt say that it is like a belief in the virtues of motherhood and apple pie. It has no more relevance to the world in which we live than that. I was surprised that the Department of Transport said that that was its approach to the whole question of shipping. However, it has done a little better by recognising the fact that there is not the remotest prospect of a free market without some kind of financial aid for shipping; and steps have been taken to achieve that aim.
I believe that the steps taken by the Government thus far are inadequate. They will have to do much more, particularly in regard to their financial role. Two objectives are quite clear. The first is to ensure that shipping companies have the finance to maintain an up-to-date fleet and to rebuild it now that it is becoming older. Secondly, incentives must be offered to encourage more of our young men and women to become seafarers because at present the competition is not equal.
I now concentrate on a few important matters. The Government have assisted in training. They have met
250
part of the cost, but it is part of the cost of training officers and not the cost of training ratings. We need skilled ratings almost as much as we need skilled officers. I do not understand why, just because the Treasury has its fingers in the matter, the Government refuse to meet any part of the cost of training ratings and will only meet the cost of training officers. Ratings also need a career and they will not go to sea unless they feel that there is sufficient incentive in the form of advancement. Next, there is repatriation. The Government have also assisted in that respect by meeting 40 per cent. of the cost of flying a crew home. That is indeed a help; but it is not sufficient to meet the real problems.
I turn now to the most important point of taxation. The Budget is upon us. It is within our national competence to give relief and it is needed as a matter of urgency. Let us consider the position of seafarers. As regards the rules for relief I understand—my Inland Revenue knowledge is a little rusty—that to avoid taxation a seaman has to be at sea, or abroad, for 270 out of 365 days. That provision cannot cover the coast-wise or short-sea trades. According to one figure put forward by the General Council of British Shipping only 1 per cent. of our seafarers qualify. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, is indicating his assent. However, if that is so, it is an absurd concession if only 1 per cent. of our seafarers can benefit in that way. I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, will consider the matter energetically to ensure that at least our people are treated on the same basis as those in the Scandinavian countries. We could learn some lessons from them as regards the manner in which they treat the taxation of their seafarers, including those who work on the ferries. Their system enables them to develop a pool of seafarers, whether abroad or at home, from which reserves can be drawn. We need trained seamen and we need them badly.
I turn now to the question of national insurance. In its recent submission the General Council of British Shipping put forward detailed proposals for better treatment and, again, makes comparisons with the Danish system. The Scandinavian countries have achieved a great deal more than we have in this area, but at the same time they have kept within the requirements of the Community and international obligations. In my view, it is our task to do the same. The council even went so far as to say that if its proposals were adopted it would mean a 25 per cent. cut in the wages bill. If that could be achieved, it would be the biggest incentive of all to flagging. I urge the Minister to press the Treasury on those matters.
There is also the question of the poll tax. The local authorities have had some discretion in this connection. The Department of the Environment issued a practice note suggesting how local authorities should deal with the matter. It was suggested that seafarers could be exempt if they spent more than six months continuously at sea. However, voyage agreements do not operate in that way. Such agreements are usually of three or four months' duration. The result is that most of these people have been excluded from the exemption. Moreover, and

251
even worse, is the implication of a case about which I heard today, though I have not had the opportunity to check the matter. It appears that a judgment was given today in the High Court which reverses the modest concession which has so far existed. A seaman in Bradford had been given some kind of exemption by a local tribunal because of the time he was away from home. Bradford City Council took the matter to the High Court and it seems that the relief decision has been reversed; so everything is back in the melting pot.
There are two further points I wish to make; and I apologise to your Lordships for taking so long with my speech. I shall deal first with the inspection of foreign ships. Norway is far more rigid in its inspection of foreign ships than we are. There is clear evidence—and I believe that members of the committee felt this also, though they expressed it in a rather more gentlemanly way—that international agreements for the minimum standards to be maintained are not being observed by many countries. If we are anxious to build up our merchant fleet, as we must be, and if we want to keep within the rules then let us enforce the safety requirements and other provisions as regards the ships that enter our ports, as do the Norwegians and the other Scandinavian countries. If ships do not observe the rules we should pin an Admiralty notice on the mast and not allow them to leave until they have put right the deficiencies. In other words, let us be much tougher in this respect than we have been and see what can be done.
I have a final structural point. I do not want to build bureaucracies, but I have felt for a long time that shipping policy in government circles is fragmented. That is exemplified to some extent by the composition of the committee with the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, and Mr. Parkinson. Half a dozen departments were represented on it. Frankly, with due respect, the Ministry of Transport—and I speak as one who has great affection for that ministry—does not carry a powerful enough voice. When I had some responsibility in the matter, I asked Lord Peart, who will be remembered by some noble Lords, to take the chair of an inter-departmental standing committee to keep under constant review the position of British shipping and to reconcile the conflicting policies of some of the departments; thus ensuring that we were not losing out in what was an extremely competitive field where, undoubtedly, we were falling behind.
I do not know what the fate of the joint working party will be. It seems to me that it is an embryo which could be turned into an inter-departmental committee chaired by a senior Minister and set up for the purpose of monitoring continuously what is happening in the international field of shipping. It could ensure that we all move forward together in order to make certain that this vital national asset is maintained and that we do nothing, by our neglect, to fail to ensure that we maintain the highest possible standards. We must build up this fleet which, unless we take the appropriate action, will wither even further than it has thus far.
5.37 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sterling of Plaistow, on his maiden speech on the subject about which he speaks with high authority and a wealth of experience. We all look forward to hearing his future contributions to our debates.
Your Lordships' committee's report on Community shipping measures arises from the second package of proposals within the past five years from the Commission to halt the decline in the merchant fleets of the member states. Both in absolute tonnage and in their share of world shipping the decline has been steep, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, explained. The tonnage was nearly halved between 1980 and 1988. The share of the world's fleet fell from 1970–80 to 30 per cent., but that share had declined again to 15 per cent. by 1988. In terms of both ownership and registration in Community member states, the Community share of world shipping had declined further between 1981 and 1987 by about 28 per cent. The fall has been especially severe in the UK fleet. But, even so, Community ship owners represent in ownership about one quarter of the world's tonnage and are regarded, perhaps optimistically, by the Department of Transport as still major players in world shipping, and they are present in all sectors of shipping.
However there is, as the General Council of British Shipping told the committee, a pressing need for worldwide fleet renewal in the 1990s. Between 1986 and August 1989, when the new proposals appeared, the world fleet had aged inexorably. The point has been reached, according to the general council, when that represents the major problem now confronting ship owners. That applies to all Community fleets, but above all to the United Kingdom.
The present United Kingdom-owned fleet is now older than the world average. The current order rate in the United Kingdom is well under half that required to maintain the present fleet size and efficiency. Although rates of return have begun to improve in some sectors, they still do not justify reinvestment in ships by comparison with investor expectations in other business sectors or in other countries. Those circumstances, together with the losses from flagging-out, will have significant effects in the United Kingdom which, according to the United Kingdom Centre for Maritime Policy Studies in evidence to the committee, derives large earnings from related maritime service businesses, including ship management, insurance, chartering, finance, classification and surveying. All of those were built up in England because we had a strong domestic registered fleet. All its functions were carried on here. It is much more difficult, says the general council laconically, to maintain such businesses if one has no home-based fleet. It is vital for our economy that the shipping industry and its ancillary services should be given a competitive environment in which they can best thrive.
One further consideration stressed by several witnesses and by those of your Lordships who have

253
spoken, of which we have had a sharp, recent reminder, is the importance of merchant shipping, skilled seamen and highly-trained officers for defence and to be available in emergencies. Accordingly, the committee accepted without qualification that there is a strong case for Community measures, although it was not persuaded that the Commission had given a convincing answer to the central question: should the Community strive to keep alight the beacon of its own free market principles, or should it descend into the protectionist battle?
The reality, as the committee sees it, is that the Community has limited possibilities of building effective barriers around "Fortress Europe" within which it can police state aids to shipbuilders and operators so as to guarantee application of free market principles internally while excluding competition. Ship owners and shippers have to operate in the world of state-subsidised shipbuilders, flags of convenience, erratic standards of port state control and crews on third world wages with no social security. Accordingly, the committee concluded:
"Neither the Community nor its Member States are in a position to remedy the unsatisfactory system of flags of convenience on their own. But they should avoid compounding the mischief'.
In its view, the proposed Community register (EUROS) and flag would become a new kind of flag of convenience. The flag would denote not the acceptance of legal responsibilities to enforce norms and standards but the availability of economic privileges. The Community's response to a system under which ship owners choose a flag for their ships not by reference to their own national or economic links, or those of its prospective crew, but by reference to the cost entailed, should not be to set up a new flag whose main attraction would be financial. The committee added:
"Community law has not yet reached the point where the authorities of the Community can properly discharge the duties of a flag State towards ships on its registries".
The committee accept that a single Community flag could have symbolic value, but regards emphasis upon such a concept as a distraction from the real problems of shipping. Although the committee rejected the Commission's proposal for a Community register and European flag, it welcomed many of the other proposals contained in the package. They included a call for the abolition of the remaining restrictions on freedom to provide cabotage services throughout the Community. Such freedom is obviously a prerequisite of completing the internal market. The British shippers' council, with nearly all other witnesses before the Committee, laid strong emphasis upon that point. The committee observed:
"It remains quite wrong in principle that cabotage rights between ports in Northern Member States should be open to all while in Mediterranean States, nationals and firms from other Community Member States are excluded".
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House what further steps the Government have in mind on that issue.
Another concern of the committee stemmed from the "Scandinavian Star" disaster which revealed that the crew was unable to communicate effectively among one another or with passengers because they
254
had no common language. Mr. David Tomlinson, director of the United Kingdom Centre for Maritime Policy Studies, told the committee:
"the ability to communicate in a common language with each other among the crews—it does not matter whether it is a Community or a non-Community crew—… is absolutely essential. It is a point we would emphasise that with 2,000 passengers on a cross-Channel ferry, the seafarer crew is probably about 18 people and you do not see them. There is then an auxiliary crew—catering staff and the duty-free shop staff—who are the people the passengers see—and the passengers have to communicate with somebody in an emergency, so we think they are very important. Our proposal would be that the ship's safe manning certificate would say what was the language of the ship. In other words, it would be a German language ship or an English language ship or whatever. That should be appropriate for the service on which it was operating, and is something that the port states, under port state control, could probably implement with some additional legal provision. One other point is that the language requirement should cover the signs and the safety instructions to ensure that they were all printed in the language of the ship. We do not want a ferry with English and Norwegians on with all the signs in German and that is perfectly possible at the moment".
It is improbable that the EUROS proposal could be the vehicle for change in order to achieve such objectives. The committee therefore urged national authorities to examine whether the requirements imposed in the context of issuing safe manning certificates are adequate to protect the lives of passengers and crews in an emergency. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House an assurance that the Government are seized of the public anxiety about the safety of ferries and will act at least in respect of the language requirements to relieve it.
I conclude by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, for his masterly comment on the committee's deliberations. Speaking as one of the small number of members of his committee not learned in law, I thank him for the patience and clarity with which he inducts the laity into its mysteries.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I too wish to thank my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver of Aylmerton for his excellent report and the concise way in which he dealt with it this afternoon. I also wish to add my thanks and congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, for his excellent maiden speech. We look forward to hearing him often on this subject in the future. Without wishing to make a pun, I believe that he has done a sterling job in promoting the interests of the British merchant fleet through his presidency of the GCBS. In particular, he has made the shipping industry more aware of its own importance. He has brought a little—I might even use the word—pride back into the shipping community, which was necessary.
We still have a long way to go, but the Government are now much more aware than they were of the problems facing the shipping industry. But the public are still largely ignorant of the fact that we have a merchant fleet. Much work must be done in education, and I am happy to see that a start has been made in this, sponsored by the GCBS. We must return

255
to the old days so that the average person in the country knows that we need ships and cries out for us to have the ships we need.
In his introductory remarks my noble friend mentioned the problems facing the shipping industry, particularly in Europe, and the decline over the past approximately 10 years. He also mentioned the rise of the eastern fleets. It is worth noting that the Japanese are wasting no time in buying European shipping companies, especially in the car transportation business and also recently in the container business, in order to gain an entrée to the market when it arrives in 1993.
Other noble Lords have said all that is necessary on the points raised in the report. I shall embellish one or two without taking too long. I am delighted that the committee gave the thumbs down to the EUROS register. I believe that would it have been just another flag of convenience but I hazard the guess that it would have been a heavy handed one, to boot. We are well out of that line of approach.
Cabotage has been mentioned by all noble Lords who have spoken. In a perfect world we should like to see all restrictions on cabotage trading removed, but it must be recognised that there is a special case with the Greek islands and also possibly the Italian coast. In regard to the latter, I understand that the Italians are planning an imaginative roll-on, roll-off service down their coast which it is hoped will take 30 per cent. of the road traffic off the Italian roads. This is a most desirable social end and the Italians would rightly be distressed if another country came in and undercut the ships being built for this specific run.
The question will have to be considered further. Perhaps there should be a hold for the time being—I do not suggest it should be too long—on the Italian and Greek problems. I often wonder what the position might be if the Greeks, who are quite entitled to do so, were to send a ship to our waters in competition with MacBrayne's on the western islands services. I cannot help feeling that the whole system would grind to a halt very quickly.
To give another similar example, I understand that a few years ago someone on the Thames chartered two German tugs to provide a tug service on the river. The tugs were quickly blockaded by one of our own tug companies and were not allowed to carry out the job for which they were chartered. There could be no end to such an activity. Even with totally free cabotage I cannot help feeling that the high subsidies paid for island services—and the Greeks certainly pay them —would mean that anyone else wishing to enter the trade would find it difficult without a subsidy.
The desirability of training more crews has been mentioned, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. We in this country and in Europe must pursue the matter much more vigorously. Perhaps I may quote two paragraphs from a document produced by Drewry Shipping Consultants called Ship Costs: Their Structure and Significance":
"The outlook is for an end to cheaply-acquired and cheaply-run ships, as both the market place and environmental concerns exert potentially irresistible pressures ‖ The
256
emergence of a seemingly endless stream of new registers has facilitated the pruning of indirect costs, while increased use of automated equipment has led to cuts in crew numbers, but it appears that the end of the line has now been reached. Crews —quality or otherwise—will be an increasingly scarce resource".
This is a worldwide problem which we must address. The Government have gone some way towards assisting in the training of crews and in repatriation costs, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. However, we must somehow work together to produce a proper scheme that will ensure that enough UK crews are available to meet our future needs.
It is not just our future needs: a situation has arisen relating to the Gulf crisis. The owners of some of the foreign ships chartered by the Ministry of Defence have been falling over themselves to try to recruit British crews to replace third world crews who have refused to sail into the war zone. If such a situation were to arise in future, we should make sure that we have the requisite number of British crews to perform such tasks.
Port state control has also been mentioned. I reinforce the call made by my noble friend for the Government to restore to its former high level the number of inspections carried out in this country. That is most important. Our record has been better than that of a lot of other European countries. I hope the Minister can give us some more information on the number of inspections being carried out in other EC countries, in particular in Spain where I understand hardly anything has been done at all.
The port state control system is a good way of getting rid of old and potentially hazardous tonnage. However, I suggest that insurers also have a part to play here. We cannot continue to cut insurance rates forever. A halt must be made and insurers must get together to improve their policies to ensure that these potentially dangerous ships, and the use of rather dubious registers, are excluded in future.
Before I leave the question of safety, I should add that the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, touched on the matter of ferry safety in particular. I hope the Government will not proceed down the unilateral road with their new ferry regulations. In the past the Government have always been against unilateral lines. I hope they will reconsider this matter and perhaps wait for the International Maritime Organisation to sort the matter out in due course.
I shall conclude on a rather lighter note. I could not help noting that the General Council of British Shipping has appointed for the first time as its new director general a retired admiral. I also note that he is a deputy managing director of Eurotunnel. I sincerely hope that I am not reading anything too ominous into that appointment. Perhaps it merely has something to do with the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, has recently been promoted to the position of honorary captain in the Royal Naval Reserve. I wish the gallant admiral well in his new task and I sincerely hope that he will have a few ships to look after. That will not be the case if the Chancellor does not respond in his next Budget to the many calls

257
—including the most powerful plea just made by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan—for fiscal help to halt once and for all the decline in our vital merchant navy.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, in his most helpful introduction to this valuable report, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, referred to the Commission's information document on financial and fiscal measures. Paragraph 1 of that document sets out succinctly the objectives of the Community's shipping policy as the,
"maintenance of ships under Community flags and the employment, to the highest possible proportion, of Community seafarers on board such ships".
The arguments for maintaining a UK merchant fleet are the same as the arguments for maintaining a Community fleet. The latter arguments are set out in that document. However, the arguments in the UK's case are even more powerful. The United Kingdom has few areas of comparative advantage in Europe or in the world. However, our merchant navy is one such area and it is outstanding. We possess a wealth of experience and expertise, not least in the quality of our seafarer. That has been mentioned several times this afternoon. We also possess particular experience and expertise in the quality of our officers.
I may be accused of prejudice in so far as I am a trustee director of the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers. However, if that is the case, I am in very good company. When evidence was given to the committee the point I have just mentioned was made again and again by the General Council of British Shipping, and again this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Sterling. I welcomed his positive and distinguished contribution this afternoon. His remarks were doubly welcome coming from the other side of the House. I agreed with most of the noble Lord's analysis and with many of his proposals. I disagreed with the noble Lord on details rather than on objectives.
Previous speakers have documented the decline in the Community fleet. We should remember the context in which that decline has taken place. The Community's external trade accounts for 40 per cent. of world trade. The Community's external trade is greater than that of Japan and the United States put together. What has happened in the UK is not unique, but it has been worse than the experience of other countries. Figures have been given this afternoon, but I hope may add a further figure. In 1990 we lost another 26 ships comprising 1 million dead weight tonnes. That means that our fleet now comprises less than 4 million tonnes. It is the big ships that are going. But deep sea tonnage is critical if we are to train officers and seafarers.
If we want a monument to what happens when shipping is left to the operation of free market forces we should look around our ports. What we are discussing today is whether that situation matters. The British Shippers' Council in the evidence it gave to the committee made it clear that it considers it does not matter. It stated:
"Commercial patriotism is simply not a relevant factor in the decision-making process".
258
For too long the Government have appeared to share that attitude. The results can be seen all around us and they have been mentioned this afternoon. My noble friend Lord Callaghan referred to the chartering of ships for the Gulf. For far too long the Government have argued that we can bring back flagged-out ships. That is easier said than done. But even if we could bring them back, we could not man them given the drastic decline in British manpower.
I have a final statistic to give to the House. In the past 10 years we have lost 20,000 officers from the merchant fleet. We are not replacing them. The report documents the intake, or rather the lack of intake, of cadets. In 1980 the rather low figure of 1,200 cadets was recruited. By 1987 the figure was down to 160 cadets. Something was done about that position and by 1989 the figure had risen to 400, and I believe it is now a little higher than that. However, that is not nearly enough. We are facing a severe prospective shortage of manpower. Is the answer to man our fleet with Polish or Filipino officers? I am not sure whether I detected a comment on that matter in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sterling. We are facing a worldwide shortage of manpower. BIMCO has forecast a worldwide shortage of nearly 400,000 officers and 400,000 ratings by the year 2000. We still have an opportunity to redress that situation. However, as my noble friend Lord Callaghan has said, the situation is critical. I believe the word "critical" was a moderate word to use in this situation.
We need to do two things: we need to rebuild our fleet and we need to train and retrain officers and ratings. The noble Lord, Lord Sterling, spoke of the fiscal and financial measures which should be taken to rebuild the fleet. I wholly agree with the proposals that he and the General Council of British Shipping have made. But more to the point, the Commission agrees with those proposals, as Mr. Erdmenger made clear in his evidence to the committee. I hope that the Minister will not even be tempted to deliver yet another lecture on the theoretical advantages of free competition. I address his attention to Mr. Erdmenger's words when he said:
"Ideally, it is true, the best situation would be not to have world wide any subsidy to the shipping industry, but we are not there yet".
It is dangerous to put our heads in the sand. It is suicidal to put our heads under water and keep them there.
Reference has been made in the report and in the debate to comparative labour costs. One of the main reasons given for flagging out—which has been hinted at this afternoon—is that it reduces labour costs. The unions, NUMAST in particular, have constantly emphasised that labour costs are not just a matter of wages. On the one hand, to say that they are ignores the side of the equation relating to the effective use of manpower. We have seen enormous improvements in productivity. However, I emphasise that the really big gains from new technology come from the new ships. But we are not replacing our ships; the average age of our fleet is 13 years old. That is well above the rest of Europe.

259
On the other hand, as the unions have consistently argued, it is essential to look at the whole range of what the Commission calls employment costs, not just wages. Here I found a notable ally—none other than Sir Frederick Bolton, the president of the UK Centre for Maritime Policy Studies and formerly president of the General Council of British Shipping, who said in reply to question 75 (on page 20 of the report):
"When we talk about cost competitiveness in terms of wage costs we are not nearly so worried about the actual amount of wages that are paid to our own or European seafarers vis-à-vis the rest of the world as we are with the total package including the fiscal aspects … If we could eliminate the fiscal disadvantages we could live with the pure wage cost disadvantages".
The Government have acknowledged in principle the need for special tax treatment of British seafarers, and I welcome that. The report documents admirably the way in which British seafarers, and therefore the merchant fleet, are still disadvantaged. My noble friend Lord Callaghan made an unanswerable case for removing income tax and national insurance liabilities for each night spent on board ship. As he said, that would cut 25 per cent. off the employment bill at a relatively small cost to the Exchequer.
I echo also what my noble friend said about the community charge. I share his surprise and horror at the court decision today in relation to relief for seafarers from the community charge. I urge the Government to introduce relief for periods of three months and more spent outside the UK.
Such measures would help indirectly to stop the haemorrhage of manpower. We also need direct action on crewing requirements. I fear that the committee is less than wholehearted in its approach to the crewing of Community vessels by Community nationals, which is the Commission's aim. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, referred to the Commission's objective for the crewing of Community vessels under which all officers and at least 50 per cent. of the crew should be Community nationals. The report throws doubt on that objective. That may take some time to achieve, but why do we not set it as our objective and establish a timetable to achieve it? We should set it co-operatively between Community countries as distinct from linking it to EUROS.
On that question I suspect that I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, who in the joint working party report to which he referred seemed to argue for the removal of all nationality requirements for officers. The current requirements can by no means be regarded as satisfactory. At present a ship has to carry only a master, a chief officer and chief engineer who are British nationals. It is not merely a question of their being British; if they are of any Commonwealth nationality they meet the requirement. That places an enormous strain on the master of the ship which is in addition to those imposed by the Merchant Shipping Act, and it also makes no provision for the proper training of junior officers who are tomorrow's masters.
260
There is a strong case for the establishment of the objective to which I referred. That is related to language requirements, to which many references have been made this afternoon. Here the committee might have been more positive in its recommendations. The need was clear even before the "Scandinavian Star" incident. There should be a language test. That should not apply merely to passenger vessels; it should apply to all vessels. It should be enforced by port state control.
In conclusion, I believe that the committee is absolutely right to oppose making the improvements dependent on the establishment of EUROS. I would not necessarily rule out action in the long run to establish a Community register, but one very compelling argument against it in the present circumstances is that it would almost certainly delay action which is manifestly needed most urgently now. I join others in urging the Government to recognise that and to take action in the Budget and by other means to give merchant navy officers and ratings confidence that the British shipping industry has a future.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I join with others in congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, and members of his Select Committee on a work of remarkable analysis of the Commission's proposals and for their observations on the British scene.
I also join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, on a remarkable maiden speech and also for bringing to this House his great expertise. He speaks from a pivotal and authoritative position as president of the GCBS and chairman of P&O. As president of the GCBS he has taken a lead which, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said, ought to have been taken by others long ago.
All of the speeches that have been made in this debate have been backed by considerable expertise in the field of shipping. I was particularly encouraged by the speech of my noble friend Lord Callaghan, in whose government I was very privileged to serve. It was refreshing to hear him eschew so publicly the phrase "a level playing field" which seems to mark every speech about the internal market these days.
In the report Challenges and Opportunities shipping was described as a vital national asset. It is tragic that it has taken this Government more than 11 years to recognise that fact—apart from the palliatives applied in the 1988 Act. In that time it has presided over the most dramatic decline in the merchant fleet. But as a number of noble Lords said, merchant shipping is also a significant European Community asset, critical in terms of the Community's overall transport policy. It is a major international activity which the largest trading bloc in the world ignores or fails to nourish at its peril.
Dependence on others to transport our cargoes and our people, about which regrettably shippers—my noble friend Lord Murray adverted to this point—seem to be wholly unconcerned provided that they can

261
procure the lowest prices regardless of how they are achieved, would be an extremely dangerous situation for the 320 million people of the Community. We need a fleet to serve those people. We need to have a voice in international shipping affairs, to exemplify high standards of seafaring and safety and to show respect for the maritime environment. Not least we need an effective merchant fleet for our defence strategy. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, adverted to that point, as indeed I have done on many previous occasions.
Whatever excuses the Government may now offer, the relatively impoverished contribution that we are able to make in terms of merchant shipping in the current Gulf crisis is eloquent testimony to the failure that has occurred in merchant shipping. Whatever criticisms there may be of the Commission's communication to the council and the draft regulations which were annexed, the overriding purpose of the Commission has been:
"to maintain and develop an efficient and competitive shipping industry and to secure competitive sea transport services in the interests of Community trade".
I was Commissioner for Transport in the previous Commission and, together with my services, I was largely responsible at least for the analysis of the current document and for some of the positive proposals. In that analysis the Commission described the dramatic decline of the fleet since 1980. It set out the causes of the decline and attributed it to lower taxation, lower social security and lower wage costs which, together with a rather more permissive attitude about international regulations, have been the prime attractions of flagging out. The analysis describes the serious reduction in employment of European Community seafarers, the ageing of the fleet—the British fleet has appeared to be the most vulnerable of all to that process - and many other factors which have led to the decline. The Commission highlighted the national measures that have been taken to try to remedy the position which equally have distorted competition between member states.
So the real question that we are addressing today about the Commission's communication and its proposals is how effective are the solutions likely to be. I turn immediately therefore to the question of EUROS—the European Community ship register and flag. I must plead guilty to having advanced the concept while I was a member of the Commission. I still believe, as does my noble friend Lord Murray, that it is an idea which needs to be developed, despite the strictures contained in the Select Committee's report. For EUROS to succeed it has to be attractive to ship owners and at least as attractive as flagging out. Patently that is not the case at present. But on the assumption that it can be further developed, so as to provide real incentives for its use, it could be a means whereby national measures could converge so as to avoid harmful distortions of competition. It could be a useful administrative expedient to control certain facilities attached to the register. It could be a benchmark for defining new objectives for European Community shipping policy, including the availability, training and competence of European Community seafarers.
262
Those were the kind of aims which I had very much in mind when I launched the idea in London some three or four years ago. But, as I indicated when I made that speech, massive political and legal complexities undoubtedly stood in the way of advancing the idea with any hope of speedy implementation. What I sought to do at the time was to initiate a debate about what is clearly an important issue for the future of European shipping.
In my own draft communication to my colleagues in the Commission on the positive measures, which regrettably was not adopted by the Commission in 1988, I deliberately refused to link the concept of EUROS to the positive measures for four compelling reasons. First, I thought that the concept required further elaboration and that efforts were needed to be able to persuade member states about the principles involved before embarking on the specifics. Secondly, the fact remained that at that time, and even up to the present, the legal and political complexities had not been sufficiently resolved. Thirdly, I concluded that it was therefore premature to introduce legislative proposals to that effect. Fourthly, I decided that to attempt to do so would inevitably distract attention from the urgency of the need to introduce positive measures to deal with Europe's waning fleets. Therefore, I make no apology for having done what I did in relation to that document. I believed that it was important that it should have bruited afresh the idea of EUROS so that it could be seen, so to speak, in Green Paper or even White Paper terms.
Like the Select Committee I believe that advancing the cause of EUROS at this stage has tended to deflect attention from more urgent problems. Consequently, I think it is vital that we should focus on the positive measures proposed, detaching them from the EUROS concept for the time being. We can concentrate on that once the immediate crisis has passed. I certainly do not accept the idea that the concept of a European flag has been discredited.
Before I move on to the specific recommendations of the Select Committee, I want to refer to one comment made in paragraph 89 of the report. I believe that it is profoundly wrong—it has been repeated this evening—to assert that the European ship register has ever been or should be perceived as a flag of convenience. I agree with the Select Committee when it concludes generally that flags of convenience have been and in general terms at least are inimical to the interests of the exercise of proper responsibilities on the part of a state for the safety of its ships and those who sail in them.
It is true that when some flags of convenience have tended to become more responsible, such as the Liberian flag, they have become inversely less attractive to ship owners. The fact is that the mischief of flags of convenience has been compounded over the years by collusion between ship owners, shippers and indeed governments. It is one thing to say, in my view correctly, that the benefits of EUROS have not been sufficiently demonstrated to encourage ship owners to choose that option compared with others which might

263
be open to them; it is quite another thing to assert, mistakenly in my view, that EUROS is a flag of convenience.
I make that remark with particular regard to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, for the following reasons. First, registration in EUROS would not affect the legal responsibility of the flag state towards the vessel or the responsibility for the enforcement of international standards and rules. Secondly, where national requirements —for example, those relating to European Community nationality of the crews—are more stringent than those specified in the EUROS regulation, they will continue to apply. Thirdly, I reject proposals such as those contained in the report by the rapporteur to the European Parliament, Mr. Sarlis, to accept lower safety standards for seafarers on non-passenger ships than are considered necessary for passenger ships. That is profoundly wrong. Nor am I happy about the possibilities which may excuse the employment of sub-standard "crews of convenience" receiving cut price wages and being generally exploited. I want to assure the House that if EUROS had begun to resemble a flag of convenience I should never have advanced it as a viable proposition.
Paragraph 89 asserts that deep sea shipping transport is international business. It goes on to say that it is not susceptible to control by European Community rules or to the erection of barriers to exclude outside competition. With very great respect, that is belied by the evidence. The evidence is that the package of measures agreed in December 1986 was adopted by all 12 member states. Those measures received parliamentary approval some time ago.
Regulation 4056/86, which deals with unfair competition—the dumping of freight rates—has been successfully invoked in the European Court of Justice in the Hyundai case. The regulation was aimed at, and in my view would also catch, low safety standards and state subsidies. That was the nature of the discussion that I had in the Commission at the time. I submit that those facts refute the assertion that paragraph 89 contains.
I turn to the other recommendations. I shall comment only on those where I have certain reservations or disagreements. Otherwise it may be accepted that I agree with them. On paragraph 91, I understand that discussions on facilitating transfers of ships between registries are now close to agreement in the council—a point likely to be included at the next council. Paragraph 92 relates to the harmonisation of seafarers' qualifications. That is certainly a matter to be encouraged providing that we do not accept it as a basis for agreeing the lowest common denominator. The essential criteria should be high standards and best practice.
On paragraph 93, with regard to food aid, the Select Committee considers that,
"the most economically advantageous tender should in general be selected".
264
That is fine if we talk about fair competition between European Community member state shipping. However, if we consider the issue more broadly to include unfair competition from flags of convenience and others, then it flies in the face of the Select Committee's own recommendations elsewhere. It is often utterly impossible for the flags of European member states to submit lower tenders against low-cost, low-standard, or state subsidised flags. Such regimes should not be supported since that would, to use the Select Committee's own language,
"compound the mischief of flags of convenience",
and, one might also add, state subsidised shipping.
The issue of cabotage is referred to in paragraph 94. It is a matter about which my noble friend Lord Callaghan spoke eloquently and with great justification. I believe that the conclusions reached by the Select Committee are right. Current restrictions, subject to qualifications about matters such as public service obligations, in relation to island services, and the qualifications referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, clearly conflict with the provisions of the Treaty of Rome. They should be ended. The Commission has tried mightily to end them. But member states have stood in the way, obstructing the purpose. When will the Government stop simply threatening action and posturing about it and do something, perhaps, as the working party suggested, by invoking a test case, or helping a test case to be invoked before the European Court of Justice if substantive progress is not achieved very shortly. The argument has continued for years. It is a threat to the completion of the internal market.
On paragraph 95, I welcome the views expressed about the Commission's principal criteria for the assessment of state aids and support for the costs of training seafarers and the need for such policies to apply more broadly than at present in the United Kingdom. However, I am not convinced that the adoption of maritime and fiscal measures which have been urged by the European Parliament are necessarily outside the terms of the treaty.
In paragraph 97, the Select Committee concluded that European Community vessels should,
"as far as possible be crewed by European Community nationals".
I wholeheartedly agree with that proposition. However, one has to be careful about multinational crewing on safety grounds. I strongly support the assertion of the need for common language requirements to be examined urgently by maritime authorities for safety reasons. That was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor. There could be no more vivid example than the tragedy of the "Scandinavian Star" disaster in which no less than 160 seafarers perished in April 1990. The vessel sailed under the Bahamian flag. Eighty per cent. of the crew had joined only the week before. The Danish court of inquiry was informed that there were enormous difficulties of communication between Norwegian officers and the Portuguese crew. Quite apart from that, it appears that the alarm system had not been tested. There had been no fire drills; and five out of the

265
15 fire doors had been closed. That is a devastating example not only of lack of communication but of the dangers associated with ineffective registers.
How does all that square with the Select Committee's endorsement of the argument adduced by the ship owners that they,
"should be able to adopt arrangements which are competitive in the markets where they are operating"?
It is the same free market philosophy which has contributed so much to the employment of sub-standard crews of convenience.
The employment of European Community nationals can best be promoted by constructing advanced ships requiring skilful operation. That proposition tacitly supports the view that higher standards of seafaring are deployed in ships flying under most European Community flags including the British flag. It goes a long way towards contradicting the contentions of the ship owners.
Port state control should never be regarded as a substitute for flag state control. The two should be regarded as complementary. I was most interested to hear the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, on the role of insurance. Too often, governments have complacently accepted the adequacy of existing port state control. I readily agree that it has been a significant defence against sub-standard ships.
However, there are disturbing matters which need to be tackled. The target of inspection of 25 per cent. of foreign ships visiting Community ports has not been achieved in all ports. I have never been satisfied that the inspections are always comparable. It is inimical to the system if there is a substantial variation of standards—if one therefore encourages "ports of convenience". It is important for port surveyors to inspect ships, safety apparatus and so on. But what about the provisions of ILO Convention 147 which deals with conditions on board and proper certification, and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, about language? We are often told that surveyors have insufficient expertise. Is that still the position? If so, when will it be remedied? Those matters are critical to safety.
The Select Committee expressed concern at the decline in the number of ships inspected by the department. How are the Government responding to that criticism? What is the present situation? I understand that there has been some improvement. How will more inspectors be recruited? Is it right that "small ships in small ports" are avoiding supervision? What about ferries?
In paragraph 99 the committee asserts that a definition of a European Community ship owner is not required. I caution the need to be able to exclude dubious "brass plates" shipping companies. Therefore, a suitable definition is required. I believe that that would present no problems for bona fide companies which are owned overseas.
In concluding my remarks on the Select Committee report, perhaps I may repeat that we do not have time to await the conclusion of a long, complex debate about EUROS. It makes sense therefore to detach that, at least for the time being, from the other
266
proposals for positive measures which are certainly needed if the European Community is to have fleets worthy of its name.
Perhaps I may say a few words about the United Kingdom scene, and "challenges and opportunities". I believe that while it was good to have a joint working party report, it is a pity that it was confined to government and the General Council of British Shipping. There are others with enormous expertise not confined to domestic issues such as training. I refer to the seafaring unions, NUMAST and the NUS, as well as individuals who might have been recruited to present an objective view.
It is noteworthy, perhaps even sinister, that the Treasury opted only for observer status. Presumably the recommendations are supported by the Department of Transport but where stands the Treasury? That is the key question. The report stated that shipping was a vital national asset; and so it is. But against the backcloth of this Government having presided over a catastrophic decline in British shipping one has to ask whether this is mere windy rhetoric, complacency, or a sudden revelation of the truth. Why has it taken so long for the Department of Transport to reach this conclusion? Again, does the Treasury concur?
A number of noble Lords have rehearsed the facts of the appalling decline and I need not go over them. The decline also affects and will continue to affect the contribution that shipping makes to the balance of payments and the financial services attributable to the City of London. Together they are worth about £5 billion a year in invisible earnings.
My noble friend Lord Murray referred to the ageing of the fleet. He pointed out that 30 per cent. is more than 15 years old and that the average British ship is 13.7 years old compared with the world average of 12.7 years. Those facts were eloquently rehearsed by the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, in his maiden speech. Against those facts how can the report reasonably conclude that the industry is lean and fit? It would be more accurate to say "malnourished and geriatric". To engage in such language is to invite a complacent approach. It is grotesquely misleading and ought not to have appeared.
Moreover, the report takes a view that, despite the fact that shipping worldwide is emerging from its deep recession, Britain will find it immensely difficult to respond due to the shortage of seafarers and the failure to attract new investment so as to modernise the fleet and take advantage of the benefits of newer, more efficient, more technically advanced ships which are also more competitive.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, for having encouraged the Minister at least to undertake a joint session with him. Some valuable suggestions were made. The noble Lord and others have stated them. However, I am worried about the phrase "more flexibility" as regards recruitment rules. I fear that it may mean lower standards and the avoidance of the measures about which so many noble Lords have

267
spoken today especially in relation to safety standards, and for the recruitment and training of British crews.
My main criticism of the report is that it avoids the real measures that are needed to reverse this decade of decline. They are the kind of measures which my noble friend Lord Callaghan and other noble Lords, in addition to the GCBS and the unions, have markedly emphasised. They include training provision for seafarers as well as for officers; the reinstatement of 100 per cent. ship allowance for five years to act as a real incentive for investment, particularly in new but also in good second-hand ships; the removal of income tax and national insurance liabilities for British seafarers; and the issue of the poll tax which has absurdly come to the fore of our considerations today as a result of the judgment. It was right that Mr. Anderton should have taken his case to the courts; the trouble was the decision. That is a matter that the Government can correct and I hope that they will take urgent steps to deal with it in their so-called poll tax review.
I suspect that the Department of Transport will wish to see such changes made. The question is: how strongly is the department prepared to press those matters with the Treasury where the power for improvement truly lies?
6.44 p.m
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate this afternoon. I wish to thank your Lordships' Select Committee, and in particular the chairman of the sub-committee on law and institutions, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton. It has produced a clear and detailed report on Community shipping measures and has given us the opportunity to debate the subject today. I, too, join other noble Lords in welcoming my noble friend Lord Sterling to this House. I congratulate him on his contribution to this afternoon's debate. We are particularly fortunate to have him with us today, given his close involvement in the issues currently before us. Not only is he the chairman of one of the world's leading shipping lines but he is also president of the General Council of British Shipping and joint chairman, with my right honourable friend, the then Secretary of State for Transport, of the joint working party on British shipping.
The committee's report thoroughly examines the Commission's proposals for the second stage of Community shipping policy. The committee's analysis of the issues, its conclusions and the extensive evidence which it heard from interested parties will prove very useful to the Government in the negotiations to come in Brussels.
I shall first deal with the subject of EUROS. The Government entirely agree with the views expressed by the committee on the Commission's package. While the Commission has put forward a number of useful proposals we do not consider it at all helpful or useful to seek to bind the whole package together with the creation of a Community ship register—EUROS.
268
The committee sum this up very well when it describes a single Community flag as a "distraction from the real problems". We are concerned that EUROS would not meet the Commission's objectives of improving the competitiveness of EC fleets and harmonising operating conditions. The proposed manning conditions would in fact increase the cost of running ships and reduce operational flexibility. In addition, any measures that the Community can devise to help its shipping industry should apply to all EC shipping and not just to vessels registered on EUROS. I welcome the preparedness of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to see elements of the positive measures package pursued independently of EUROS.
The majority of member states share our concerns about EUROS. In fact, some benefits originally intended to be limited to EUROS have already been broadened to cover all EC-registered vessels: Ministers agreed last December to the text of a regulation facilitating the transfer of vessels from one EC register to another, although the Commission had originally proposed that this benefit should be limited to vessels on EUROS. The council has also asked the Commission to produce proposals which provide for the mutual recognition of seafarers' certificates on all EC-registered vessels rather than confining this benefit to EUROS.
The committee in its report also comments on the European Parliament's proposed amendments to the Commission's proposal for EUROS. The Government agree with the committee that the European Parliament's proposal for a special taxation regime for EUROS-registered vessels does raise serious competence problems. It would also raise substantial practical problems. The proposal as it stands would allow ship owners to opt for the national taxation regime or the special EUROS tax based on age, tonnage and trade of vessel. This would lead to a highly complicated taxation regime for shipping which would be difficult to enforce, especially in relation to those companies where shipping forms only one part of their business.
The Commission has not yet indicated whether or not it is likely to accept these proposed amendments. We would prefer the commission to concentrate its efforts instead on the reduction of state aids to shipping in order to ensure that the UK fleet is operating in a fair competitive framework. Like the committee, the Government welcome the general principles outlined by the Commission in its paper on state aids to shipping. We would like to see the Commission building on this basis so that all member states' state aids to shipping are made transparent and open to careful scrutiny. Any attempt to justify state aids granted to vessels on EUROS must undermine this process.
I now turn to the subject of cabotage. We are also concerned that the proposal for a Community ship register is delaying progress in other areas which the Government consider to be of the highest priority. The Government are firmly committed to opening to free and fair competition the restricted cabotage trades of the Mediterranean member states. The UK coast is open to vessels in all trades regardless of flag.

269
UK vessels should have the same opportunities throughout the Community. The Commission's proposed draft council regulation liberalising cabotage is hedged around with restrictions including the requirement for vessels in cabotage trades to be registered on EUROS.
The UK has been pressing for progress for many years and we are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel. The date for completion of the single market is drawing ever nearer and there is now a greater will to reach agreement. I hope that the prospects are much better than the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, fears. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, reported useful progress from last December's transport council. The majority of Ministers were able to agree on the principle of a two stage approach to liberalisation with the first stage to be completed during 1993 and leaving the sensitive issue of island services, to which the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, referred, to the second stage.
The prospects for making progress by negotiation are considerably improved following the December transport council but we have not lost sight of the power which we have under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 to introduce a test of establishment for vessels trading in UK coastal waters or the offshore trades. However, we would rather not retreat into this sort of defensive measure unless absolutely necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, also raised the possibility of the Government mounting a test case to the European Court of Justice. That is certainly an option which we shall continue to keep in the forefront of our minds.
We hope therefore that the second stage of Community shipping policy will provide new opportunities in Community cabotage trades and a fairer financial framework for Community shipping. We also want to see a fair competitive framework for Community shipping. The special position of shipping conferences has already been recognised in Community legislation, but we agree with the committee that the position of consortia and multi-modal services should be clarified urgently. The Commission has produced a general proposal for a block exemption from the competition rules for shipping consortia and we are concerned that the conditions to be attached to such a block exemption should strike a fair balance between the interests of shippers and ship owners.
On safety issues and port state control, the Government agree with the committee's support for the Commission's recommendation on improving the effectiveness of port state control within the Community. The committee recommends that the Government should restore its high level of port state inspection. The UK has, of course, consistently exceeded the recommended target of 25 per cent. of inspections. However, I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that we recognise the need for port state control inspections to cover small ships in remote ports.
While the percentage of inspections varies from year to year, I am pleased to be able to inform the
270
House that the figure for last year, which post dates the committee's report, shows an increase in the inspection rate to 34.4 per cent. However, there has been a change in emphasis over the past three years with more attention given to the quality and thoroughness of inspections rather than quantity. That new emphasis has led to an increase in the number of foreign ships detained in recent years as a result of the inspections. I was disturbed when the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said that he believed that Norway had far stricter inspections than we do. I hope that that is not the case and that I can confirm that to him.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I am sure that we are all very glad to hear that the number as well as the depth of inspections has increased. However, I hope that the noble Lord will not overlook the fact that although the number varies from year to year, the figure used to be around 40 per cent. or even greater. Therefore, there is still some way to go before we get back to the point at which we used to be and, in order to do so, we shall probably need more inspectors.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, a moment ago I referred to the need for inspections of small ships in remote ports which is very important. Of course, that takes one inspector a lot longer than it would to inspect a number of ships in a large port. Therefore, it is important that that should be covered even though it may use extra resources.
It is true to say that, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said, some member states have difficulty in reaching the 25 per cent. inspection rate let alone matching our figures which are, as I say, among the best.
The committee urged member states and the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to examine whether common language requirements for crew members are adequate for safety. Along with the noble Lords, Lord McGregor of Durris and Lord Clinton-Davis, I agree that this is a vitally important issue. The IMO has already developed a standard marine navigational vocabulary to standardise the language used for communication at sea and is now looking further at the question of common language proficiency. As part of this process, the UK has submitted proposals for the development of a bilingual approach to safety training. This and other related issues are being considered by the IMO but it will of course take time to reach international agreement.
I hope that I have covered the Government's main objectives for Community shipping policy. Many of the Commission's proposals are constructive and worthwhile but we share the committee's view that these elements should be pursued separately from the proposal for a Community ship register.
I would like to assure noble Lords that the Government share their desire to see a strong, competitive British shipping industry. We will continue to work to that goal both in the Community and in our domestic policy. My noble friend Lord Sterling has already referred to the conclusions

271
reached by the joint working party which he chaired jointly with my right honourable friend, the then Secretary of State for Transport. We are pressing ahead with the recommendations in this report in order to encourage investment in the Brtitish flag so that it is well placed to take the opportunities available to it and to win profitable business.
A number of noble Lords, notably the noble Lords, Lord Callaghan, Lord Greenway and Lord Murray, referred to the need for British crews. We recognised the importance of training British seafarers, both officers and ratings. The industry has made a commitment to identifying its future recruitment needs and is taking action to ensure that those are met. The measures introduced under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 have proved successful. As the noble Lord, Lord Murray, said, the scheme came into operation only in 1988. The intake for 1987 was as low as 162. The noble Lord will be pleased to know that since the scheme became operational, 1,238 officers have started training and the figure by the end of this financial year is expected to be more than 500.
The other measure brought in with that Act to assist industry with crew relief costs has also proved successful, is working well and 48 companies are now taking part.
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, wondered why the working party did not include strategic requirements within its remit. Work on that has been taken forward separately. I assure the noble Lord that that work is now nearly complete.
I believe that all noble Lords and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, asked about financial aid, fiscal measures and tax relief for the industry. Those are matters for my right honourable friend the Chancellor and were deliberately excluded from the working party's remit for that reason. As the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan said, the Budget is nearly upon us. He will know better than I that I should not wish to comment on what may or may not be in my right honourable friend's Budget Statement even if I knew, which I do not. My noble friend Lord Sterling, on behalf of the GCBS, and other maritime organisations have made budget submissions to my right honourable friend and we must wait to see what they bring about.
I only add that they will have been armed with a copy of the joint working party's report which in its very first sentence describes British shipping as a vital national asset. I cannot say more than that on that subject. Noble Lords must be patient for only a short while now.
I conclude by welcoming the committee's report on Community shipping measures and the full and interesting debate which we have had on the issue this afternoon.
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton: My Lords, we have had what I hope is a useful, informative and at any rate to me an enjoyable debate, and I do not wish in winding up to detain the House for very long. I begin by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, whose
272
speech I listened to with great pleasure, for use of the expression "a level playing field" in the maritime context. Perhaps I may excuse it by adverting to the difficulty of finding any other suitable metaphor. The sea, in my experience, is seldom level, and it is of course a fact of life that water does not flow up hill.
The general welcome accorded to the report and the criticisms made by the noble Lords, Lord Murray and Lord Clinton-Davis, are a great encouragement to those of us who worked on the preparation of the report. It is an encouragement to us to find that, despite the persuasive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, the Minister shares our view that EUROS is no more than the fifth wheel of the coach.
On the response generally I would just say that the Minister referred to the difficulties inherent in the Commission's proposals for a special fiscal regime. This is a view that coincides with that of the committee. I hope, however, that speaking as I do from the Cross-Benches I shall not be thought to be carping if I say that one might feel a little disappointed at the absence of any concrete fiscal proposals for halting the decline of the shipping industry, or at least an assurance that they are under active consideration, although for the reasons given we readily understand the reason for the Minister's reticence in this regard.
I have deliberately left until last adding to those of the other speakers my own congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, on his penetrating informative and to me moving maiden speech. It was indeed a pleasure to listen to him. It was less pleasurable to hear what he had to say from his unique experience. On the down side we have had a depressing picture of the competitive disadvantages from which British ship owners suffer—an ageing fleet which is being replaced at the lowest rate in Europe. On the up side we have the assurance that the British merchant fleet is efficient, well managed and able, if only the support is forthcoming, to take advantage of the opportunities which will occur with an upturn in world trade.
But what is clear, not only from what the noble Lord told us but from everything that has been said in this debate, is that we as a nation are in danger. We are losing ships, we are losing seafarers and we are losing shipbuilding capacity. There is an urgent need to look at fiscal measures. There is an urgent need to look at the training and, as important, the retaining of officers and seamen. There is an urgent need for measures to halt the decline of shipbuilding. If nothing is done, the United Kingdom is in danger of losing not only a vital financial and strategic asset but a skilled working force both of seafarers and shipbuilders. It would be a pity if the industry became reduced to a number of small, no doubt highly efficient and skilled, yards building small vessels for sport or pleasure.
In conclusion, may I draw from another Oliver. I would just paraphrase Oliver Goldsmith's lines from The Deserted Village:
"Princes and lords may flourish, or may fade,
A breath can make them, as a breath has made;
But a bold merchant fleet, its country's pride,
When once destroyed, can never be supplied".
On Question, Motion agreed to.

An Ageing Population
7.4 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what inter-departmental discussions have taken place about the demographic trend towards an increasing proportion of elderly people in society, and the implications of this.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper seeks to convince the Government of the need for an inter-departmental committee to discuss the question of the demographic trend towards an ageing population. This is not the first time that the demographic issue has been raised or discussed. The trend has been discussed for the past 30 years, but always the tendency has been to deal with one single aspect of the problem. There is a need to extend the debate. There is need for an inter-departmental committee to take a broader look, as I hope that we shall be able to convince the Minister.
Current overall demographic trends have received much publicity and are fairly widely known. In 1988 the population of the United Kingdom was 57,066,000. Of this figure 18.2 per cent.—that is 10,412,000 —were over pensionable age; 3,852,000 aged 75 or over, and 796,000 over 85 years of age.
Between 1987 and 2006 the total population of Great Britain is expected to have increased by 4 per cent. The projected increase in the number of people aged 65 or over is 8 per cent., and the number of people aged 85 and over is expected to increase by 74 per cent. Those figures represent an enormous projected growth in the numbers of very elderly people. We are saying that by 2006 48 per cent. of people of pensionable age will be 75 or over, and 13 per cent. will be aged 85 or over.
The increase in the number of older people is generally considered with some trepidation. Older people are seen largely in terms of a burden on health, welfare, and social security systems. The Government refer responsibility for "pensioners' affairs" to the DSS. People in the media and some in high government office talk about the "demographic time bomb" and view the future with apprehension. But no comprehensive analysis has been made of the precise implications of a changing population structure on society and on the economy as a whole.
With 58 per cent. of people of pensionable age looking to the state for at least three-quarters of their income, policies emanating from the Department of Social Security have a profound effect on people's lives. There have been projections about the cost of paying an increased number of social security pensions from a decreasing number of national insurance contributions. Again, there is the cost emphasis—the focus always on the "economic burden" of the elderly. That is of course important. But there are other factors affecting the economy as a whole to be considered.
An increasing number of older people have an additional income from occupational and personal
274
pensions, and a considerable number now own their own homes. Therefore, many older people contribute to the economy as consumers, as workers and as voluntary or part-time carers and helpers. The real value of this contribution, the ways in which it is changing, and the full potential of our older population—that is, the positive aspects—have never been fully assessed. It is essential to the future economic prosperity of the country that the likely impact of a more extreme change in the population structure is now assessed.
We know from parliamentary answers in another place—and I quote a former Prime Minister that,
"Elderly people, like all other groups in society, are affected by the policies of many different Government Departments."—[Official Report, Commons, 9/11/1989; col. 726.]
A Parliamentary Under-Secretary said that Ministers and officials from different departments consult each other from time to time but that,
"Meetings are not held regularly but as and when necessary and in order to consider issues which arise."— [Official Report, Commons, 5/12/1989; col. 142.]
That is a kind of management by crisis; the daily expediency approach. It is no longer good enough in my view.
I want briefly to look at the need for developing a co-ordinated and deliberate approach to policy on ageing. Other speakers will develop different aspects of the subject. I want first to examine community care. Scope for effective community care has in the past been diminished by policies relating to energy, to home insulation, to heating, to transport, and to social security because of lack of co-ordination among different departments. The service has been diminished. Housing is another area that springs to mind. The needs of older people are not always reflected in planning and design or the location of houses. Again, more co-ordination might prevent older people being shunted off into ghettoes, cut off from younger people or from the interest of living in a mixed community.
Another aspect of housing which concerns me is the question of home income plans. On a number of occasions the Government have suggested that older home owners should use the value of their home to raise money. Ministers have suggested that older people could use the money to pay for such things as heating or private health insurance. As the number of older home owners increases, the Government may in the future urge people to unlock capital tied up in their homes, perhaps to fund repairs, domiciliary care or long-term health care costs.
It is clear that government spokesmen making these statements have had little or no knowledge of how difficult it can be to raise money from one's home safely. In the last two years, and very recently, we have read about substantial numbers of older people who have taken up very dangerous schemes and who are now in danger of losing their homes. An inter-departmental committee could help ensure that statements, such as those imploring older people to

275
raise money from their home, would not be made without reference to other departments under whose remit such schemes came.
We touched briefly today in a Parliamentary Question on the current situation of employment. The Government have recognised the need to encourage older workers to stay in or return to the workforce. Practices and attitudes, however, continue to discriminate against older people at work. The experience and skills of older people are often undervalued by employers. They can be regarded as less capable or less adaptable than younger colleagues.
What we need is a long-term strategic view of employment and consideration by the workforce of part-time, job-share and voluntary work. As the workforce and employment practices change, it will be necessary for attitudes towards full-time permanent work to change, and for it to become more acceptable for people to combine two or more part-time paid jobs, possibly with voluntary work. Access to training and retraining are important to ensure that people gain new skills throughout their working life.
Policies such as the abolition of the earnings rule are very welcome for encouraging older people to carry on working. But there needs to be an inter-departmental view of such policies, in order to assess the impact that they will have on pension structures and the relationship between retirement and pensions.
Older people are as diverse as any other group in the population, but to a greater or lesser extent they are all consumers. It has been estimated that people over 50 control more than £100 billion annually in the spending market. Yet older people's rights as consumers are often overlooked and marketing campaigns are rarely targeted at them. Older people are often denied credit, for no other reason than that they have reached an arbitrary age. Our stereotyped images of older people somehow make them invisible to marketeers.
There are a number of areas of health policy where poor co-ordination between departments in the past has had an adverse effect on policy and where an inter-departmental view of the situation could help to ensure that all factors are taken into consideration and that the best possible service is available for older people.
The development of policies for the long-term care of older people, in particular, needs to take many different factors into account, apart from simple projections of the likely numbers of older people who will need such care in the future. First, it is necessary to look at patterns of migration and the areas in which long-term care facilities need to be developed. Many older people move to be near their family or retire to the country or seaside. The funding of residential and nursing home care is an issue currently causing considerable concern to many older people and their families, and to those of us who take an interest in these affairs. The patterns and trends in pensioners' incomes; the growth in home ownership and in
276
occupational and personal pensions; and the level of social security benefits available must all be taken into account.
Policies for the development and funding of care in homes must also take into account trends in hospital long-term care and policies affecting local authorities which provide long-term care, such as, for example, the community charge.
These few examples illustrate the need for a long-term inter-departmental strategic view of health policies for an ageing population. Planning for an effective health policy could involve not just the Department of Health, but also the Department of Social Security, the Department of Transport, the Department of the Environment and the Treasury, at the very least.
We know, too, that the older population perform more than their fair share of caring and voluntary help. The commitment and contribution of informal carers to community care is increasingly being recognised. It is estimated that the saving to central and local government made by informal carers is £24 billion a year. The Government stated in the White Paper Caring for People:
"Their [carers'] total input was greater than the combined inputs financed from central and local government".
A large proportion of carers are themselves older people. Already, in 1985, among carers who devoted at least 20 hours a week to caring, 43 per cent. were aged 46 to 64 and 26 per cent. were aged over 65. The fit "young elderly", particularly women, provide services as carers both for the very old, often their own parents, and for people in work, looking after children or grandchildren.
I have tried to outline some of the advantages of, and the need for, an inter-departmental approach. Many voluntary organisations which have written to me agree with the proposal. Age Concern has made several representations to government on the subject. I know that the all-party group for pensioners in another place also supports the idea. There already exist a small number of inter-departmental committees; for example, the ministerial group on women's issues. There are similar inter-departmental groupings in other administrations. In the United States, there are a number of committees, and the Netherlands has an inter-departmental ministerial group to discuss such issues.
It is an accepted fact that demographic changes will have an impact on all sections of society. Effective policies to meet that challenge must be based on a clear understanding of the implications for the economy as a whole. The formation of an inter-departmental ministerial committee, to consider the impact of ageing on society and the economy, would help develop a long-term strategic response to ageing. The pattern of change should be looked on as an opportunity and not simply as a problem.
7.17 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I should like to express my very strong support for the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, in what he has said. That

277
remarkable and wise man, the late Lord Seebohm, first argued for a generic approach to social work in his 1968 report on local authority and allied personal social services. In 1988, while agreeing broadly with the Griffiths Report on community care, he contended that care in the community would lead to an increase, not a decrease, in costs and argued strongly, looking to the future, for more forward planning and joint funding in the fields of housing, education, health and welfare, both locally and at central government level. Only thus, it seems to me, can we turn a liability into an asset.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has told us that 25 per cent. of the population will be aged between 50 and 75 in the year 2000—only nine years off—and that by the year 2006, 48 per cent. of people of pensionable age v, ill be 75 or over and 13 per cent. will be 85 or over. That means that a lot of carers will be needed. It also means that a lot of people will be available in the earlier age groups to do more work.
The trend already appears to be for earlier retirement to be required by employers, often by 50 or 55, and for those who retire to go into part-time work, just as many married women graduate returners re-entering the labour market are taking job sharing appointments in the Civil Service or in teaching. Dame Anne Mueller once told me that job sharing is working extremely well in the Civil Service. It is absolutely essential that action should be taken early to turn all these part-timers, and those who retire generally into a positive asset for society, not a charge upon it beyond their proper due as pensioners. People will need 10 work and society will need them to do so.
One of the surest guarantees of good health and good heart, mental and moral, is to be needed and valued. The present well-meaning arrangement for those over 60—that is to say, sheltered housing in which they are turned in on themselves and are no longer part of an active community or even sometimes a family, where the whole intention seems to be simply to keep them alive and safe—is not what most of us would choose, nor would we flourish there. I should much prefer to see more housing designed to keep grandfathers, grandmothers and aunts as part of the family and the community, there to sustain the children and sometimes to help to free married women, help single parents and indeed to work on their own account. The babushka in Russia is the vital ingredient in Russian family life. I myself was brought up from the age of 11 by a grandmother and two great aunts and I flourished on it. A generation gap is an excellent thing for both parties. I should like to see many more children able to enjoy it.
I return to my argument. Retired men and women can also work for themselves. Modern technology has made work infinitely more accessible and flexible. The work can come to the worker nowadays. The late Professor Wroth, a valued friend and formerly Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oxford, once told me that he had been much put out to learn that two of the best members of his research group would be withdrawing temporarily because they each expected a baby. But then he realised that the
278
computer had changed the world. Both of them worked from home using modern technology, and both did, if anything, even better work than before because they were able, in thoroughly favourable circumstances, to combine meeting the needs of the child and the family with those of their work.
This pattern of part-time work at home could make an increasingly valuable contribution to the improvement of family life as well as to the needs of the country. If people over 50 are to do gainful work they must of course be employable. That will mean in many cases re-education and retraining. The Government have wisely abolished the earnings rule: now a strategy must be devised to match the special labour force to the needs and demands of the labour market. Thus a major potential employer, industry and the CBI must be closely involved in any planning, as must the trade unions.
How many permanent long-term jobs will there be? How many part-time, and where will they be in the country? What housing changes are needed? What are the implications for education both in schools and continuing education in the polytechnics and in retraining? What special part could the Open University play? Not least, can we afford not to have a co-ordinated strategy before we have to harmonise all this with what is planned in Europe, where the Council of Europe, I understand, recently agreed a policy for older people?
For all these reasons I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, in urging that any interdepartmental body which the Government might contemplate setting up, as I hope they will, will include not only representatives of the Treasury, the DSS, the departments of housing, education and the environment and, above all, the DTI but also the private sector. It would be a fatal mistake and a terrible waste if all those departments addressed the issue separately, the more so because resources must necessarily be limited and should not be demand-led.
What are the country's chief aims for the 21st century? One of them must be to use our human resources wisely. That means for most of us to have the chance to be valued and needed for as long as possible in our lives. In concentrating as I have on the prospects for paid work outside the home in a formal structure, I do not forget the silent army of carers; namely, the mothers with young children, those who look after the frail, the sick, the disabled and the old, day in and day out, often without relief. My mother was one of those looking after the great aunts and she herself was partly blind. I know how unremitting that work is and how little of it is recognised and helped despite the best efforts of a series of governments. One of the worst features of that life is the absolute loneliness it often entails.
One of the tasks of that committee must also be to take a unified and, one hopes, a bipartisan approach to the whole question of care, since we are talking of strategy, in terms of housing, welfare and the needs of the family. That will save money in the end. It will also save lives.
7.25 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for introducing this discussion on the significance of an inquiry into our present demographic situation. He hinged his proposal on the position of the elderly and therefore I shall follow him along that line. Age specific death rates have declined: each successive cohort is less likely to die in infancy, childhood, adolescence, early adulthood and in middle and early old age. It has long been a commonplace of demographic history that this is not the result of the magic of medicine practised at the patient's bedside but has stemmed from the labours of dustmen and sanitary engineers and from improvements in the national diet.
Nevertheless marked social class inequalities in morbidity and mortality still exist. The latest estimates of life expectancy at birth for the United Kingdom are almost 72 years for men and nearly 78 for women, though these are significantly below those for many other countries. But in all countries most of the survivors from the early 70s onwards are women. The gloomy predictions about the burden imposed by the greying of the population have been overdone. Today the United Kingdom has 2.2 million people over 80. In 20 years' time their number will have increased by no more than ½ million. I here follow the convincing analysis of Professor Margot Jeffereys in the indispensable collection of essays under the title of Aspects of Ageing recently published by the department of social science at Bedford College.
She points out that there will be a shift from the young-old to old-old. In 1981 there were 11 individuals per 1,000 over the age of 85. In 10 years' time there will be 17 individuals over that age. Not everyone over the age of 85 needs looking after all the time. Many manage to look after themselves perfectly well. The so-called productive age group of 16 to 64 will not diminish significantly until the end of the century. Indeed the dependency burden, as it is sometimes called, in terms of the ratio of 16 to 64 year-olds to those under or over those ages will not alter significantly until the second decade of the next century.
The very concept of the dependency burden contains too many false quantities to be useful. Dependency no longer ceases at 16 and there has been a considerable decline, as a result of trade union pressure, in the once extensive employment of people aged 60 to 65. The dependency ratio does not allow for the increase in productivity and it assumes dependency among the retired. But it is the retired who sustain day-to-day life and emotional stability through caring for children, the sick, the disabled and many homes. "If this performance were costed", remarks Professor Jeffereys, "the assumption that the retirement pension is not earned but an unreciprocated gift from the employed to the non-employed, would be found untenable".
The demographic evidence points to the general view for new directions of social policy and departmental discussion. For example, let us have regard for the amount of care given today, as it has
280
been throughout this century, by the family. That institution looks after some 1.5 million people, mostly women. Let us remember that community care in this society means family care and family care means care by women.
I wholly accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, that demographic analysis is a prerequisite for the shaping of social policy which is relevant to the solution or palliation of the problems with which it deals. I shall cite one example in the form of a newly published paper by Melanie Henwood of the King's Fund Institute. She has undertaken a demographic analysis of excess winter mortality. Deaths from hypothermia are the most extreme manifestation of the effects of cold, but they are relatively rare. Much more common are the extra deaths which occur during the winter months, typically from respiratory and bronchial conditions, and among the old from poor diet. Even during the relatively mild winters of recent years considerably more deaths occurred during the winter compared with the summer months. Indeed, between 1983 and 1990 the excess of winter over summer deaths in England averaged some 40,000.
The argument that it is natural and inevitable that more people of this order will die in winter than in summer simply cannot be sustained. Dr. Henwood examined the mortality experience in winter and summer months across a number of other countries over a nine-year period from 1976 to 1984, the last eight years for which data were available. She reached the following conclusions. In all the months she examined there were 26 when deaths were at least 20 per cent. above the monthly average. Of those 26 months, 17 occurred in Britain. In the other countries such an extreme excess was exceptional; Germany and Italy experienced one such month in nine years, while the United States, Switzerland and the Netherlands experienced it only twice.
This demonstrates in terms immediately relevant to social policy our incapacity to cope with extreme weather. It also demonstrates that our preparations for the extreme weather that we do experience are hopelessly inadequate in terms of building standards, heating and insulation in the home, diet and the like. That is one specific and tiny example of pointers to social policy that can come from demographic work.
My mind goes back to the great importance in a very large number of areas of our national life of the seminal report of the Royal Commission on Population of 1947. That report promoted research and it resulted in the permanent establishment of the Population Investigation Committee under the chairmanship of the late Professor David Glass. The report destroyed on a large scale myths relating to contraception, childbirth and the like and substituted knowledge for opinion in very important areas. That knowledge became the basis of new policies with which we are now so familiar and which have become so much a part of our normal national life that we have forgotten altogether about the work of the commission.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, that we need now an authoritative analysis which will deal with the demographic situation of women and will

281
look at the relation between demographic trends and what is happening in the labour market and all the circumstances to which the noble Baroness, Lady Park, drew attention. I do not think that anyone can regard the muddle, confusion and administrative waste of our present social policies without seeing the need for bringing them into relation with a new central theme. The most appropriate central theme for policies in those areas would be demographic. I do not care what kind of body is charged with this work. I should prefer another Royal Commission, but provided the work is done it does not matter whether it is done by a departmental committee or a working party. However, the work is now indispensable and I hope that the Minister will be persuaded of the value of the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard.
7.40 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, we have listened to three eloquent speeches from members of what I hope I can call, without offence, the "younger generation". I do not think that any of them have reached the allotted span and I am sure that they will not mind if some rather more decrepit or, at any rate, older Peers such as myself, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and above all our senior prefect the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, as octogenarians and nonagenarians, look upon them as promising youngsters and offer our thoughts on the subject of elderly people.
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, was kind enough to say that some old people, who have reached the age of 85, like myself, are capable of looking after after themselves.
Lord McGregor of Durris: I think that I said "many".
The Earl of Longford: I do not know what proportion "many" represents. I suppose, therefore, that many are not so capable. I would have to declare an interest if I claimed that I was one of those who could or who could not do so. At any rate, I can assure the no ole Lord that many people over the age of 85 spend most of their time looking after people of his age; indeed, a large part of their time is spent in that way.
I should like to look at the matter before us in rather wider perspective. The two books best known to me concerning old age are Cicero's De Senectute and Simone de Beauvoir's Old Age. Incidentally, both books arrive at totally opposite conclusions. Simone de Beauvoir sarcastically quotes Cicero's eulogy of old age as follows:
"'Old age,' said Cicero, 'is far from being deprived of good council, authority and wise maturity. On the contrary it has these qualities in the highest degree"'.
I am sure we can agree in this House that as Cicero was only 83 years old when he wrote those words, anyone who is a little older than that may feel that he is speaking for them. The qualities of "good council, authority and wise maturity" were held in the highest degree by Cicero. Simone de Beauvoir was very sarcastic about that. Cicero went on to say:
282
"That senile decay which is commonly called second childhood is not to be seen in all old men" —
and, presumably in old ladies—
"but only in those whose mind is naturally weak".
Simone de Beauvoir poured great scorn on all of that, pointing out that Cicero was talking about a small class and really arguing the case for the dominance of the Senate which, I suppose, in a loose way could be compared to our own Chamber of mature people. She went on to quote Cicero as saying:
"It is impossible for old age to be borne in extreme poverty".
She then proceeded to say that the lot of most old people was extremely hard and that it was quite ridiculous to say that as a group they were having a good time. Today, I find myself somewhere between the two views, although my feelings are somewhat closer to those of Simone de Beauvoir. She concluded that a total change of society was necessary if most old people were to have a bearable existence although I do not know how far she wanted to go in that direction.
A totally new approach is necessary to solve the problems of old age. That was implicit in the remarks of my noble friend Lord Stallard, but I should like to summarise my view briefly in my own words. I worked for Sir William Beveridge for three years when he was drawing up his plans for a social security system. Undoubtedly the well-being of the elderly was in the minds of William Beveridge and those who worked with him. However, since that time, Western countries have become so much richer that we cannot compare the provision now made for the elderly with that contemplated by Beveridge during the war. We have gone a long way but we must go much further in order to provide what I would call "social security". Yet, however generous the contribution to social security becomes, we are still left with the question of whether it will be enough. For example, Simone de Beauvoir said:
"Once we have understood what the state of the aged really is we cannot satisfy ourselves with calling for a more generous old age policy, higher pensions, decent housing and organised leisure. It is the whole system".
She means that the whole social system has to be reorganised. Therefore, I do not think that the approach indicated by my noble friend Lord Stallard —although that is not all that is in his mind—takes the matter far enough.
As a Member of this House I have made it a rule always to speak in any debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Stallard. I usually adopt an obsequious attitude. However, I am not so grovelling tonight as is usually the case. I believe that his approach is on the timid side. If we are to consider the future of the elderly, I can sum the matter up in one sentence. We must not think of the policy as being one of security for the old; we must think of it as being an opportunity for the old. That is a very difficult concept to put into effect because the elderly arc people of all different kinds. Some want to work and continue to do so for years, while people like myself are somewhat fanatical in the way they stick to some kind of activity which passes itself off as work. Other people want to

283
put their feet up when they retire from the Civil Service at the age of 60. So there are tremendous variations. A policy of opportunity for the elderly would require a great deal of imagination and a great deal of hard work.
I should like to take the matter further than my noble friend Lord Stallard. I view inter-departmental committees with little enthusiasm. I believe that they can do a good job. Let us take for example one particular area about which I have spoken recently. I refer to mental offenders. In that connection, I believe that you can co-ordinate the work of the Home Office and that of the Department of Health with beneficial results. Both have good ideas; at present, however they are at cross purposes. That is the kind of area in which an inter-departmental committee could produce great benefits.
However, the realisation of a completely new vision will not be achieved by inter-departmental committees. Such a committee will not produce a whole new philosophy. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, referred to the inquiry into population. That, incidentally, has always interested me. It was thought at one time that the population was disappearing; later, it was claimed that precisely the opposite was taking place. Those undertaking the inquiry therefore had a very interesting experience. Indeed, during the course of the inquiry one of the members of the committee, my friend Peggie Jay, gave birth to twins. That was indeed a memorable occasion. Nevertheless, the committee did a good job.
We had visions from the Robbins Committee, the Wolfenden Committee and from the Warnock Committee, though I add the latter with some hesitation and equivocation because I did not actually like its conclusions. However, no one will deny that it advanced the discussion on the whole subject. I do not believe that the matter should be left to officials; it would not get us very much further. It would tie up a few loose ends, but we must have something bolder. In my view there is no alternative except the kind of committee to which I and the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, have referred. Therefore, in a way, I agree with the noble Lord. The precise machinery involved does not matter. But the chairman of such a committee must be fully aware of the concept of a new world of opportunity for old people. Tremendous benefits could flow from the setting up of such a committee. Without such a bold lead nothing will happen.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I am happy to be able to join my noble friend Lord Stallard in the debate on his Unstarred Question and to be able to give him my support. When batting at number five one finds that the previous players have laid the foundations and one is free to roam in a way that would not be possible in the early stages of the debate. In any case, the previous speaker has given me a chance to raise tile question of whether interdepartmental committees, Royal Commissions or some other body are the best way to deal with the
284
matter. I do not know. I have known of departmental committees that have made recommendations. Some have been acted on and others have not. I have also known of Royal Commissions that have made recommendations, many of which have not been acted upon. I am not sure which machinery is better.
We should look at the issue seriously. Human beings are a resource. The demographic changes mean that people are living longer. We should therefore decide how society can make best use of that resource. We are talking about people who have lived for 70 or 75 years, although it is said that the first five years are not relevant. That 70 years' experience should be used. I am 77, and some people of my age are often merely waiting for the end. There are other people who can envisage a further 20 years of life, and they act accordingly. We have good examples here of the latter. My noble friends Lord Longford, Lord Houghton and Lord Jenkins are good examples. One of the reasons why they are as they are is that they have this place. A useful, stimulating occupation plays an important part in making use of the elderly, experienced people who are living longer than previously.
I should like a commission or an interdepartmental committee to study the whole question of how the community can make the best possible use of such people. I was pleased to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said. In the society in which I was brought up elderly people are the bosses. They are the people to whom we go for advice. I remember that on New Year's Day I had to go on my knees to my grandmother. She would lecture me. I had to promise that in the new year I would be better and do all kinds of things that I had not done the previous year and abstain from doing things that I should not have done. My grandmother died at the age of 98. I had a great aunt who lived to 105. I have an aunt in the United States at the moment who is in her 90s. I am certain that the fact that they lived in a family with children and grandchildren played a big part in their longevity. My grandmother was a matriarch and we all looked up to her. She ordered us around, decided what should be done and how the household should run.
I do not suggest that that can happen in society now. I merely give that as an example. We need to study how people of the age of my noble friends whom I have mentioned can be made maximum use of in society. All people, regardless of age, require food, clothing and shelter. We need to think about the income and housing policy which will enable them to have such things. They also need a great deal more. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that the Government are thinking about those issues.
We must deal with the situation imaginatively. We cannot merely say, as many people say to me, "I do not know what we will do. So few people will be working to support a great many other people who cannot work". That is nonsense. People should be able to work for much longer. As I said, I am 77 and I still work. We should not say that people must stay in paid

285
work, and work from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., until they are 75. On the other hand, we should make it possible for them to work until they are 90 if they want to do so.
We shall not find a solution to the problem unless we sit down with a group of knowledgeable people to draw up a programme. The Government need a programme. Whether they accept an inter-departmental committee or some other body, I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government are willing to move in the direction that we suggest.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, this is not the environment that I should choose to discuss matters relating to the last 30 years of the lives of our citizens, because that is what we are talking about. Here vie are: the shrouds go on the television cameras; the lights go down; and the draughts that kill outside enter the Chamber. One feels the mausoleum is almost complete. We only want some gigantic doors to open beyond the Throne and someone to push this gigantic coffin into the furnace of history—because that is where it belongs if we cannot do better than this.
Much has already been said to show what a profoundly important subject my noble friend has raised. We all have an interest to declare. Every noble Lord speaking in the debate has to declare that he or she is an elderly member of society. Why of society? We are elderly members of all there is including the activities of life, enjoyment, happiness and the community. If we are becoming a little tired of old age, we ourselves are probably partly to blame. We have taken undue care, we have been temperate, thrifty, and we have denied ourselves. We have had a sense of public duty and trudged on in the hope that we shall get satisfaction out of life, as well as making a contribution to the well-being of society.
From time to time we hear conventional remarks. My own Member of Parliament, Sir Geoffrey Howe, recently announced that he would retire at the next election; he had reached the age of 64 and felt it was time to make way for a younger man. What rubbish! I have made way on two occasions for a younger man; both men are dead. Only Harold Wilson ever said that he would make way for an older man, which he did. That man is still alive.
The groove of ritualistic thinking and attitudes towards the advancing years of life is deplorable. We shall le retired for longer than we were at school or university. The phases of life change but they blend imperceptibly into each other. I should like to get rid of the word "pension". I should certainly get rid of any concept of the old age pension. My father was a cynical radical and he said, "The old age pension has created more old people than the Lord God Almighty". There is something in that.
We then went to retirement pensions. We receive them, even though we do not retire. Why retire? From what and to do what? We are probably leaving one vocation or career for another. I have had three careers and I have three pensions. Ridiculous! They are all intended to provide for my old age. They are annuities which ought to be blended into the progress
286
of life in a different way—reinvested, if you like. Pensions and retirement gratuities are only part of the economics and finances of employment intended to provide for certain stages in life for which pensions seem to be appropriate.
I absolutely agree with my noble friend Lord Pitt and the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, on opportunities for health, training and education. A wealth of talent and experience in this country could be converted into activities. We are drooling away in conventional grooves of thought about life and what life is about. I am old enough to remember the earlier concept of a working class life. People left school early or were forced out of school because the leaving age was probably as low as 13. It was put at that age so that people could become part-timers. They worked as long as they could with the shadow of the workhouse staring at them as they became older.
Now we have an entirely different society. My noble friend referred to avenues in Australia. I was talking to an Australian at a business management meeting the other night. As an Englishman he went out to Australia 23 years ago to go into insurance broking. When he gave up his appointment in an insurance corporation he founded a co-operative for other professional men in a similar position who could offer their services temporarily and who were willing to take on short-term assignments or to undertake certain projects. He said that the co-operative had a turnover of well over 3 million Australian dollars; they are all happy and they all share. There is a small full-time staff to carry out the mechanics of the business.
I have probably overlooked one or two other interests that I ought to declare. One is that I have been a vice-president of the pre-retirement or preparation for retirement association for many years. I am happy to say that the Government support the association to prepare people for what is coming. When one sees a person taking his hat off the peg, saying, "This is the last time I shall be going home because I retire tomorrow" one wonders what on earth he will do.
When Lord Woolton was Minister of Food during the war he gave evidence to a Civil Service training committee of which I was a member under the chairmanship of the late Ralph Assheton, Lord Clitheroe. He said, "In all these institutions where people have an expectation of life tenure, I would put them on short-term contracts at the age of 50. I would make sure that they had toes to stand on for the last 10 years of their careers". It is pathetic when so many references are made to retirement such as "I am only three years off retirement", or "I would retire next year if I could get promotion between now and then; it would add to my pension". This country cannot stand the prevalence of such thoughts among people who hope to see Britain into the future. We shall be left behind.
I hope that noble Lords who were not present at the recent debate on the economy will read the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. I am sure he is right that attitudes in this country must change before we

287
are fit for the world in which we shall live. That change will take more than governments, reinvestment, interest rates, and so on, to achieve.

I am rather proud that, taking a leaf from the Unilever magazine of many years ago, I started the idea of a retirement fellowship in the Civil Service. It was a break from the concept of the Civil Service Benevolent Fund. It is now the most thriving fellowship of retired people from the public service in the country. The fellowship keeps people together. They hold conferences and seminars, pay visits, and deal with matters of interest. Those activities keep them alive, with a common interest in their earlier vocations. All that is of profound importance.
We shall have to do much for ourselves to make life better when certain stages of our lives have passed. There is no central place where problems of the latter 30 years of life can be studied. We want industry to examine them. Many occupations probably require rejuvenation as they are arduous or unpleasant. However, the cycle of employment—leaving employment and going to other employment—must offer areas in which people with previous experience, possibly not in the same line of country, would be useful.
In the past, the unions have stood in the way of much that could be done in this field. They were in favour of sticking to the earnings rule because someone who retired under the national insurance scheme could be competitive in the jobs market. He would be able to work at a cheaper rate than a younger worker given the fact that he had a little pension in his pocket. Such practices have hung about over the years for a long time.
We should try to get used to something less continuous than the normal working week and the normal set of hours. There is nothing wrong in principle with part-time employment. Who said man had to work so many hours a week in a particular job for so many years in his life before he was fit to take a rest or to try something else? We need to change our attitudes.
I am sure much more will be said on this subject before we have finished, and if I stay alive I shall join in. I am sure we are all much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for raising this matter. I appeal for another opportunity to consider these demographic trends. We need to undertake a demographic study to get the lie of the land. However, I shall conclude now as I have occupied as much time as I feel is justified.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I recall attending a party meeting which was due to come to an end while the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who was also present, was speaking. The noble Lord sat down about one minute before the end of the meeting. I wished to say a few words but there was no time left. Therefore I simply rose and said that the only thing there was time for me to say was that I disagreed with every word he had said. I am sure the noble Lord will
288
recall the occasion. However, that is far from being the case this evening. I am not sure that I can go to the opposite extreme and say that I agree with every word that he said, but I am bound to say that, as is normal, the noble Lord's contribution was well worth listening to. I am sure all of us will give considerable thought to what he has said.
I too wish to thank my noble friend Lord Stallard for introducing this important subject. Before I commence my few remarks, I should say that at this time last night I was taking part in an Unstarred Question in your Lordships' House. I said at col. 198 of Hansard:
"the Government did not intend the consequences of their own actions",
but this is par for the course. However, it was reported in Hansard that I stated:
"this is part of the crux".
That seemed to me to be such an inspired translation that I shall not try to alter it for the bound volume. I do not know whether the Government's reply to the debate this evening will be par for the course or part of the crux. However, whichever it is, I am sure we shall all await it with great interest.
My noble friend Lord Stallard gave a comprehensive introduction to the subject we are dealing with tonight. He made us aware of the nature of the problem, and at the end of his speech—this is not always the case with every speaker—he suggested the course of action that he thought we should take. I am sure most of us will agree that it is desirable that some kind of organisation, whether it be an interdepartmental committee or another institution, should obtain the demographic facts in a reliable and informed manner so that informed decisions may be taken in the future.
I once sat on a committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Strauss. He and I were Members of another place at the time. The committee was a joint parliamentary committee of both Houses. Members of the committee were drawn from both Houses. That kind of committee rarely occurs. That committee recommended, on an almost unanimous basis, the abolition of the pre-censorship which used to exist for plays in the theatre. The occasion when that was decided was rather remarkable as the Lord Great Chamberlain who exercised the censorship was so fed up with it that he recommended his own abolition. That fact probably led to the unanimous vote in favour of abolition. However, it occurs to me that a joint parliamentary committee drawn from both Houses could be a good vehicle for examining this matter. Senior members of the committee could be drawn from this House while less senior members could be drawn from another place. In that way a fresh examination could be made of the subject. I put that idea forward as a possibility.
In my more skittish moments I sometimes think it is a great pity that our local government arrangements do not provide for senates all over the country. Perhaps Labour's constitutional proposals should revive the alderperson and second chambers, with limited powers in all municipalities, counties and regions. I believe that that measure would provide the same kind of facility as exists in our own Chamber.

289
The House of Lords is the country's finest geriatric institution, as it provides a useful occupation for those who are too old to survive the rigours of the House of Commons. Above all, it provides the great essential which no other institution does—that is, the illusion, and sometimes even the actuality, of usefulness. That function is not often available to people of the age that some of us have already attained. That possibly counts, at least in part, for the longevity which is a fortunate characteristic of Members of this House. I had better not insist on that point as I might become self-congratulatory. I fear that is one of the less fortunate characteristics of this Chamber.
Inmates of this establishment do not live in it. It is available only to a small minority of the population. However, perhaps it can teach us that older people do not really want to retire or to be put on the shelf. They want to be translated into a sphere where they can be usefully and gainfully occupied within their declining range and according to their abilities. We have not approached that concept. The kind of committee I have in mind would take that larger view, as well as a democratic view, of what kind of lives people of declining years wish to live. Do people really look forward to retirement? In some cases they do. Those of us in this Chamber who live relatively pleasant lives are rather inclined to ignore the fact that perhaps the majority of jobs—I may be exaggerating—in an industrial society are unpleasant and are jobs that people are glad to get rid of.
When people retire they usually want to devote themselves to their hobbies. In many cases people's interests derive not from their jobs but from their hobbies. That is not the case with noble Lords, but we are the exceptions. Therefore in many cases people are glad to retire and devote themselves to their hobbies. However, if those hobbies could be conducted in association with other people rather than on a solitary basis that could be a good development.
An inter-departmental committee has been proposed. I agree with my noble friend who opened the debate that such a committee should take a strategic look at the level of pensions held by an increasing number of pensioners among the population. We should consider the level of income that those people receive. The committee should try to adopt a co-ordinated policy and approach and it should attempt to make the most of the contribution that older people can make to society as a valuable resource. The committee should also try to plan ahead for the support and care needs of those who remain dependent on benefits.
Our society is changing. Before long almost half of the population will be in the old age bracket—made up of a combination of young old and the old old. That means that we have to look again at our society. It means inevitably that those who are employed will have to contribute a more substantial part of their income to sustain that section of the population. If we make use of the resources of the old instead of putting them on the shelf they will also be able to contribute.
This has been a useful debate. The Government's reply will perhaps be part of the crux rather than par
290
for the course and we shall be left with the thought that some progress will be made as a result of what we have said here tonight.
8.20 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, there has been an exceptional degree of unanimity both on the value of the debate tonight and in the content of the speeches. That may be because all those who have spoken so far have first-hand knowledge of what it is to be old. I notice that the two speakers who will follow me are comparative juveniles. Their contribution, therefore, may be of a quite different kind.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, although I would not put it as grandly. He said that he wanted a change in the whole system. I do not believe in changing whole systems. The changes rarely happen and to the extent that they do it is usually in a direction which is not desired. However, a change in attitude is undoubtedly the first requirement for achieving anything like the right solution to the problem.
I disagree to some extent with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. We must stop talking about people who are beyond a certain age as if they were all alike. The old: there is no such thing. People below the age of 60 are as varied as they possibly could be. I say 60 because for some extraordinary reason women are supposed to be old at 60 and men at 65, although we go on and on in a way that our male counterparts do not. It always seems rather queer that we should be regarded as old earlier than they are when we are so much better at sustaining old age. It is the diversity of people in every age group which is important. That diversity continues from the cradle to the grave. Therefore, if we stopped talking about "the old" that would be a very good start.
I should like to have one more crack at that horrible expression "senior citizen". At a pinch I will accept being called an old women—there is a certain validity in that —but I am damned if I will be called a senior citizen, if noble Lords will forgive the unparliamentary language.
Having said that, there are two or three major points that I should like to make. Among people who are older there are a proportion who are in need of help. It may be financial help or physical help. That does not apply only to older people; some young people may be in need of far more help than any of us who are older require. We need to consider those who need help and what can best be done for them.
I should like to make two points about those who are genuinely in need of help. Will the Government get on with the proper organisation of community care? I shall not embark on a long speech on that subject. I have made all too many, all too fruitlessly, in your Lordships' House in the past. We know that 6 million people are providing informal care. With the demographic changes, there will be a need for more rather than less care and that will cost money. It is now accepted that good community care will not be cheaper than institutional care. It will be more

291
expensive. But it needs to be properly organised. The delay in implementing the plans for community care has been disastrous and deeply disappointing.
The second point concerns money. The question of finance for old people is a very complex one. At present 80 per cent. of the people over pensionable age are 80 per cent. dependent on their basic pension. If you are dependent for 80 per cent. of your income on your state pension you are very hard up indeed. A considerable proportion of those people have nothing but their state pension. Mercifully that percentage is falling all the time because of the increase in occupational pensions, but a great many of the people today who have something over and above the state pension have very little more than the state pension.
My party has put forward a proposal which I should like the Government to consider very seriously. It is probably too late for this Budget but the Government are always renewing social security regulations and this could form the basis of another one. The basic state pension should be exempt from taxation. That would mean that the people who have a little income in addition to the state pension would not have to pay tax on that very small amount above the state pension. There could be an adjustment higher up the scale in order for the measure to be neutral in terms of the cost to the Exchequer.
There are an increasing number of people who have a little more than the state pension but they are still in a very poor financial position. For that amount to be diminished by tax is very hard indeed. If that money were free of tax it would make a great deal of difference.
The financial position of old people who are in need and the need for care are two very important areas which should be considered. However, there are increasing numbers of people above retirement age who are not in need. Some of them will be very nicely off indeed. The people who will have the good fortune to inherit property in London, for example, from parents or maiden aunts and who already have accommodation elsewhere will be very nicely off indeed, especially if there are only one or two of them in the family and they receive the full value. Some of those people will want to go on working and some will not.
A very interesting study by the Institute of Personnel Management has shown the attitudes of people with such expectations towards retirement and the type of financial support that they want. That needs to be considered very carefully. On the one hand, as many speakers have said, as people get older they do not want to work full-time up to retirement and then suddenly stop and do nothing. Flexibility is the key to dealing with retirement and continuing employment.
It is clear from the Institute of Personnel Management survey that a very large number of people who know that they will be relatively financially secure, with occupational pensions on the one hand and inherited property on the other, want
292
the opportunity to move into part-time employment—perhaps two kinds of part-time employment or a mixture of part-time employment and voluntary work— and they may want to be able to carry on almost indefinitely.
I see that kind of pattern emerging in the future and it should be encouraged. We need these people. It is not just nice for them to have the opportunity to work. Particularly if they are people with skills, competences or knowledge, we need them. This country is short of people with competences, knowledge and skills. We want to keep them to produce the wealth of the country for as long as possible.
All the studies that have been carried out and everything that has been said tonight bring out the point that we must get rid of the rigidity that has characterised our approach towards the problems of retirement and old age in the past and recognise the infinite variety of people and people's needs. That is characterised, if it can be characterised, by one word: flexibility. There is a need for great flexibility in approach and flexibility of opportunity for people in that group.
Those are the points that I want to contribute to the debate. In dealing with the question of people moving into retirement age the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said that we want an inter-departmental committee to look into the matter. I come down very strongly indeed on the side of those who say that we need a total, thorough professional inquiry but not an interdepartmental committee. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, with his Bedford College background, I with my LSE background and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, with his experience of working with Lord Beveridge, realise the tremendous difference between an inter-departmental committee and a commission or inquiry headed by someone such as Lord Beveridge, with people who are professionals or experts who spend their lives doing such studies and have the objectivity and diversity of knowledge which they can bring to bear on the problem.
I take this opportunity to say that I am deeply suspicious of the Green Papers that we receive in comparison with the papers that we used to get from Royal Commissions. On a Royal Commission people are nominated because of their professional reputations and their diverse knowledge and points of view. They have reputations to lose. They publish over their own names. They call people who are experts and they know whom to call. Those witnesses give verbal and written evidence over their own names and they too have reputations to lose. Therefore, one can obtain objective advice. With Green Papers we do not know who has written them or their qualifications. We know that they have been pulled out of the Civil Service. Inevitably the Civil Service is involved in the problems of day-to-day administration. I do not believe that people who are involved in the problems of day-to-day administration can be objective enough or professional enough to stand back and look at the problems involved in an issue of this kind. I beg your Lordships to consider a Royal Commission type of inquiry and not have an inter-departmental committee.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence to speak in this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is quite correct. With the exception of the Minister, who has, one might say, arrived here by the fast track route, a quick reference to Dod reveals that I am the youngest participant in the debate by some years. I listened with very great interest to a group of people who I quite sincerely believe are my elders and betters.
The House will want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for drawing its attention to what is perhaps the most serious problem in social policy that will face us over the next 20 years. The numbers involved are well known and have already been mentioned. We have a population which is ageing rapidly, with all that that means for health, social security and pensions, as well as for the relationship between the working and retired population.
It is natural to see the problem primarily in terms of economics, to over-simplify the problem by seeing the numbers in work being unable to support the retired population at a proper level of retirement income. That may be wrong. Although we know the numbers, none of us knows how the situation will develop. We have an inventive and resilient society. I should not be at all surprised to find that we can accommodate the problem without enormous difficulty. It has been pointed out that in the 20 years from 1961 to 1981 the population over 65 years increased by one third. We managed to accommodate that change without great difficulty. In the next 16 years the projected growth in the numbers over 65 is 8 per cent. and not one third.
There are a number of issues that we must examine in formulating policy. There is the possibility of having a decade of retirement instead of fixed retirement ages. That is an idea which has been floated as part of Labour Party policy. One may consider the deliberate recruitment of older people as the supply of younger people reduces or the implementation of different work patterns—a point that was brought out by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and my noble friend Lord Pitt. We all agree that there is need for a proper strategic overview of the problem, perhaps with an inter-departmental initiative, as mentioned in my noble friend's Question, perhaps through some more direct departmental response or—the route that seems to find the most favour—the demographic inquiry mentioned by a number of noble Lords.
That is the broad sweep of policy. I make no apology for moving now from the long-term strategic problem to a most immediate and practical problem. In fact I told the Minister that I would raise this matter. It is a very simple question which has an immediate and practical relevance for many old people today. What is the Government's policy on cold weather payments? That is a highly relevant question this week, which is borne out by the alarming statistics that were quoted by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor. We became used to the previous Prime Minister making her policy on the hoof without attempting to inform her Cabinet colleagues of it. It appears that the habit is catching. On Monday this
294
week, Mr. Nicholas Scott, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, said in another place that the changes that had been made were only for that week and as from now the normal rules would apply. On Tuesday during Question Time the Prime Minister said:
"Given the continuation of severe weather since then, we shall once again be waiving the seven-day period".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/2/91; col. 728.]
That is welcome. However, will the Minister tell the House exactly what is the Government's policy on cold weather payments—or perhaps I should ask: what is the Government's policy today? Do we revert to the previous system once there is a thaw? What happens if we have only six days of cold weather instead of seven? I understand that a number of old people are not only very cold but are also certainly very confused at the moment.
Noble Lords may ask what this has to do with the Question on the Order Paper that we are discussing. I have introduced this deliberately as an exact example of the sort of problem that we shall increasingly face in the future as the number of old people rises. Will the Minister confirm that the only pensioners who are eligible for cold weather payments are those on income support with savings of less than £1,000? How many pensioners are eligible?
We are all aware that some pensioners have income problems. Fifty-eight per cent. of pensioners derive three-quarters of their income from social security benefits. We have a pension system, both public and private, which tends to mirror many of the inequalities in society, with tax reliefs that are carefully designed to ensure that the richest receive the most. It is interesting to speculate just how much we spend in total on pensions and how that sum is arrived at. There are the contributions to private pension schemes from both employer and employee and the tax reliefs on those contributions, the amount expended to provide the state pension, the cost of index-linking pensions in the public sector, the cost of the inducement to leave SERPS, and so on. If all those resources were put, together as a global figure and used to fund a pay-as-you-go pension on a fairly equal basis to all those of retirement age, the pension per head would be a very generous figure indeed.
However, as we know, our pension policy is skewed. A chairman of a public company retires with a pension of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Others are entirely reliant on the state pension and social security benefits. I refer to the self-employed. I have had a letter from my accountant only this week which advises me of the amount that I have to put into a pension plan before 5th April to ensure that my tax bill is kept to the very minimum.
The pension policy is skewed but it has considerable relevance to the matters that we are discussing. Time does not allow a full examination of the problem in depth. There are considerable implications with regard to health, social security, housing and transport policies. There is also the possibility of a backlash, which I believe is already occurring in America. The younger generation—

295
which for all of us is defined as everyone younger than we are—is reacting adversely and vigorously to ageism. It is beginning to refer to the burden that the aged place on the working generation, implying that older people should have looked after themselves by buying enough pension provision when they were working so that the present working generation would not have to pay so much in taxation to provide pensions.
Some interesting work indicates that there is such a backlash in America and in some European countries. Occasionally similar arguments have been put forward in this country. They tend to ignore the fact that for most of our pensioners there was no opportunity to build up substantial pension rights.
It is a very big subject and one to which we shall have to return many times in the future, with its implications for our social policy. We thank my noble friend Lord Stallard for giving us the chance to debate it this evening.
8.41 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that this is a very big subject. I join with the noble Lord in feeling some trepidation in speaking in this debate of veritable Nestors. My calculations seem to indicate that the ages of the noble Lord and myself added together only scarcely exceed that of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton.
This is a very important subject. The debate instituted by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has been a very useful contribution to the issue that an increasingly elderly population—which we have to accept there will be—might create problems or opportunities for both society and individuals.
I agree with virtually everyone who spoke that we should not see the more elderly as a burden on society. The contributions that this House makes to parliamentary life and parliamentary democracy are a proper example of the contributions that many people older than myself can make to society.
The noble Lord asked what departmental discussions have taken place about the demographic trend. He asked for a departmental committee to be set up to consider the problem. The noble Lord hoped to convince me of the need for that committee. I am glad that I received some support from the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who seemed to consider that a departmental committee was the wrong way forward. The noble Baroness and her noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, asked for a Royal Commission, or some similar body to consider the issue. I would be fairly cynical about the idea of a Royal Commission. It might look as though the matter was being shelved. I have a sneaking suspicion that all of us, even myself, might be dead before the Royal Commission reported.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, also suggested that a joint parliamentary committee, in particular drawing on the experience of this House, might be the
296
way forward. That is not a matter for me to answer. It must be a matter for the authorities in both Houses as to whether they wish to take on board such a parliamentary committee.
I return to the subject of an interdepartmental ministerial committee. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, will no doubt be aware that in 1989 three Members of another place, from all three parties—Andrew Bowden, George Foulkes and Archy Kirkwood—wrote to my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister suggesting the setting up of an interdepartmental committee on ageing. I quote an extract from my right honourable friend's reply in 1989 since it sums up well the Government's current position. My right honourable friend said:
"I am still not convinced that such a group would provide the best mechanism to ensure that the needs of the elderly are met … I remain … sceptical of the value of what is in effect a standing "co-ordination" committee—whether of Ministers or officials. Such committees … have to be serviced by a secretariat; that would create an extra layer of bureaucracy and more paperwork. In short, I suspect that such a committee would create far more work than would justify its existence".
Last year, the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, asked whether an inter-departmental ministerial committee should be set up to look at these aspects. I undertook to look again at the idea. Having considered the point, my ministerial colleagues and I still do not think that this will take the Government any further forward.
I stress what I stressed earlier—that we should not see the elderly as a problem. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, also said that. I agree with my noble friend Lady Park that the elderly are an asset. We remain of the opinion that the needs of the elderly, which are common to people of all ages, cover the range of government activities. Consequently, official contacts are made daily between all departments. It is of course essential that Ministers and officials discuss specific issues that span departmental responsibilities. That happens on a number of issues affecting elderly people whenever it is sensible to do so. However, that does not necessarily mean that an inter-departmental ministerial committee would necessarily add anything.
I provide a couple of recent examples of inter-departmental consultation on policies which are designed to take account of growing numbers of elderly people.
Recently, the European Commission put forward a proposal for a decision on Community actions for the elderly, inlcuding a recommendation to designate 1993 as the European year of the elderly and solidarity between generations. The Commission has in view a three-year action programme aimed at helping to integrate elderly people into the economic and social life of the Community countries. Each member state will take action appropriate to its own circumstances, but will be assisted by an exchange of information at Community level.
The Government will be deciding this year on the activities and priorities that they wish to be included. This will inevitably involve interdepartmental contact and discussions between the Department of Health—which is taking the lead in this matter—the Department of Social Security (which I have the

297
honour to represent), and the Department of Employment, as well as others, where appropriate. We hope to work closely with Age Concern, which as many noble Lords know, plays a very active role in community affairs to make the action programme a success.
Another example of recent pan-departmental co-operation arises in the area of community care which, as everyone will agree, affects the elderly as much as any other group in society. The House will be aware that the Government remain fully committed to carrying through the plans for community care. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that we are fully committed to carrying through those plans. I agree with the noble Baroness that now is not the time to discuss them in detail. However, I give her that assurance. Obviously, because of those plans, officials in both the Department of Social Security (which I represent), the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment have met to discuss the various issues involved and take forward the timetable of the introduction of various plans.
I now wish to deal with some of the more general issues raised during the debate. As was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, this is a wide subject and I do not intend to cover all the issues. However, it is right that I should deal with some of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked me to state the Government's position on cold weather payments. On 7th February my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced that payments would be increased from £5 to £6 for every period of cold weather occurring after 1st February 1991. He also announced that the whole of the United Kingdom would be deemed to have triggered the periods 1st to 7th February 1991 and 8th to 14th February 1991. Our primary concern has been to ensure that the most vulnerable groups in society keep their heating on during the cold spell which has hit the whole country. My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People has also announced that he will continue to monitor the present cold spell and the operation of the scheme once the winter is over.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, then turned to the number of people who benefit from cold weather payments. He rightly said that the payments are available only to those who are in receipt of income support. It is worth noting the reduction in the number of pensioners in receipt of income support. Now barely one seventh of all pensioners are in receipt of income support compared with 12 years ago, when one fifth of all pensioners were in receipt of supplementary benefit. The position is that the payments are available to those pensioners now in receipt of income support and whose capital is less than £1,000. Last year that figure was raised from £500. It is estimated that 1.25 million pensioners are eligible for cold weather payments; that is 78 per cent. of the pensioner-income support caseload.
I wish to comment on the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, about excess winter
298
morbidity. There has been a steady decrease in winter morbidity during the past 35 years. From 1951 to 1955 it was 68 per cent. but from 1986 to 1939 it was 24 per cent. Medically speaking the causes of the increase in morbidity—mortality—are extremely complex. In order to increase our understanding the Department of Health has asked the Medical Research Council to investigate winter morbidity. The project will look at seasonal variations in relation to a number of factors, including diet, smoking and so forth. The project began in January 1990 and will take two years. I do not necessarily accept the international comparisons put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor. One must remember the different climates in different countries. The mere fact that other countries are much colder need not necessarily lead them to have a higher morbidity rate in the winter, because the traditions of a colder climate can lead to their being better able to deal with such conditions.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, the countries were chosen in order to provide a grouping of winter and summer temperatures above and below our own. They were taken over a period of years long enough to smooth out variations of temperature from year to year.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord has not quite grasped the point that I was making. Our climate is different from that of many Continental countries. While their climate is more extreme, ours is milder and wetter. I was expressing cynicism about whether, however careful one is, one can obtain a true comparison between the figures. No doubt it is a matter for research, and the Department of Health is investigating morbidity in winter.
I turn to the subject of employment and the elderly raised by various noble Lords, in particular by my noble friend Lady Park. It is often referred to as ageism in employment. For some time Ministers in the Department of Employment have urged employers to abandon arbitrary age limits in recruitment. Only last month my noble friend Lord Ullswater launched the Institute of Personnel Management's new statement on age and employment. It is designed to help employers to avoid such arbitrary criteria. We believe that, in general, retirement ages must be agreed between employer and employee according to their individual needs, priorities and circumstances. Obviously the position of the Government as employer is important and we believe that we are setting a good example. In 1990 the last centrally imposed age limit on recruitment to service by grades was abolished.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the limits may have been abolished, but what has been the practical effect? From experience one knows only too well that such changes can be made, but internal forces leave the practices of yesteryear to continue for a long time. Has there been any evidence of recruiting older people and, if so, to what extent?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Baroness off the cuff from the Dispatch Box. It is a matter of attitude. The Government are hoping to set a good example and it is hoped that others will follow.

299
One also hopes that the publicity of a debate such as this, with contributions from the noble Baroness and other noble Lords, will have an effect on employers throughout the country.
We are all agreed that what is needed is a fundamental re-evaluation of the role of the elderly in our society. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has chaired meetings of the all-party group on ageing at which many important aspects of the topic were covered. I am pleased to say that he invited my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to attend a meeting. My right honourable friend discussed a number of issues with the group and he found its first annual report of great interest. The group has already considered the useful role of older people in the labour market of the 1990s when then and into the next century there will be fewer people available for work.
300
A key factor for the next century will be the extent to which employers are prepared to recognise the contribution which older workers can make to their firms and indirectly to the economy as a whole. Again, such an attitudinal response will pay dividends only if it is accompanied by positive, practical measure such as ensuring sufficiently flexible working conditions.
I hope that I have been able to show that the Government are fully aware of the role that they must play in bringing about this transformation. Indeed, we have sought to change institutions and policies in line with the needs and aspirations of those we serve. I suspect that the noble Lord and I might agree on the methods by which we may seek to do that, in that the noble Lord seeks a ministerial committee, and I hope that he will agree that we have the same long-term interests at heart.
House adjourned at one minute before nine o'clock.