Lords Sitting of 11 November 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.

Lyme Disease
Lord Erroll of Hale Lord Erroll of Hale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to arrest the spread of Lyme disease within the United Kingdom.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I should say first that there is no evidence of natural transmission of Lyme disease from person to person. It is acquired by humans from ticks carried by deer, wild rodents and other animals. A leaflet and notices have been prepared to draw the disease to the attention of workers in areas where it is prevalent.
Lord Erroll: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he agree that the tick can be carried by dogs as well as by deer? Although the disease is not widespread at the moment, will he consider the preparation now of contingency plans to deal with the spread of the disease should the need arise?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the disease can be carried by ticks on dogs, although a dog could not give the disease to a human. As regards my noble friend's second question about a contingency plan, the Public Health Laboratory Service keeps the disease under very close review and can always be called upon for help and advice on any communicable disease. However, at present there is no evidence of an increase in the disease among the population of this country.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, am I not right in thinking that the parasite which is the vector of the disease has spread to Richmond Park and to other suburban areas near London? What advice have the Government for persons frequenting those places, especially when they go there with their dogs?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is absolutely right. The disease has spread to those areas although it may have been present for centuries. We advise that the presence of the disease should not spoil people's recreational enjoyment of the parks. The advice is not to expose flesh, and to wear long socks and long trousers. If symptoms are noticed one should tell the doctor that one has been in a tick-infested area. If the disease manifests itself, which is not always the case, it is easily treated with antibiotics.
Lord Desai: My Lords, can the Minister give figures on how many people have been affected by the disease? Can he also say what research has been carried out to ensure that it does not become a serious problem?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, my records show that the highest number of reported cases occurred in 1988 when 23 cases were reported. Last year there were 19 cases and in the current year there have been 19 cases to date. I would not expect many new cases this year because the tick feeds only in May and June and again in September and October, although I gather that there are some ticks about. We feel that the current level of research is adequate.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, what was the outcome in the cases of the people who caught the disease and were treated medically?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, those people who have caught the disease and suffered advanced symptoms have been cured.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what is the disease and what happens to you if you catch it?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, it is a rare disease which is caused by bacteria which can be transmitted to people and animals as the result of a bite from a tick. The name is taken from a place in Connecticut in the United States where a number of cases were discovered. It has probably been present in this country for a very long time. The symptoms are those normally associated with flu. There can be complications which involve arthritis, slight paralysis and cardiac problems.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord has engaged the interest of the House. He referred to areas where the disease is prevalent. Interestingly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, referred to one of those, which is in the London area. Can the noble Lord say where the disease is prevalent, apart from parks in this city?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, there are very few cases, although the figures I gave could be an underestimate because many people may have the disease without developing symptoms. There is a tick in this country called Ixodes ricinus. Wherever it is present and there are rodents the disease could exist. I should point out that if one is bitten by a tick the tick should be removed quickly because infection is unlikely to occur in less than two hours. Therefore vigilance when having a bath is sensible.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many of the cases reported in this country were late effect cases which were not treated immediately the person was infected with the disease? I ask that because the symptoms can take some time to develop and may not appear until 10 years after a person has been infected by the tick. In such cases the effects can be very much more serious and include arthritis and neurological symptoms.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the more serious effects are invariably the later effects. Most people would not notice that they had had the disease and perhaps would have thought that they had a mild form of flu. I was not aware that the effects could be apparent for up to 10 years. A feature of the disease is

401
that it is detectable through the antibody that goes for the bacteria rather than through the presence of the bacteria itself.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, will the noble Lord ensure that instructions are issued on how to remove ticks? Those of us who have encountered ticks in our previous careers are aware that there are difficulties and that it is quite a serious problem.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I understand that advice has been given and that the important point is not to pull the tick out too quickly, leaving the mouth behind.

No. 2 Marsham Street
2.44 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for the future of No. 2 Marsham Street.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, No. 2 Marsham Street is in need of major repair. Arup Associates were commissioned by the Department of the Environment to produce a study identifying a range of options for the future of the Marsham Street site. That study was completed earlier this year and the logistical and financial aspects of its options are now being evaluated. A decision on the future of the site will be announced once that evaluation is complete.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am moderately grateful to my noble friend for her reply, but will she urge upon her colleagues the desirability of resisting the temptation to spend a great deal of money on repairing that graceless and hideous building?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall take back that message from my noble friend with some enthusiasm. He is knocking at an open door when he implores me to join him in his description of the building at No. 2 Marsham Street.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it correct, as was reported, that the Secretary of State wanted to go to Docklands and that that proposal was resisted by, for want of a better phrase, the "Yes, Minister" attitude of the Civil Service? Will my noble friend bear in mind that office space in London is now cheaper than it has ever been because there is a vast glut and renting that space would be much cheaper than restoring the abomination in Marsham Street?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not able to confirm that that view was taken by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State because the evaluation is not yet complete. If relocation in London should become necessary, it will feature as part of the evaluation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the ideal use for the site would be
402
as an urban park and adventure playground? Is she deterred from that ideal view by the fact that the site is above the regional seat of government?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as regards what was originally on the site, if we then had the listing procedure that we have now, we would see on that site the first of the public gasworks, which was built in 1813, and I suspect that my department would not allow the demolition of the first public gasworks. However, if it were ever to be demolished, whatever takes its place on the site must be the outcome of the evaluation.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that a public gasworks is rather a good description of No. 2 Marsham Street?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I suppose that it is no understatement to say that there is not a great deal to choose between them.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, will my noble friend encourage her right honourable friend the Secretary of State to look at No. 2 Marsham Street in a rather wider context and perhaps produce a plan for enhancing the beauty of London by removing as many of the post-war eyesores as possible, of which No. 2 Marsham Street should clearly be high on the list?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. It is not just a case of the future of the building, nor of the future of government demand for offices. What should be done aesthetically for this part of London will feature as part of the appraisal.

British Exports: Incidents in France
2.48 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many attacks have been made in the past year on consignments of British exports in France, what was the total damage inflicted, and whether full compensation has been paid.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, since 6th November 1990 there have been eight reported incidents involving consignments of British exports of meat and livestock into France. Four of those attacks resulted in damage estimated at around £100,000 in total. We have not received an assessment of damage in other cases. So far, one claim for compensation has been submitted and this has been paid.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, but is it not nonsense to talk, on the one hand, about economic and trade union and, on the other, about allowing the exports of one country to be mobbed by people in one's own country who find them over-competitive? Have Her Majesty's Government represented this matter to the French Government and pointed out to them that to any gourmet English lamb is infinitely preferable to French lamb?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the Government thoroughly deplore incidents in France involving attacks on imported lamb, beef and live sheep. We have taken every opportunity to make our views known to the French authorities. We are determined that everything possible should be done to ensure the safety of British drivers, livestock and vehicles and we shall continue to press this point with the French authorities. We have made it clear to them that a fundamental principle of EC freedom of trade is at issue.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the estimate which the noble Earl has given to the House based upon claims submitted by the farmers and hauliers concerned or is it a conjectural figure which has been arrived at by the Government themselves? On the assumption, which on the face of it seems to be established, that those claims have any validity, will the Government give the farmers, the hauliers and all concerned in the United Kingdom the utmost assistance in pursuing repayment to them of the sums involved, with interest?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, as for the noble Lord's first point, I understand that the figure of £100,000 that I gave in my original Answer is not conjectural. The French Government have given assurances on several occasions that compensation for losses arising as a direct result of incidents will be paid. Indeed, the French Prime Minister gave precisely that commitment to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in September. Those wishing to make claims should contact officials in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether the French authorities have prosecuted the offenders and, if so, in how many cases?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, we understand that four people involved in an incident in Bourges have been prosecuted. They have received fines and suspended prison sentences.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether in respect of the claim paid and the claims pending regard has been paid to the position of the drivers of those vehicles? In particular, where injury has been suffered, has it been included in the compensation claim? Where stress has also been involved, will that too be taken into account?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, there are at present no cases in which an individual driver is applying for compensation for physical injury. The attacks have been aimed only at livestock. However, in the event of any incident, the driver should report any problems to the local prefecture and local 13ritish consulate. Any subsequent claim for compensation should be directed, as I said, to the Ministry.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the French Government have given any indication of action taken by them to prevent repetition of such attacks?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I can only repeat what I said in an earlier answer; namely, that the French Prime Minister gave a specific assurance to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.

Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
2.53 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate for Northern Ireland certain enactments relating to the administration of social security and related matters, with corrections and minor improvements under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate for Northern Ireland certain enactments relating to social security contributions and benefits, with corrections and minor improvements under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Social Security (Consequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for repeals, consequential amendments, transitional and transitory matters and savings in connection with the consolidation of enactments in the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1991 and the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1991, with corrections and minor improvements under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Standing Orders (Public Business)
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, in moving the first Motion standing in my name concerning Standing Orders (Public Business), I should like also to speak to the second Motion concerning the Offices Committee.
Noble Lords will recall that in the last Session the House agreed to the second report of the Offices Committee which reorganised the committee itself and reduced the numbers from 55 to a maximum of 30, with four new technical sub-committees. In future, one of those sub-committees will deal with the work of the Leave of Absence and Lords' Expenses Committee and therefore Standing Order 62 is no longer apposite.
I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the standing orders relating to public business be amended as follows:

Standing Order 62
Leave out the following:
"Leave of Absence and Lords' Expenses Committee".—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the House of Lords' Offices be appointed; and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee—

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Ampthill, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Bottomley, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Dainton, L.

Denham, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Elton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Gibson, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Hampton, L.

Hesketh, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Kimball, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Seccombe, B.

Serota, B.

Tordoff, L.

Waddington, L. (L. Privy Seal)

406

Williams of Elvel, L.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Broadcasting: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on broadcasting be appointed; and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee—

Aylestone, L.

Davidson, V.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Phillips, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Teviot, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place and to report from time to time;
That two be the quorum of the committee;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Committee Work of the House: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be named of the Select Committee appointed to consider the committee work of the House—

Bancroft, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Jellicoe, E. (Chairman)

Kearton, L.

Pym, L.

Thurlow, L.

Tordoff, L.

That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee from time to time be printed and if the committee thinks fit delivered out;
That the proceedings of the Select Committee on the committee work of the House in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the committee;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee do meet on Tuesday, 12th November at 3.30 p.m. in Committee Room 4.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Energy and the Environment: ECC Report
2.56 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Energy and the Environment (13th Report, Session 1990–91, H.L. Paper 62).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving that the House takes note of the Report on Energy and the Environment, I wish to declare an interest as I am chairman of a group of companies concerned with the distribution and usage of energy. I have in fact been continuously involved in the energy sector since 1947.
This report is the result of a five-month study by Sub-Committee B. Four documents were under scrutiny: a Commission discussion paper on Energy and the Environment, from which the report derives its title; a proposal for a SAVE programme (SAVE stands for Specific. Actions for Vigorous Energy Efficiency) on which the inquiry concentrated; and two specific directives on energy requirements for hot water boilers and for a labelling scheme on the energy consumption of household appliances. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the many witnesses who gave evidence to our committee. I also thank our specialist adviser, Professor Ian Fells, Professor of Energy Conversion at the University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, for his valuable assistance, and our clerk, Mr. Edward Wells, for his effective organisation of our work and the preparation of drafts.
In its communication, the Commission claims that:
"issues of energy and environment policy have become inextricably linked".
Energy efficiency is identified as:
"perhaps the single most influential aspect of energy policy".
That viewpoint is also contained within the Government's environmental strategy document which was issued last year, known as This Common Inheritance, and this debate coincides with a major publicity campaign just launched by the Government emphasising the importance of increased energy efficiency in the face of the threat of global warming. Today's debate is therefore very timely.
The SAVE programme includes a series of directives to be introduced over the next two years as part of a five-year programme to help the Community achieve its stated objective of a 20 per cent. improvement in energy intensity (the ratio of energy consumption to GDP) by 1995-so a 20 per cent. saving by the year 1995. The committee gathered evidence, from a wide range of individuals and organisations with experience in this field. They were particularly impressed by witnesses from the Danish energy ministry, which has a first-rate record on energy efficiency and has invested a great deal in developing such techniques as combined heat and power or co-generation schemes which are efficient in
408
both demand and supply. The evidence that the committee received focused largely on demand-side measures. However, I emphasise that there is still an important contribution to be made by improvements in efficiency of supply.
The committee was invited to visit the Electricity Research and Development Centre at Gapenhurst and wishes to thank its hosts for their hospitality and for the opportunity to see some of the innovative work carried out.
The report includes a prediction by the World Energy Council that energy demand will double by the year 2020 and treble by the year 2030 even after taking account of a significant element of energy efficiency. Recent events in the Middle East have demonstrated the importance of protecting the security of future supplies. Although the rapidly expanding economies of the developing world will make an increasing contribution, the figures show that the industrialised OECD countries dominate world production of carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas. It is right then that the member states of the European Community should take this initiative to promote energy efficiency which has the leading role to play in the medium term to cut such emissions. Witnesses claimed that there is now an environmental imperative to save energy. The committee agrees.
Without further action, the Community will fall well short of its efficiency targets. The United Kingdom is committed to stabilising its CO2, emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2005. By contrast the Dutch aim is to reach this target by 1995. Therefore we are lagging a little behind some of our European partners.
Between 1982 and 1988 Britain's record on reducing energy intensity was ahead of the Community average, but much of the improvement was due to the contraction of energy intensive industry. The market for energy-saving equipment has suffered a recent serious and dramatic decline. For example, companies selling double glazing, heating controls and cavity wall insulation have not enjoyed a single quarter's upturn for a number of years. The recession explains some of that decline. But perhaps of greater significance are the relatively low energy prices in real terms. There is also evidence of a short-term approach to energy saving investments which inhibits long-term investment for that purpose.
It soon became clear to the committee that, in terms of final energy consumption, buildings and transport are the two largest areas in which savings can be made. Because of time constraints we did not examine the transport sector, but considerable savings can clearly be made there. The witnesses said that the retrofitting of existing buildings—improving insulation standards for buildings—offered one of the greatest potentials for savings. We were told that about 5 million homes in Britain have little or no insulation. While it is estimated that some 90 per cent. of homes now have loft insulation, much of it is inadequate by present day standards.
Building regulations, which have been tightened recently, are of limited significance since new building in Britain represents less than 1 per cent. of total

409
building stock, and the regulations are still below those of other European countries. Indeed, in Britain we are only now reaching standards achieved in Sweden in the 1930s.
Many on low incomes are most vulnerable to fuel poverty and do not possess the necessary capital to invest in efficiency. They are more likely to rely on electric heating, which tends to have a lower capital cost than gas but which costs more to run. The Government's home energy efficiency scheme, recently transferred to the Energy Efficiency Office, is designed to help such people. Its current budget of £27 million has been increased to £40 million for 1992–93 and we are told that there will be further increases in the following two years. Those increases will allow 250,000 homes to be insulated next year compared with 200,000 at present. I am very interested in that effort as I am connected with an organisation known as Neighbourhood Energy Action which carries out that insulation. I am glad to say that other Members of your Lordships' House, including the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, are also involved. That increased effort is much to be welcomed, especially since the committee was concerned that the Government appeared to be cutting the overall budget of the Energy Efficiency Office.
One way of stimulating energy efficiency in existing homes would be by a system of energy rating or certification. That is widely practised in Denmark. We understand that there are two systems under consideration in Britain. The committee considered it important that a single system should soon emerge and be applied. The Government have said that they will consider,
"any EC proposals for home energy certification when they are made".
It therefore looks as though such a system is a practicable possibility.
Much of the Government's efforts to date have been directed towards removing the barriers to the market in energy saving. The increased resources put into the home energy efficiency scheme represent a more positive measure. More such measures are required. We were told by the overwhelming majority of our witnesses that market forces alone would not produce a level of saving sufficient to meet the agreed objectives. The Community's SAVE programme proposes three categories of positive action: technical measures, financial measures and measures to influence consumer behaviour. We agree that all three are needed. Much of the responsibility for energy saving rests with individual consumers. The advertising campaign launched on 6th November demonstrates that the Government are now making a major effort to get the message across. However, people still do not sufficiently recognise the link between protecting the environment and energy efficiency.
More also needs to be done by the energy supply industries to stimulate energy saving. The committee was concerned that the way in which the gas and electricity industries were privatised did not enable the
410
concept of least cost planning, which is extensively practised in the United States, to be applied in this country. However, there is some evidence that the energy supply enterprises are beginning to provide a better service to consumers on energy saving. The electricity companies are introducing on a voluntary basis labelling schemes for the white goods that they sell; and British Gas now labels its appliances. The controversial boilers directive has now been amended to take account of the unusual nature of the United Kingdom domestic heating market, and that should make a significant contribution to improved efficiency.
The committee also took evidence on combined heat and power. The Government have said that that technology has an extremely promising future. They expect CHP use to double by the year 2000. However, that will still mean that only 6 per cent. of total generated capacity is derived from that technique compared with, for example, 38 per cent. in Denmark which arguably leads the world in that technology. The Committee would like to see very much more effort put into this area. I wish to refer to an issue currently with the Secretary of State for Energy which could have a major impact on the future development of CHP generation. It concerns the way in which charges for on-site generation will be fixed in relation to the electricity pool. It is a complex issue but if the charges are fixed too high, an undue burden could be imposed on CHP generators.
The committee was also told about the potential for third-party financing or contract energy management especially in the public sector. This can help investment by reducing the risk element. In their response to our report the Government say that Treasury approval is still required for all such investment in the public sector of more than £250,000. We would welcome an assurance that the Treasury will not seek to obstruct future schemes, even if they exceed the proposed level. Such schemes can offer great advantages to hospitals, schools and other public buildings.
We understand that the Commission has recently put forward proposals for an energy tax as part of its strategy for limiting carbon dioxide emissions. In our report we rejected the introduction of such a tax as a blunt instrument which would hit all consumers indiscriminately. That is the case whether those consumers are intensive energy users, such as the chemical and steel industries, or people receiving low incomes. The committee will wish to look carefully at any such proposals once they are formally submitted. It will favour a more specific use of fiscal measures; for example, the removal of VAT from energy-saving equipment and materials on a Community-wide basis to remove the anomaly which exists whereby energy efficiency is taxed and energy consumption is zero-rated. We are aware that the sixth VAT directive restricts additional zero-rating but we believe that the environmental imperative, which the Commission fully supports, demands such action. Another fiscal measure that we would support would be special depreciation allowances for capital investment in energy-saving plant applying in particular to industry.
I believe that we can reach four broad conclusions as a result of our report. First, there is undoubtedly an energy efficiency gap—certainly of the order of 20 per cent. and probably considerably more. Secondly, it is now increasingly urgent that this gap should be closed. Energy saving was previously an option. With the risk of global warming it has become an imperative. Thirdly, market pressures can go only part of the way to close the gap. They will need to be buttressed by measures of a fiscal and regulatory nature. Fourthly, the main effort will need to be undertaken at national level. But because of the international implications of much in the energy sector and with the advent of the single market there will also be a major role for the European Community. The SAVE programme, which is the subject of this report, describes that role and is generally to he welcomed. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Energy and the Environment (13th Report, Session 1990–91, H.L. Paper 62).—(Lord Ezra).
3.14 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I imagine that the reason why I have been given so prominent a position in the list of speakers is that I am not a member of the committee. Therefore, perhaps I may be the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the commit tee on a valuable, thorough and workmanlike report.
The report arises as a result of the environmental imperative. However, that ought not to blind us to the enormous economic advantages of efficiency in the production and use of energy as regards efficiency in the industry, the reduction in investment required to support the production of energy and not least in reducing the world dependence on Middle Eastern sources of oil. I hope that concentration on environmental issues, the importance of which I do not deprecate in any sense does not lead us to overlook those other matters.
There is a particular point on which I part company with the noble Lord and the committee. I am sceptical about fiscal incentives. It is one thing to remove fiscal barriers but all experience shows that the moment that one introduces fiscal incentives, one incentive leads to another. Finally, one has a tax system which is encumbered by large numbers of incentives, tax havens, special provisions and so forth. The net result is a much higher nominal rate of tax than would otherwise be necessary. The experience of the 1980s has moved in the opposite direction; namely, removing incentives, tax shelters and other special provisions in order to bring down the overall rate of taxation.
The issue to which I wish to refer in particular was lightly touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra; it is the Commission's recent proposal for an energy tax. Perhaps it is unfortunate that the report deals primarily with a communication from the Commission to the council in 1989. The report of the committee is dated June 1991 and we are now discussing it at the beginning of November.
412
Only a few weeks ago the Commission produced a detailed document on an energy tax in this connection. There has been difficulty in laying one's hands on the document. On Tuesday of last week—appropriately 5th November—my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy asked a Question relating to it. Afterwards he told me that he had not seen the document, and from the nature of the replies given by the Minister I imagine that he had not seen it either. Nevertheless, it is a formidable document amounting to about 50 pages. It is of great importance not least in relation to this report. The conclusion of the communication—which appears to be dated the end of September or early in October, although I cannot quote the date because I have been unable to lay my hands on a copy of the document—is that the measures suggested in the report are insufficient to meet the targets that have been set, in particular on carbon dioxide emissions.
I noted that in the report and in his speech the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, rejected what he described as a carbon tax. The tax now suggested by the Commission—and it is important to point out that its status is only that of a suggestion because no formal proposal has been put forward—is a combined energy-cum-carbon dioxide tax modulated in various ways according to the extent to which one directs the tax to the energy or the carbon content.
The really important point is that in the report the committee dismissed what it described as a carbon tax—I must repeat the point that the tax proposed by the Commission is not a pure carbon tax—on the ground that it would be indiscriminate. The trouble with the proposal now put forward by the Commission in its latest paper is not that it is indiscriminate but, on the contrary, it discriminates very heavily, and in particular it discriminates against coal and industries such as the chemical industry which rely heavily on the consumption of energy. In fact, as I understand the proposals, the effect on the coal industry would be disastrous in terms of prices, relative prices and output.
As no doubt noble Lords are aware, only two member states of the Community now produce coal on a significant scale: the Federal Republic of Germany and the UK. The difference between us is that the Federal Republic heavily subsidises its coal production while we do not. It would be a very unfortunate effect if, as a result of imposing a tax of the kind which is now suggested by the Commission, we find ourselves back to believing that we have to subsidise coal production. That would be absurd.
I mention that point because I believe that it is very urgent that the Select Committee should examine those proposals at the earliest possible date. I am not suggesting that my interpretation of what is put forward is necessarily complete or even accurate, but the proposals raise serious questions which would have an important effect on one of this country's major industries.
Having said that, once again I pay tribute to the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the Select Committee on the papers which were put before them.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Varley: My Lords, I am pleased to have an opportunity to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, because he has raised important points about the so-called carbon tax. I hope to mention those later in my remarks.
I too begin by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for the clear and cogent manner in which he introduced the report and presented it to the House. It has left little to say for the rest of us who were Members of the committee. However, I congratulate him and can testify that his chairmanship was superb and carried out with great skill—skill which I expect having known him for over 25 years.
There is no doubt that governments of both major political parties over the past few years have made a substantial contribution to the better use of energy and its conservation, certainly over the past 17 years. Over the weekend I thought that I would refresh my memory about what the Government said in 1974 about energy conservation. Your Lordships will recall the last three months of 1973 following the Yom Kippur war. The two previous decades of easily obtainable cheap oil was not only drastically restricted but its price was quadrupled. At that time not a drop of our own oil was coming from the North Sea. Seventeen years ago the Department of Energy set up an advisory committee on energy conservation under the distinguished chairmanship of the Cambridge professor, Sir William Hawthorne. The Central Policy Review Staff under the guidance of Lord Rothschild was asked to produce a detailed study and publish a report on energy conservation. The Department of Energy and the advisory council together with the CPRS, all those years ago, produced reports and recommendations which, with some minor exceptions, would sit very well alongside the Select Committee's report and the European Commission's proposals which we are considering today.
I looked at the Statement I made to Parliament on 25th June 1974 about setting up the Advisory Council on Energy Conservation. The major difference between the aims and aspirations then and now is that I did not mention the word "environment" once. At that time the preoccupation or starting point for conservation was all about security of supply and trying to contain price.
As your Lordships' Select Committee rightly highlights, the environmental imperative, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is to save energy. That is the top of the list of priorities. In fact, as the noble Lord said, there has been a fall in the real price of energy since the mid-1970s plus the fact that we have had the tremendous benefit of our own North Sea oil.
The Commission's target to reduce energy intensity over the next four years by 20 per cent., and a further 12 per cent. over the following 15 years, is extremely ambitious for an industrial country like our own, as is the UK's commitment to stabilise carbon dioxide levels and emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2005. If both those targets are to be achieved, very bold and imaginative measures are needed.
414
A whole range of measures are proposed which basically fall into two categories: the easy decisions (and there are always easy decisions); and the difficult and potentially politically unpopular decisions. I see no great problem in regulating for efficiency standards for heat generators, labelling domestic appliances, periodic inspections of boiler efficiency and tightening new building regulations. In many respects such measures will be regarded as overdue, worthwhile and sensible. For example, tightening new building regulations would touch upon only 1 per cent. per year of our building stock out of a total of 15 million houses in Britain. That is a minute proportion. Therefore, the real contribution to energy saving will come through the potentially unpopular and costly political decisions by the Commission and the member states.
Of course, those decisions will contribute most to energy saving and environmental improvement. They are the most controversial. As has been said, transport was excluded from the Select Committee's inquiry although it is included in the Commission's SAVE programme. As I understand it, it was excluded from the Select Committee because of the time factor involved. Nearly half our country's energy bill is spent on transport, and 76 per cent. of that on the road sector. Governments can fiddle around with petrol and diesel taxes, vehicle excise duties, speed limits and company car taxation; but in the context of a rapid reduction in that huge bill, that is all peripheral. I do not know many managing directors or company directors of large firms who have taken smaller company cars as a result of the reduction in company car taxation. However, I know many people who ' witness the increasing chaos on our roads and who wish that there were massively increased expenditure on public transport, particularly British Rail and the London Underground.
Another area which was given great consideration by the Select Committee was the potential energy saving in buildings, especially our existing housing stock. The evidence given to the committee by Professor Smith of the Royal Institute of British Architects was devastating. The RIBA estimates that there are still 5 million homes in Britain needing quite rudimentary treatment. For example, the stopping up of draughts around windows and doors, and loft insulation. The RIBA concluded that it could not be done, "without substantial subsidies".
Unfortunately, but perhaps not surprisingly, the worst insulated homes in Britain are those occupied by people living on low incomes. It is not only poor insulation that they experience. They are the people most likely to use portable electric heaters. Of course portable electric heaters, while cheaper to buy, are the most expensive to run.
I hope therefore that the ministerial group on energy efficiency, which has just produced what I consider to be an excellent first annual report, will turn its attention to that vitally urgent problem. The group met on four occasions last year. I have some experience of ministerial committees. They start with tremendous experience and enthusiasm; everyone turns up for the first few meetings. After a while

415
excuses are given and members send either a substitute or an official, and sometimes the committees do not meet at all. I hope that this ministerial committee will have the power and enthusiasm to meet more regularly than some in the past.
One of the first tasks of the ministerial group should be to tackle the bizarre situation mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in which fuel energy for domestic use is zero rated for VAT—I am not advocating that domestic fuel should bear that tax—and the ludicrous anomaly that energy-saving equipment and materials carry VAT at 17½ per cent. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, regarding fiscal disincentives. A real incentive would be for either the ministerial group or eventually the Chancellor to do something about removing the VAT impost on energy-saving equipment and materials. It would also considerably help the low income groups.
Should the Government choose to help our depressed building and construction centre and reduce the number of workers with experience in the building trade who are unemployed, they could follow the advice of the Select Committee contained in paragraph 91 and do something in a concerted and systematic manner with regard to the 5 million dwellings in the UK which need major attention. Huge savings can be made. Something like one quarter of all energy used in this country is consumed in homes. I believe that paragraph 91 is the most important section of the report.
I wish to refer briefly to one other matter. It is the proposal already mentioned and increasingly heard that a carbon tax should be introduced. I understand that the commission formally proposed such a tax quite recently. I believe that the Select Committee was right to reject the introduction of a carbon tax which would be indiscriminate. As I understand it at the moment, it would discriminate differently against different fuels and certainly bear on the individual house owner and those least able to afford it. I hope that the Ministers who still bear the scars of the indiscriminate poll tax will give the carbon tax short shrift if and when it comes before them.
The other impact of that tax would be to finish off forever the British coal industry. The proposal for a 30 per cent. increase in coal prices over the next four years and a 58 per cent. increase by the end of the century would wipe out British coal. It would not matter whether the coal industry was in public or private ownership; the impact would be the same. I believe that the coal industry is already in danger of falling below a level of production which would not be in our national interest.
The answer to problems of CO2 emissions from coal can only be tackled, as the Select Committee on Energy reported in another place, by the greater and consistent research and development on clean coal technology where great strides have been made and where we are capable of leading the world. Coal is still the country's largest and longest life fuel reserve. The technology exists to deal with it and with the problems of burning it.
416
I believe that the Select Committee made a useful contribution to the energy conservation and environmental debate. I have no doubt that when the commission produce the proposals for carbon tax, Sub-Committee B of the European Communities Committee will turn its attention to it. However, the committee made a good start; given the experience of the past 17 years or so, I am sure that it is a subject to which we shall return again and again.
3.35 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I should first like to summarise the thrust of what I want to say today. It is this: in future we must pay more for our energy. That will have two advantages. First, if we paid more we would use less and conserve. Secondly, if we paid more cleaner supply systems would become competitive. I speak of wind, tidal and solar power. I must declare an interest: I am president of the Combined Heat and Power Association. I shall therefore be making a special plea for clean and efficient technology.
First, I turn to the question of paying more for energy. I had in mind the introduction of a carbon tax. That puts me at odds with the rest of my committee for at paragraph 86 of the report we reject the carbon tax as too blunt an instrument. However, the Government in their reply disagree with that. They regard a carbon tax as an option, provided other European Community countries are equally taxed at the same time. Moreover, as my noble friend Lord Cockfield said, the European Energy Commission proposes a carbon tax and requires three groups of Ministers from each country to discuss it. Indeed, a joint council of environmental Ministers will meet to do so on 10th and 11th December immediately after Maastricht.
In the debate so far it has been said that perhaps a change in VAT would be a better idea. That is fine by me; that would be just as welcome provided it had the right effect. Either tax would fall in with the committee's main recommendation that energy efficiency should be demand led. At the moment we in the United Kingdom use energy comparatively inefficiently. A government poster of trying to fill a sieve with boiling water just about sums it up.
If we are to attack global warming the solution is not so much a fancy tidal barrage as better loft insulation, a thicker sweater or switching off a light, a photocopier or a fire. The solution to the greenhouse effect is rather mundane. It is not a mighty wind farm on the Pennines. It is more thermal underwear. At the moment we in the United Kingdom treat energy almost as though it were free. As our committee so ably puts it in paragraph 65, "Cheap energy encourages waste". If it cost more we would not waste it and that is the justification for some form of tax. Tax the cheaper creators, which are the dirty ones, and the expensive ones will become more competitive.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, the most interesting country in the Community from the energy point of view is Denmark. It is both less and more fortunate than we. It is less fortunate in that it has never had cheap fossil fuel and power. It is more

417
fortunate in that that has resulted in the cleanest technology in Europe. Thirty-eight per cent. of Jutland has combined heat and power. The new CHP plant in Copenhagen is the finest in the world. The pipe insulation is so fine that it is possible to run out 40 kilometres of loop pipe and only lose 6ºC when the water returns.
The cost of electricity is around 9p per kilowatt hour. Electricity in Denmark has always been expensive. Thus the Danes use it with care: they do not waste it and they put up with considerable inconvenience. A new district heating loop was being laid in the town of Herning when I was over there. That is a big operation. The pipes are around two feet in diameter. Not a lot was left of people's front gardens after the pipes had been dug into place. I admired the tolerance of the Danes and wondered whether the British would put up with such inconvenience, used as we are to cheap and easy fossil fuel.
There is a strange caveat about Denmark; it comes from Sweden. It is that energy is so expensive in Denmark that heavy industry does not locate there. It locates instead in Sweden where there is cheap nuclear power combined with excellent insulation. This is no moment to enter the nuclear debate, but Denmark did strike me as being a slightly poorer country than Sweden. The conclusion I draw at least is that our Government are prudent when they reply to our report saying that we could only introduce a tax if all other countries introduced the same tax at the same time; otherwise we would be at a grave disadvantage.
Denmark has the highest proportion of CHP in Europe. The rest of Scandinavia also has schemes on a scale unheard of in this country. Most of the stations powering them are clean and small. For example, near Helsinki I looked over a power station of around 8 megawatts that was portable. There were three or four Portakabins and a gas turbine. You put it on lorries and take it wherever it is needed. You then just hook it up to the nearest Russian natural gas outlet.
However, I cannot claim that CHP is a panacea. In Poland its scale is huge and wasteful. The pipes leak and that makes it essential to heat the water to a colossal 200ºC, which is double the Danish temperature. Steam jets out everywhere. The system breaks down, quite likely in January. Then it starts up suddenly and room temperatures surge to 40ºC. The frozen Poles quickly become roasted Poles and throw wide their windows in the bleak mid-winter. Polish heating is by tradition free. There is no incentive to save or to make it efficient. It is not even metered. I mention that only to show that CHP itself can become a nightmare.
That reminds me of a very big problem. In Eastern Europe and Russia the problem with energy and the environment is so vast that even if we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions to zero the greenhouse effect would still continue. That is another can of worms that I would rather not open today. I would rather paraphrase Burke and say "The fact that we in the United Kingdom can do comparatively little to reduce global warming is a terrible excuse for doing nothing".
418
Our Government see a good future in combined heat and power, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has said. They hope that we shall have around 4,000 megawatts by the turn of the century. That is not very much. I doubt that we shall even have that without government intervention. I have seen a smallish refuse burning scheme in Sheffield. I was told that it was more expensive to burn refuse than coal. But in Lyons a large part of the town to the east of the Rhône, has refuse fuelled combined heat and power. The French tell me that rubbish is cheaper than fossil fuel as it costs money to dispose of rubbish by landfill. That cost should be properly taken into account when working out the comparative costs of refuse and fossil fuels, which I believe is reasonable.
Interestingly, France also has few cheap fossil fuels. It is amazing how economic arguments can be tailored to suit the status quo.
We have a proposed refuse burning power station in Lewisham. At the moment it is no more than a hole in the ground for I understand that the area board is being offered extraordinarily cheap electricity by one of the two big generating companies. It is making an offer, so to speak, that cannot be refused. Here I shall be grateful if my noble friend on the Front Bench can tell us more about the situation in Lewisham and perhaps give us an undertaking that this refuse burning power station will come on stream in the very near future.
Most of our CHP schemes are at the factory, school or hospital level. Though such very small schemes are not to be sneezed at, they are dwarfed by French schemes in Lyons and Nice, just as those French schemes are in turn dwarfed by the area schemes of Sweden, Finland and Denmark. We are at the bottom of the European CHP league.
CHP is expensive to install, but it will become affordable in the United Kingdom, along with other clean technologies, if our factories and our dwellings are made energy efficient. That, as has been said by many noble Lords, is big money. We say so in our report in paragraph 91. There are 5 million dwellings requiring major retrofitting and another 10 million requiring lesser works. The average cost per dwelling is £2,500. The total is between £40 billion and £45 billion. The introduction of energy efficiency would be an act of great political courage; it would be inflationary. But we believe that the environmental imperative demands that consideration should now be given to action on this scale. It could be funded by some form of new tax.
There is a Murphy's law of energy. It is that the less you need it the more you waste it. Thus it would be reasonable to think that a Finn spent more on heating his house than a Sicilian simply because the temperature falls to minus 36° in Helsinki but does not do so in Palermo. In fact both spend the same amount. If you draw a line between Helsinki and Palermo, through Copenhagen, Hamburg, Munich, Zurich and Milan, it will be found that everyone spends around the same. As the need for heat decreases, so inefficiency increases. That is Murphy's law of energy. But we in the United Kingdom break that law. In terms of energy efficiency we should be level with

419
Antwerp, but we are not: we are much worse than that. We are level with Tunis. We really are not efficient enough yet. I urge the Government to take aboard at least our paragraph 91. That is the last paragraph of Sub-Committee B's opinion and it is the most important one.
3.46 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I was a Member of the ECC Committee which produced this report. It is commendably brief, but it is of great importance to the future reduction of carbon dioxide emissions—vital now at a time when the spectre of the greenhouse effect looms before us. How drastic it will be we do not yet know, but the message that we must do something now ought to be heard loudly and clearly by everyone.
Before carrying on, I should like to thank the chairman for an excellent report. While not in any way wishing to detract from those thanks, it seems to me that acknowledgements usually only go to chairmen when equal thanks should on many occasions be offered to the clerks to the committees and to other clerks who frequently manage to make a convincing and useful report of what might otherwise be termed a dog's breakfast. I myself wonder whether even in my younger days I could have approached their performance.
I return to the point of the debate. What the report calls the "savage" proposals seem to be very important for the future. However, in some areas nations could usefully implement them individually without waiting. Already Holland and Denmark have done that on matters where they can go ahead in advance of the EC directive. That is because, for example, a method of assessing house insulation may be part of their national policy which need not be held up during the certain delay implicit in getting an EC standard. Do not let the ideal be the enemy of the good.
In the circumstances one must ask the Government to be more forward looking. They should not simply rely on the EC proposals while other nations press ahead. There seems to be something wrong with the thinking of the Department of Energy. For example, I vividly remember that all my efforts to promote increased house insulation in new houses were simply dismissed as a matter for the market place. No, the importance of energy conservation means that the Government have an obligation to go down that path and to lead the market instead of being dominated by it. Market forces alone cannot make the policy that we need. I am afraid that the Government have really done nothing to encourage ignorant buyers who need to realise the merits of a more fully insulated home. There is no need to wait for internationally agreed methods of measurement on this simple matter as long as we agree on one, and only one, method of assessment for the UK.
I deplore the fact that the new Government building regulations have not taken underfloor insulation as a firm requirement for all new construction because it cannot easily be refitted. It can represent as much as 20 per cent. of heat losses from a house. Future generations will not thank us for this omission.
420
The SAVE programme talks about energy labelling. There are three appliances which consume a lot of energy; television sets, refrigerators and freezers, because they are used so frequently. All those are easy to assess. Washing machines are not so simple. Why do we not consider having even a minimum efficiency requirement for the first three? Once again, we should not wait for the EC proposals. We should be trying to promote the use of fluorescent light fittings in the household. Twenty watts are capable of giving the equivalent of a tungsten 100-watt bulb, with a life of over 10,000 hours. I know that the available types have not been designed to be compatible with the light fittings of many houses. The manufacturers need to consider this problem and design cheaper and more suitable alternatives.
Some people talk about increased expenditure on research and development for renewable energy. That may be very desirable—for example, the clean use of coal. But there is nothing on the horizon—apart from coal—to make this a major factor in the energy equation. Moreover, other countries are spending money on R&D. Always provided that we keep a small team in being here, we could, if necessary, take advantage of developments from neighbouring countries. In the meantime, many other useful things could be done pending EC legislation.
To conclude, I submit that a large proportion of our energy problems could be solved by nuclear generation. Why is it that so many people are so emotionally opposed to that solution? To me it is strange, for life is not safe, and the 60,000 deaths per annum on the roads in Europe far exceed the likely effect of any possible Chernobyl disaster. The disposal of nuclear waste is not a problem unless we try and make it so and talk about 1,000 years or more guaranteed containment. If the nuclear option is not accepted, then I suggest that the Government should be pressed to give financial guarantees to make the construction of the Severn Barrage a possibility and to promote combined heat and power for at least one large city demonstration project. Both of those are long term projects—hence they require Government help.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Renwick: My Lords, the wonderful advantage of speaking last in a debate such as this is that one can disregard entirely what one has prepared because it has all been said. It has been an interesting debate and I should like to pick up one or two points. I should, first, like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on his magnificent chairmanship of our committee, and on the way in which he made the proceedings so interesting. Also, I believe we worked at quite a rapid pace, because there was some imminence in the SAVE programme going before the Council of Ministers. In this respect I should like to thank and congratulate our clerks who advised us. I found the proceedings most interesting. In fact, the SAVE programme was delayed and I believe it was only in the last few days of October that it received the approval of the Council of Ministers.

421
We were expecting up to six directives by the end of this year. The fact that we have received only two may be because there is not a very large staff. That may be explained by the fact that it is intended that the SAVE programme should operate by delegating a lot of activities to member states. Perhaps my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will be glad that the SAVE programme itself will not be delving into the nooks and crannies but will operate by delegation.
Britain's two-year exemption from the directive on gas boilers is a little worrying. I am quite convinced that we can produce the best and most efficient boilers in the world because we have that technology. However, we also insist on producing less efficient boilers. I wonder whether a directive from the Commission is needed to prevent that? I understand that our accredited export of these less efficient boilers has been curtailed for two years, especially in the eastern part of Germany where they did not want such inefficient and environmentally unfriendly boilers.
Quite rightly, mention was made about the CO2 reduction strategy document. My noble friend Lord Cockfield suggested that our sub-committee should look at this. It is only a strategy document; nevertheless anything that comes from the Commission should be looked at as soon as it is conceived. I am sure that we shall keep a strict eye on this as a proposal before it becomes a directive.
The second directive is on energy labelling. I think it is worth putting in perspective for noble Lords who have been listening to this debate that some freezers actually use 50 per cent. less electricity than others of a similar capacity. I do not believe that that has been mentioned. Something else that has not been mentioned is that saving electricity really does have an effect because electricity is mostly generated at 35 per cent. efficiency. That means that three units of coal are used to produce one unit of electricity. Therefore every unit saved is magnified at the generating end by a factor of three. So there really is an imperative to be successful in the various programmes before us.
My noble friend Lord Mersey touched on a programme, which was mentioned in a debate in another place last week, on 5th November. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy produced the second stage of the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation Renewables Order. The fuel derived from waste at Lewisham will come under that obligation. My honourable friend's statement was well received in another place, and we should be impressed that the Government are acting in this way to encourage renewables. About 50 per cent. of the renewable allocation was for fuel derived from waste. I was sorry to see that wave power was not one of the six bands and is being introduced among the others. I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench whether all the 10 projects concerned with fuel derived from waste which are contracted with regional electricity companies under the NFFO have waste available under contract. Are all 10 projects able to meet the financial requirements of investors at the slight price
422
of 6.55p per kilowatt hour until 1998? It is a short time in which to complete the construction of the plants and to have a financial return.
We have all come to the same conclusion as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that the gap should be closed as a matter of urgency and we wonder whether the market and fiscal incentives as proclaimed will be enough. We have the environmental imperative to save energy—I believe that that lovely phrase came from the Friends of the Earth—but I am going to suggest that we also need a psychological imperative. I hope that I can do something to counter the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Mersey that we must pay more to save more or to use less. I take his point that we regard energy almost as if it were free. However, I submit that we do that because we do not know what energy costs. I am talking about householders, small businesses and also larger businesses even when they have an energy manager.
Nearly two and a half years ago I had an idea when I was visiting the manufacturers of energy efficient bulbs. From that moment onwards I have nursed that idea which I believe would have a profound effect on energy conservation attitudes in this country. My idea comes not under technical or financial measures of the SAVE programme but under the measures which affect human behaviour. I looked, in vain as it happened, at the evidence given not only to this inquiry but to the previous inquiries of our committee into the efficient use of energy and so on. I found not one suggestion which encompassed my idea.
The first person I discussed my idea with was the late and highly respected Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. He advised me to look into the matter in terms of patenting the idea, and that I did. I hoped to be able to develop the product so that there would be one in every home, but after making various inquiries I found a brochure with just such a product in it. It is, I am glad to say, a brochure of an English company. The technologies involved have been part of a framework programme of the EC and therefore there is nothing much I can patent. However, I should like to share the idea with the House and with my noble friend on the Front Bench. If people knew on a day-to-day basis or on a week-to-week basis what the energy used in their homes was costing them, their efforts in energy conservation and their take-up of government schemes such as the one announced last week—Helping the Earth begins at Home—would be far greater. What I suggest is something very like a taxi meter. It would show on a small appliance that could easily be installed in kitchens the daily cost of the energy being consumed in that house. Such an appliance could also be installed in small and larger businesses. It would mean that the housewife, the managing director of a small company or the manager of a shop could all become energy managers. They would have something to manage. The meters under our stairs are all very well if one can find them and see what they read. However, I defy most people to convert such readings on a daily, weekly or monthly basis into pounds and pence. I believe that the meter I am suggesting would have a profound effect on the conservation attitude of all who have them.

423
On a slightly different point, I know that the sub-committee did not handle transport, but the other day I was lent a car by my garage. It was an energy efficient car which I am afraid was not British. It had a computer attached to it which, every time one was in the wrong gear or accelerated or braked too fast, caused a series of red lights to come on. Thank goodness it did not bleep, but I am sure it could have done. I found it remarkable how in a short time I was driving to avoid the red lights coming on. In doing so I was far more relaxed and reached my destination just as quickly; but in doing so I know that I was saving money. Perhaps my noble friend could discuss this matter with his colleagues in the Department of Transport. I believe that the fitting of such a computer would be far less onerous than the fitting of speed limiters on heavy goods vehicles, coaches and buses, and it would be far more effective. It would be a psychological imperative.
I take the point of my noble friend Lord Cockfield about applying fiscal incentives. It is not my intention—I refer again to an appliance fitted in households—that such a monitor should be developed with government money. The units currently cost around £250. Development would be needed to bring the cost down to £20 or £25 so that they could be available in every house. The cost of computer technology and microchip technology is very much dependent on the numbers involved. I believe that there might be a vast export market for this equipment, especially in the Americas. Such appliances could be calibrated not only from kilowatt hours to pounds and pence but also to deutschmarks, French francs and US dollars. It would be a very simple matter to bring them down to a price level which we could all afford. Moreover, the regional electricity companies, which have an obligation to encourage energy conservation, could be required to make them a standard fitting, especially in new houses.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the committee on its report and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on introducing it so succinctly and authoritatively. As other noble Lords have said, it is an excellent report. I say that as one of the small minority of speakers who are not actually members of the committee. It is also, in the general thread of its argument and in many of its specific recommendations, comfortingly close to the Labour Party's policy on energy and the environment. It is reassuring on that, as it is on many other policy areas, to be part of the majority consensus.
In relation to the European Community, I should like to add that we often hear complaints in your Lordships' House about the bureaucratic interference from Brussels. But in this area of energy conservation we surly welcome the EC initiatives and co-ordination. In the broader international context, we must stress the need for even wider action. The world's atmosphere knows no national boundaries. Eastern Europe, which is on our doorstep, produces up to one quarter of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. Moreover, as China and India industrialise, the
424
pollution threat is terrifying. We look forward to receiving reassurance form the Minister that the United Kingdom Government will press other nations to join with the EC in co-ordinated action to limit carbon dioxide emissions. In particular, I believe that economic assistance to Eastern Europe should be linked to investment in clean combustion and energy saving.
We note that two areas crucial to energy conservation are deliberately not covered in the report. The first is transport. That is because of the time factor. It is one of the four main areas of CO2 emissions. The other is renewable energy, which offers great scope for limiting CO2 emissions, where the Government's research initiatives until recently have been sadly puny. However, I know that that will be the subject of the Commission's ALTENER programme report. We look forward to future opportunities to debate such issues. We hope that we will not have to wait too long to do so.
In the short time available I shall not attempt to deal with the whole field covered in the report. Broadly, it looks at ways either to encourage cleaner combustion or to reduce energy consumption. I prefer to select certain areas of the greatest urgency. In each area I have specific questions. The noble Lord is always among the most courteous and helpful of Ministers. His department has recently made some positive statements. We look forward to hearing his specific replies.
I should like to begin with two areas where I imagine that we all broadly agree. I refer to labelling and third-party finance. As regards the labelling of domestic appliances to provide clear information about the energy efficiency of the equipment, will the Minister confirm that the Government support mandatory labelling against the reluctance, as I understand it, expressed by some parts of British industry? On third-party financing—that is, contract energy management—which offers great encouragement and financial facility to install energy saving equipment, is the alleged relaxation of the Treasury's hostility to such, as it calls it, unconventional financing, real? Moreover, how many schemes above £250,000 have been approved by the Treasury in the past two years?
I turn now to the central problem of buildings. According to the report, buildings offer the "greatest scope for energy saving". Indeed, half the total energy consumed in the United Kingdom is in buildings and I believe that over a quarter of that amount is consumed in domestic housing. The problem varies between new and old buildings, but, as my noble friend Lord Varley said, it is more acute in the latter. But the report states that, even in new buildings, our standards of energy efficiency are much too low. British building regulations need to be tighter. In response to the report of the Energy Select Committee in another place, the Secretary of State appeared to concede that point. Can the Minister confirm that it is the Government's view that the existing UK building regulations need to be tightened? Further, what precise proposals does he have for tightening them?

425
As regards the existing building stock, the problem is much greater and the scope for energy saving is also much greater. Let us take, for example, housing, where 50 per cent. is pre-1960 construction. We have heard how the committee estimates that 5 million dwellings require "retrofitting". That is an ugly word, but I think that we know what it means. Indeed, many noble Lords might personally welcome some of it. In total, such a project is estimated to cost about £40 billion but the potential savings are huge. I believe that the committee's estimate of 10 per cent. is probably conservative and that the savings would be between £4 billion and £8 billion annually.
That is a tremendous challenge which offers tremendous rewards. We must ask what the Government are doing. What would their response be to the crucial paragraph 91? Of course what they actually did was to demolish the Labour Government's energy programme, which insulated a million houses in 1979 alone. Moreover, local authorities, which are responsible for 10 per cent. of energy consumption in this country, have suffered drastic reductions in expenditure on energy conservation. Indeed, the report suggests that the amount involved is down by about three quarters since 1983. Overall, at paragraph 35, the committee notes a,
"marked decline in government expenditure on retrofitting since the mid-1980s".
In that context I should like to ask the Minister whether he will treat paragraph 91 on retrofitting as a top government priority for response. Moreover, does he accept the committee's conclusion in paragraph 73 of the report that without a major programme of retrofitting there is no hope of achieving a significant energy saving? If that is so, can he tell us where the programme is?
I should like now to turn especially to the plight of the energy saving equipment sector. The decline in sales in that area is very worrying. The sector lost a quarter of its market during the late 1980s. That was not just because of the present recession; indeed, the numbers show that the sector has been in decline since 1982. I believe that the heart of the problem lies in the Government's excessive reliance on market forces. It means that when the general economy slows down, investment in energy conservation equipment declines along with other investment. When the real price of energy falls—that is, lower oil prices and cheaper coal imports—the market incentive to invest in energy conservation falls with it. Hence the committee concludes at paragraph 58 that,
"a market led strategy has meant a decline in investment".
We note that the country with the best energy conservation record—namely, Japan—does not rely on market economics; it uses the intervention of MITI and, through a rigorous programme of regulations and fiscal incentives, it achieves one of the lowest energy ratios in the world.
The committee recommends stimulation of the energy equipment industry by fiscal and other means (paragraph 75), and I am sure feels that the extra expenditure on advertising promotion announced—and very welcome and well-directed—is not enough. Will the Minister explain why the Government are not
426
doing more in that area? I hardly need to add that we on this side of the House favour fiscal stimulation and financial incentives.
On that I should like to say a few words about the carbon tax proposals and the helpful update given by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. This side of the House of course welcomes the EC's demonstration of a radical concern for the environment and the need to reduce CO2 emissions. We are not opposed to energy taxes in principle. My view is that the relative prices of fossil fuels must, over time, rise; but we understand the caution expressed by the committee and the Government, as shown by the Minister's answers to questions last week, that the proposal needs close examination. We need to establish the price elasticity of energy, especially in the UK. We need to ensure that that proposal is not regressive, punishing the poor, and does not also merely lead to a switch from coal and oil to gas, which is in limited supply, and to nuclear fuel, which we know has other problems. That would, as my noble friend Lord Varley pointed out, threaten to finish off the British coal industry. A carbon tax alone, even in its updated form, is no substitute for other measures, such as greater regulation and financial incentives and the development of better cleanburn technology.
I should like to conclude on a more general theme: the crucial differences in political philosophy which still underlie the approaches to this topic involving the importance we attach to market forces, to government intervention to achieve energy conservation and to the role of the privatised power supply industries. The Government's position through the 1980s has been made clear. In 1982, Mr. Lawson, the Secretary of State for Energy, said:
"energy is a traded good. Our task is to set a framework which will ensure that the market operates in the energy sector with the minimum of distortion".
The present Secretary of State appeared to restate that position to the Select Committee on Energy of another place.
In line with that, the Government have privatised the power supply utilities; but the committee, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, emphasised and as we on this side of the House agree, rejects that view. The energy market is imperfect and may require some further helpful distortions. If made more perfect, it may not help, as it says in paragraph 61 of the report:
"Market forces lead to minimising costs … This does not necessarily mean saving energy".
As is stated:
"The overwhelming majority of witnesses took the view that market forces alone would not produce a sufficient level of … energy saving."
Moreover, the role of the privatised industries has been negative and obstructive towards energy conservation. Their priority is to maximise sales and not to conserve energy. They prefer switching to the gas fire rather than developing the clean burning of coal; and they are hostile to renewable energy sources and to CHP. Have the Government, along with other pre-election conversions, retreated from the Lawson doctrine of market forces? Will the Government press the Commission to allow zero rating of VAT on energy saving equipment? Will the Government consider increased depreciation allowances for such

427
Equipment—all recommended in the report—and will they regulate the power suppliers to ensure that conservation is a top priority and that they invest more in cleanburn technology?
The committee, like the Commission, fears that the targets set by the Commission and the Government for CO2 emissions will not be met under present policies. Do the Government share or reject those concerns? The report argues that success, "demands a coherent energy strategy". I am sure that the Minister will put that strategy before us today. Will he also say something about the exciting new discovery on fusion about which we read over the weekend? We congratulate British scientists on that achievement.
The report and some recent encouraging government statements show that we are moving towards agreement on what should be done. The report suggests that we have a broad consensus on words. We must now have more action or we put at risk the future of our children and the whole planet. The report puts the environmental imperative firmly on the agenda, and we welcome that.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to respond to this interesting debate on the report of the European Communities Committee on Energy and the Environment. The Government have welcomed the report as a valuable and timely contribution to the continuing and developing debate on energy efficiency, particularly in view of the acknowledged role of energy efficiency in combating the threat of global warming. Your Lordships will wish me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, chairman of Sub-Committee B, and the members of that committee. I take the opportunity to thank the noble Lord for acknowledging some of the Government's work on this issue. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, to the Front Bench. I wish him a happy and long occupancy of that position. I thank all the noble Lords who have participated in the debate, perhaps especially the noble Lord, Lord Varley, who was closely involved with one of the earliest energy efficiency campaigns, under the logo Save It. I understand that the head of information in the Department of Energy at that time was one Bernard Ingham, whose name may be familiar to your Lordships from an occupation other than the promotion of energy efficiency!
Although the United Kingdom produces only a small proportion of the total of the world's CO2 emissions, it is important that we do not sit on our hands and do nothing. As we made clear in the White Paper on the environment last year, improvements in energy efficiency offer the cheapest and quickest way of combating the threat of global warming. That is why the Government take the report seriously, take energy efficiency seriously, and will continue to promote it energetically.
The Government have of course taken the promotion of energy efficiency seriously for a number of years, offering encouragement to consumers to invest in energy efficiency measures for the economic and environmental benefits that they offer. We have a
428
good record, with EEO programmes alone generating recurrent annual savings now worth £500 million per year; but far from being complacent, we continue to develop our programmes to encourage cost-effective energy efficiency improvements. We do that through the programmes operated by the EEO and other government departments in the United Kingdom; and in the context of EC measures, under the SAVE programme, which has been mentioned today.
It is rather hard to keep pace with the recent developments in energy efficiency initiatives, so fast have they been coming forward: so fast, in fact, that it might be helpful if I give a summary of current programmes and recent initiatives before responding to the other points raised in the debate. In doing this, I recognise that most of it has been covered, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
The EEO of course continues with its main programmes which concentrate on tackling the barriers that prevent cost-effective energy efficiency measures from being adopted. I am talking of the low priority given to energy efficiency and customers' lack of expertise or information. This has come up at various stages of the debate. The home energy efficiency scheme has now been in operation for almost a year, offering grants with the primary purpose of increasing the take-up of basic energy efficiency measures in low income households. The best practice programme continues to provide independent and authoritative information on energy efficiency; the regional energy efficiency officers lead the drive to publicise our programmes directed at particular industrial sectors and visit main energy users to assist them in developing their energy management programmes.
Over the past year we have also taken forward a number of other measures which clearly show our determination to continue our campaign. The ministerial group on energy efficiency, which has been mentioned, works to raise the profile of energy efficiency and has published its first annual report which details and reviews our energy efficiency initiatives right across government.
The group also keeps under consideration the scope for further initiatives to stimulate energy efficiency improvements throughout the economy. I think that the importance that members of the group attach to their work is clearly demonstrated in their annual report. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Reay who was in his place for part of the debate, and who was a member of that committee.
The evidence of the group's work is clear from the further initiatives we have recently announced. We have launched a new energy management campaign, entitled Making a Corporate Commitment, which is designed to motivate senior management in UK industrial and commercial companies. The EEO plans to persuade boardrooms that energy efficiency is one of the more important management priorities on their agenda, given the link between energy use and global warming, and the economic benefits that energy efficiency improvements can also provide at minimal risk.

429
In the domestic sector, the EEO and the Department of the Environment last week launched the campaign Helping the Earth begins at Home. The three-year campaign, which will cost £10 million, is aimed at improving householders' understanding of the contribution that domestic energy use makes towards global warming and at increasing the take-up of energy efficiency measures and behaviour in the home.
The campaign will encourage consumers to make use of another initiative: the energy efficiency advice services that have been put in place this year by the regional electricity companies, British Gas and British Coal. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, will note that. These can help people to use energy wisely and advise on energy efficient appliances.
On the subject of appliances, I am also pleased that tomorrow will see the launch of an appliance labelling scheme by the regional electricity companies. This is a voluntary scheme, which we have helped develop and very much welcome, which will fill the void before a mandatory EC scheme becomes operational. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked whether we would support mandatory appliance labelling. The Commission's proposal for a directive on appliance labelling has been submitted to the council. We support the proposal; but implementation will not commence until late next year at the earliest—hence our interim approach to it.
The European Community scheme is being brought forward under the SAVE programme, the objectives of which are supported by the Government and the committee. The Government were pleased that last month's Energy Council adopted the SAVE decision. We will consider the specific measures under SAVE as they are proposed by the Commission.
One measure has now been agreed in principle: the introduction of standards for gas and liquid central heating boilers. Like the committee, the Government have always supported the aims of this directive but we have been concerned to ensure that the standards set took full account of the particular circumstances of UK domestic installations and thus encouraged cost-effective energy efficiency improvements, rather than discouraging them. We are glad that last month's Energy Council was able to reach agreement in principle on an amended text which reflects the circumstances of the UK domestic heating market.
It is therefore evident that we have continued to press forward with targeted and effective programmes, and to introduce new initiatives where appropriate.
All of these initiatives have been launched since the Government provided their response to the committee's report. Since then, the Autumn Statement has also confirmed our increasing financial commitment to energy efficiency. The EEO budget for 1992–93 will be £59 million—a 40 per cent. increase in resources for EEO programmes from the £42 million available this year. Further increases are planned—to £70 million in 1993–94, and to £75 million in 1994–95. I hardly think it fair to say, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, that we were doing very little. The noble
430
Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked why we do not do more; and he will therefore be pleased that we are doing more.
These increases will allow our existing well-targeted programmes to develop and new ones to be introduced. The money provides for a 50 per cent. increase in resources next year for the home energy efficiency scheme. Additional resources are also being made available for the best practice programme and our regional and publicity activities.
In addition, the EEO budget includes provision for expenditure on the first year of the new energy management assistance scheme, following up a commitment to the scheme made in the environment White Paper last year.
The scheme, offering financial support for project management assistance with the implementation of energy measures, will be targeted on enterprises with fewer than 500 employees. It is to come into operation on 1st April 1992 and will subsidise the use of consultants for energy auditing, investment feasibility studies and the project management of investments devoted to improving energy efficiency.
A number of points were raised during the debate. I have not been able to study the matter of fusion very deeply which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. We must accept that it is extremely exciting and I join him in congratulating the scientists. No doubt we will hear more of it before long.
The noble Lord, Lord Varley, spoke of the state of domestic architecture. I tend to agree that it is important that we should encourage more architects to adopt energy efficiency design measures. We have developed a new strategy under the best practice programme which involves working with the professional institutions to encourage building professionals such as architects to take full account of energy efficiency in new buildings.
We are also currently working with the Royal Institute of British Architects on production of client guides on energy efficiency designs. In addition we are working with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors on the production of best practice literature.
A number of other initiatives to encourage energy efficiency designs include recent seminars on achieving low energy costs in offices, aimed at architects, designers and developers; and a series of energy efficiency workshops which will be held in each of the RIBA's 14 regions. Workshops will cover the Building Research Establishment's domestic energy model.
Noble Lords on all sides of the House have mentioned carbon tax, its merits and disadvantages, as well as the anxieties that the concept produces. The Government accepted the comment in the White Paper on the environment that in the long term the relative price of energy will have to rise to provide a stimulus to energy efficiency and hence reduce CO, emissions. I believe that that is a straight answer to the question put by my noble friend Lord Mersey.
The Government will study the Commission's proposals carefully and contribute constructively to the debate. However, as all noble Lords have recognised, the proposals need thorough examination.

431
Questions which must be addressed will include: first, will the Commission's ideas increase prospects for international agreement on effective arrangements for limiting CO2 emission? It must be remembered that the Community cannot solve climate change questions on its own. Secondly, if the Community sets the lead on energy taxes, will other industrialised countries follow? I have in mind particularly the United States and Japan. What will be the consequences of unilateral action for the competitive position of member states of the European Community?
A number of noble Lords, notably the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Varley, and my noble friends Lord Mersey and Lord Cockfield, spoke about VAT and fiscal measures generally. The Government have stated, and it continues to be our view, that VAT will not be imposed on the domestic use of fuel and power during the lifetime of this Parliament. So far as concerns the zero rating of energy efficient products, the European Commission's sixth directive does not allow extensions of zero rating. However, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware of the anxieties which have been expressed.
My noble friend Lord Cockfield took me rather unawares by referring to a paper which I have not seen. The document has been delayed in translation, and whether my noble friend has seen it first because he is bilingual I am unable to say. Copies are at present being distributed from Brussels.
The noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Ezra, spoke of contract energy management, and they asked about the number of schemes approved under the £250,000 limit. There are no schemes in the government estate above the £250,000 limit. However, there are a small number in the NHS and among local authorities. The EEO is working with the contract energy management industry to encourage adoption in the public sector. It published an applications manual last month under the best practices programme to tackle the problem of lack of information. That is a major barrier to contract energy management in the public sector. The Treasury will naturally be looking for good value for money in proposals, whatever their size.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said that building regulations should be tightened. It was only last year that the latest improvements to the thermal insulation requirements of the building regulations came into effect, introducing a 20 per cent. improvement over the previous requirements. However, the Government accept that the timetable for the further review of the regulations should reflect increased anxiety about global warming. We are therefore monitoring how the new regulations operate in practice, carrying out research which will help to inform the next revisions and reviewing options for further changes in the requirements. That should lead to new regulations becoming operational in 1993–94, a significant acceleration in the timetable compared with the past.
A number of noble Lords, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, raised the question of retrofitting. A major programme to retrofit all homes in the United Kingdom would take many years and
432
might cost up to £45 billion—the equivalent of one year's energy bill. That rough illustration suggests that overall the cost of retrofitted energy efficiency measures are recovered in only 10 years. However, the EEO estimates that there is a potential to save 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of total building energy consumption through the adoption of highly cost-effective energy efficiency measures which pay for themselves within three years. The EEO concentrates its efforts on encouraging the take up of cost-effective measures.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked about market economics. Current Government initiatives already include a mix of financial measures, measures to encourage technological improvements and measures aimed at tackling consumer behaviour. The Government believe that the market and market-based measures have a central role to play in realising the potential energy efficiency improvements which are available. However, we do not rule out other measures, including regulation, subsidy or taxation, where those offer the most cost-effective options for overcoming barriers to take up. There is no dogma on our part in this matter.
I understood the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, to suggest that privatisation has hindered energy efficiency. If customers are properly informed about energy efficiency, and prices properly reflect cost, consumers can make the right decisions about their energy usage. Both utilities are obliged by regulatory regime to set prices to reflect costs. In addition, the RECs have a statutory obligation to provide advice on energy efficiency to customers, and their licences oblige them to provide a code of practice on energy efficiency. Those codes have now all been approved by OFFER. British Gas has produced its own voluntary code of practice; and under the Citizen's Charter Bill currently being drafted it is proposed to give OFGAS similar powers to determine standards in relation to the promotion of energy efficiency as exist in the Electricity Act.
As regards the Government's estate, one of the key objectives of the ministerial group which I mentioned is to lead by example. For that reason it has set a very demanding target for the Government's estate of 15 per cent. savings in energy consumption over the five years 1990–91 to 1995–96. Each Minister has responsibility for ensuring that his department carries forward work to meet the target and for monitoring the department's progress. I am confident that the new arrangements put in place by departments as a result of the campaign will enable targets to be met.
All departments now have energy managers and are putting in place energy strategies and work programmes. The ministerial group has agreed to the setting up of an official working party to monitor progress and to advise on the departments' programmes. Last year departments spent over £20 million on energy efficiency measures.
My noble friend Lord Mersey asked about the Danish programmes for CHP. Comparisons are difficult because of the different climate and energy infrastructure. Cost-effectiveness will dictate different

433
solutions in different circumstances. My noble friend asked about the South East London CHP scheme, which is a project initiated by Southwark, Lewisham and Greenwich councils with a private contractor to produce 30 megawatts of electricity a year from 400,000 tonnes of solid waste. That is an example of how the non-fossil fuel obligation is working to promote environmentally desirable measures. I am told that the scheme is proceeding.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, asked about home energy labelling. He said that we should not wait for EC proposals. I have already dealt with that point. The noble Lord, Lord Renwick, advocated a device for showing the daily cost of energy and altering the psychological approach of consumers. We welcome any proposals that will strike a chord with consumers. Enhanced metering in the home is the subject of active consideration by the utilities and regulators, OFFER and OFGAS. I shall pass on my noble friend's comments on transport to my colleagues.
Energy efficiency is good for business for everyone in the UK, as well as bringing with it the environmental benefits of which we are increasingly aware. As the EEO's current logo says:
"It pays to be energy friendly".
I am very pleased that so many noble Lords have participated in or attended the debate recognising the importance of the subject. I have been speaking for 21 minutes; if there are any points which I have not covered I shall write to noble Lords, but I hope that I have been able to demonstrate to the House the level of the Government's commitment to the subject.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have participated in this very important and informative debate. I am particularly pleased that there has been general agreement that the Community's SAVE programme is desirable and that we should give it as much support as possible. I am also pleased that there has also been approval of the committee's report thereon.
The committee has received some very good guidance from those who have spoken today. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, whose knowledge of Community affairs is unrivalled, has pointed out the vital importance of any prospective energy tax or carbon tax which might be proposed. Many noble Lords referred to that and it is a subject to which the committee should quickly turn its attention. Like the noble Lord, I found it difficult to get hold of the document that sets out the Commission's proposals. I received only a truncated version of the document at an energy conference. The normal parliamentary processes have so far been unable to divulge that document. It would be helpful if all those concerned could get hold of that document and we could then start to study it quickly.
I was delighted at the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Varley. I almost referred to him as my noble friend because we are old friends. We have been connected in energy for many years. The noble Lord was Secretary of State for Energy when I was at the
434
Coal Board. I well remember him setting up the Advisory Council on Energy Conservation with Sir William Hawthorne. I was a member of that body and we recommended many of the points that are now being considered for energy efficiency. The noble Lord is right to say that the question of the environment did not arise. We were concerned with energy saving, mainly in the light of what had happened to the price of oil, but the measures proposed were similar to those that we are now contemplating.
The noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, who spoke to us about CHP, is an expert on the subject. He has been to Denmark and has seen it in operation and he was most helpful to our committee in what he told us about it. My noble friend Lord Hanworth, who spoke to us particularly about the examples in Holland and Denmark and about questions of energy labelling was a great asset to our committee. I am sorry to say that he is now leaving us. I am most grateful to him for his contribution over the years. The noble Lord, Lord Renwick, who is also a great contributor to our debates, came forward with the interesting proposition of an energy-saving meter. I am delighted to hear that the Government are seriously considering that proposal.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, I should like to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, in joining the energy club. Bearing in mind that he is an expert on financial services, I am sure that anything that goes on in the energy field will be child's play to him; but we look forward to his contributions in his new capacity.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, for the support that he gave our report. There are differences of emphasis between the committee's report and a number of noble Lords who spoke; but, as a result of the debate, the Commission's proposals and the committee's report, there is a developing consensus on the way in which we should deal with the question of energy efficiency, which now has a much larger environmental dimension. Our well-informed debate today is a further step in the right direction and I thank all noble Lords who have participated.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Young People in the EC: ECC Report
4.53 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Young People in the European Community (14th Report, Session 1990–91, HL Paper 63).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, many of the reports that the Select Committee brings before the House relate to specific Community policy instruments dealing with specialised subject areas. This one is somewhat different. Although part of the report is taken up with an assessment of a number of Community action programmes aimed at young people, its prime intention is to serve as a contribution

435
to a Community-wide debate aimed at the formulation and co-ordination of policy for young people throughout the Community and for more effective ways of associating them with the development of the European Community.
The report entailed a long inquiry by Sub-Committee C, covering a wide area of Community and national activity. In that, we were greatly helped by the co-operation of witnesses from both home and overseas. I should like to thank also members of the sub-committee for their support throughout the inquiry. I should particularly like to thank Michael Pownall, who acted as clerk to the committee at a time when he was also undertaking new responsibilities on behalf of the House. Perhaps I may also thank the Government for the consideration given to the report and for the detailed written response which has been made available in time for today's debate.
There are within the Community 130 million young people under the age of 25—that is the Community definition of young people—out of a total population of 340 million. Yet, as the report states in paragraph 1:
"neither in the European Community nor in Member States have coordinated policies been developed towards young people because their needs invariably cover a great diversity of policy areas which are often the responsibility of different departments".
The Commission memorandum Young People in the European Community—one of the three main documents on which the inquiry was based—had as its objective to stimulate a debate on young people and in particular to focus on the disadvantaged. Consequently, an important section of the report is concerned with problems facing that group. That is to be found in Part 4 of the report to which I shall return later.
The two other documents on which the inquiry is based are draft decisions for a second phase of the Youth for Europe programme and a new three-year phase for the PETRA programme. Both those proposals are designed to encourage the mobility of young people and to increase the opportunities available to them as the single market nears completion.
The first phase of the Youth for Europe programme from 1989 to 1991 enables young people to take part in a wide range of project-based exchange activities, examples of which are given in the report. The proposed second phase from 1992 to 1994 extends the programme to include support for voluntary service activity, which the committee welcomed. More significantly, it proposed that an increased proportion of the extended budget—not less than 30 per cent.—should be reserved for disadvantaged young people, again a move welcomed by the committee.
The PETRA programme is concerned with vocational training. The first phase started in 1988 and will run until 1992. The main element is to establish a European-wide network of training partnerships involving the exchange of young people and staff. Currently, there are 250 partnership projects across the Community. The programme also funds small-scale projects which are initiated and managed by the young people themselves. The proposed extension of
436
PETRA would enhance the programme considerably and aims to achieve 100,000 exchanges between 1992 and 1994.
The committee supports both those two programmes in general terms and particularly welcomes the increased opportunities that they provide, especially for those young people who left education at an early age. Nevertheless, we enter a caveat: the Commission does not appear to have received an evaluation of those programmes before proposing a second phase. In the case of the PETRA programme, the committee understands that the Commission was responding to a request from the Council of Ministers for the existing programme to be extended. However, in general, the committee takes the view that, wherever possible, existing programmes should be evaluated before new and extended programmes are introduced—a matter on which I understand the Government have very strong views and which is referred to in their response.
There is a whole range of community programmes directed at young people. They are listed in Appendix 3. Several of the better known projects, especially those with substantial budgets, are directed to those in higher education. The new PETRA programme, with its now large budget, goes some way to redress the balance toward those less fortunate people in the Community.
Not all the programmes were examined by the committee. But on the basis of the few at which we looked and on the evidence from witnesses, it became clear that young people and organisations have difficulty in finding their way through the complex mass of programmes. In the view of the committee, as much support as possible should be available, particularly to those small groups or individuals who are negotiating contracts directly with Europe from their local base. We also recommend that, where possible, programmes should be consolidated and the procedures simplified. However, the committee recognizes—as the Government again point out in their response—that many of the programmes are directed to specific problems and needs.
Despite the range of activities set out in Appendix 3, by far the most significant funding for projects involving young people comes from the European structural funds. One of its five priority objectives is to help young people into the labour market. In 1989 some 73 per cent. of Social Fund expenditure benefited young people, much of it in training initiatives. Since then the greater flexibility allowed under the rules governing the fund has led the UK Government to reduce the proportion spent on young people. As reasons for that, the Department of Employment refers to the increased amount of funding, the declining number of young people and the need for greater support for the long-term unemployed. But given that young people themselves regard unemployment as their major problem and given the fact that unemployment among the young is rising at a tremendous rate, one is bound to have reservations about the Government's strategy.
That brings me to Part 4 of the report which deals with a range of problems facing young people in the Community. They are examined under the headings

437
of: mobility and demography; unemployment; education and training; homelessness; and family change and the transition to adulthood. I hope that some of those issues will be more fully covered by colleagues on the sub-committee.
Many of the problems arise from the transition to adulthood and as such affect all young people to some extent. I was particularly struck by the evidence that we received from the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, referred to in paragraph 79. The witness told the committee that the increasing demands for qualified and better educated young people meant that more young people remained longer in education or were involved in a process of to-ing and fro-ing between work and education and were therefore more dependent on parental support for longer, often into their twenties. Increasing reliance on family support inevitably favours those young people in families in the strongest social and economic circumstances.
The point was underlined by Ms. McKechnie from Shelter, who stated that for a whole variety of reasons, social and economic, many young people could not use the family as a base and for them the transition from dependence to independence was very difficult. Yet, as she said, for young people who go to university a highly supportive system is provided which helps them in that transition.
Perhaps the system is not as supportive as it was, as we have debated before in this House. Nevertheless, the difference in support levels for those in higher education and the remainder is quite considerable.
Much of the evidence, received from a wide variety of organisations, focused on what some see as a small (but nevertheless growing) number of disadvantaged young people who face a whole range of interconnected situations. They affect young people across the Community as a whole. Their intensity depends on the extent of the services and institutions available to deal with them, which differ from country to country and arise from different traditions and values. As such, they are problems which must largely be tackled by individual member states.
The committee by no means recommends an extension of Community competence to deal with housing and such problems. Nevertheless, it feels that there is a role for the Community. The Commission could play a clearer role in co-ordination and the dissemination of information about young people. For example, the committee found contradictory views on the likely increase in the movement of young people across borders after 1992. Whether there will be an increase in numbers, especially of the young unemployed and homeless, with a consequent exacerbation of social problems, we were unable to judge. Consequently we felt that to be an area in need of urgent study by the Commission—a view not shared by the Government.
We also felt that both in the Commission and within the UK Government there is a need for greater co-ordination of youth policies. At home we modestly suggested that that might be done through regular
438
ministerial involvement, either by a steering committee of Ministers or a single Minister of State, whose responsibility would include youth matters. I was a little surprised at some of the press reaction to that suggestion, particularly, as the evidence makes clear, since it is something that the young people themselves would like. Evidence from the Commission indicated that 10 out of 12 member states have such a Minister.
As we said in paragraph 92, the demand from witnesses for more co-ordination among government departments was widespread. Mr. Donoghue, the chairperson of the British Youth Council and the UK representative on the European youth forum, clearly felt the need for a single Minister, not an assortment of departmental Ministers, to speak for British youth in the Council of Ministers.
The committee found the evidence disturbing. It seemed to us that the approach of the Government when we met the Minister, if I may say so to him, was somewhat complacent. Nevertheless there is much common ground between the Government and the committee, as the response makes clear, despite some areas of difference to which I have already referred. Other areas, such as support and funding for the youth services, still seem to us to remain vulnerable despite the Government's response. If our youth service is to give the lead which the young witnesses demonstrated to the committee that it could do, then its resource base must be secure.
However, our purpose in recommending this report for debate was not to recommend simple solutions to complex problems. It was to contribute to the Community's debate on the position and needs of young people and to raise the profile of those needs in your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Young People in the European Community (14th Report, Session 1990–91, HL Paper 63).—(Baroness Lockwood.)
5.11 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I wish to begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for her leadership and guidance of Sub-Committee C and for her clear exposition today of the many issues that were raised at the meetings.
I had the privilege of becoming a member of Sub-Committee C half-way through its consideration on Young People in the European Community. It was my first introduction to the work of committees in your Lordships' House and it certainly extended my education and training. Although I had been a teacher for 40 years, a headmistress for 25 years, and president of Bishop Creighton House, a settlement in Fulham with a major concern for youth training and employment in that borough, for 10 years, I am ashamed to say that I had little idea of the range of education, training, voluntary service and exchange programmes available to the young people in the European Community.
That leads me to my first point. What is the use of having the opportunities available if teachers in schools, further education colleges, universities and

439
polytechnics, parents, employers, youth workers and, most important, the young people themselves are unaware of their existence? Our report draws attention to the fact that some organisations have appointed a member of staff to learn how, as it were, to work the system to his or her personal benefit. That should not be. Such programmes must be made public. Applying for a place on them should be simple and straightforward, not shrouded in seemingly foreign mystery.
Two programmes in particular interest me. The noble Baroness has already mentioned the PETRA scheme. It gives young workers technical and vocational education and initial training, often involving exchanges. The PETRA scheme started in 1989 and is due to be revised. It does, however, need careful monitoring and attention must be given not only to publicising it but also to giving enough back up and support to the young trainees during and after their courses.
The ERASMUS programme also deserves to be better known. I have personal experience of its effectiveness. While visiting Prague in February this year, I met three young men who were clearly enjoying their tour of this historic city. I heard them talking in German to a waitress—I thought that it was rather good German—and then realised that they were British. I learned that all three were engineering students at London's South Bank Polytechnic whose director, the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, is a Member of your Lordships' House.
As part of their Bachelor of Engineering course in electrical engineering, the three students were spending a year at the Hochschule in Bremen where for the first few months they had been learning German. None had studied German at school. They were now working in industrial firms in Bremen. Throughout their ERASMUS year they were being encouraged to travel in Europe; hence their weekend visit to Czechoslovakia from Germany. Erasmus himself would surely have approved.
Evidently the South Bank Polytechnic sends mechanical engineering students to Mannheim on the same ERASMUS scheme and is attempting to establish a similar exchange programme in France—with greater difficulty. At a time when there are so many problems facing young people, and so much criticism—not always well founded—of the education and training standards in this country, I am delighted to offer some good news. Those young engineering students of ours are welcomed with enthusiasm in Bremen and Mannheim—to such an extent, so the dean of the engineering department tells me, that the Germans guarantee all of them employment in an industrial company in Germany once they have qualified. Germany is working positively towards 1993, appreciating the value of workers who will have gained double award accreditation: the B.Eng. in Britain and the Dipl.Ing.—the equivalent of our M.Eng. degree—in Germany.
I hope for the development and expansion of ERASMUS and I beg deans, senior tutors and others in responsible positions to make sure that they publicise the scheme on noticeboards and in students'
440
magazines. Schools too can help. I have great hopes for the newly formed ESHA—the European Secondary Heads Association. It has titles in German and French too which I shall not attempt to pronounce. It is based in the Netherlands. It will link with other educational organisations representing teachers, governors, officials and parents under the umbrella of the Permanent Liaison Committee of European Associations in Europe—charmingly known as PLEASE.
My final point touches on an aspect of the development and encouragement of young people which has not, so far as I know, been touched on in the Commission memorandum. Museums have an important role in helping people, especially young people, to explore their own identity and place in society. Those young people who do not qualify for PETRA or ERASMUS can be helped greatly by hands-on courses in their local museums. For example, the Geffrye museum in Shoreditch—I have to declare an interest; I am chairman of the trustees —runs popular and successful craft courses for young housebound mothers, most of whom are well under 25, and gives them a step up the ladder of confidence.
I have touched on some of the positive aspects of youth in the Community. Others will talk of the downside: the thousands of disadvantaged young men and women, some homeless, who are marginalised and demoralised. They will talk of those young people's worrying plight far more tellingly than I can. Let us do our utmost in the Community to help the young people who are disadvantaged. However, let us also do our very best to nourish and develop the talents of our gifted young throughout Europe, many of whom may also be socially disadvantaged. Many of the gifted young are the hope of future peace and understanding.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I speak in the debate with a certain amount of anxiety because I was not lucky enough to be a member of the committee. As I am one of the younger Members of this House that was rather remiss of me. Furthermore, I feel a little abashed about speaking so early in the debate but, as my noble friend Lord Ross is unable to be present, I am the first person to speak from these Benches.
I am impressed by the quality of work that has gone into the report. I congratulate all those involved in its preparation. In particular I am impressed by the fact that the report concentrates on people at the lower end of the education and opportunities ladder. Surely they need the most help and always will. The two main integration programmes, PETRA and the Youth Forum, are excellent and overdue ideas. If we are to have an integrated labour market we must ensure that a country such as ours, which has a tradition of being bad at languages and thus at integrating, must take steps forward. The people who are traditionally the educational failures—those who have failed inside the education system—usually dropped the study of languages or failed also in that area. Therefore it is important that they are exposed to another language outside the system. It will be easier for them then to

441
pick up the rudimentary workings of another language; for instance, the verbal skills of asking directions, ordering a cup of tea and so forth. They are vital skills for living in a society, but those people will not have learnt them at school. One can hope only that exposure to another culture will give them an advantage over someone who has merely book-learned the language.
The report points to the many problems of youth, whose existence is reasonably well accepted, but one must put them in proper context as regards Europe as a whole. We must quickly address the problem of the further education and training of the mass of people who have been through the school system. Again, I refer to those who have not done well at school and who have not obtained the greater benefit of the higher education system and the support available in it. As noble Lords who attended our debates on the student loans legislation will know, I do not believe that the Government's record on providing assistance and support through higher education is good. However, one can safely say that the people who have contact with it are a thousand times better off than those people who come nowhere near that stage.
The whole issue appears to be interrelated to our social security system. The people who traditionally do not enter the higher education system are often those who are highly dependent on the social security system. There are the problems of housing and claiming social security benefits. Largely through the accident of social upbringing, and to a personal extent, some people are alienated from the system. I shall not bore noble Lords by going into the long pseudo-sociological argument about expectations generating their own degree of reality; but people from a non-educational background are not high educational achievers.
People who are least equipped with academic qualifications find themselves having to deal with the job market. Invariably they come from family groups which are the least financially well off and socially acclimatised to supporting people in their late teens and early 20s. Increasingly, such young people must be supported and helped for a longer period. That is difficult for someone in receipt of a grant, particularly in view of the new loans system. It is almost impossible to find families from what was traditionally called the blue-collar section, with a lower income, able to support a young person through higher education and training, especially for longer periods. We must look for a way of supporting young people through this difficult time.
It is unfortunate that the social security system appears to be weighted heavily against the young. There is in particular a ludicrous anomaly that I have never been able to understand. Young people between the ages of 16 and 17 will receive about £22 per week, between the ages of 18 and 24 about £29 per week and over 25 almost £37. They are not large amounts, but it is odd that they discriminate against the young. Young men between, say, 16 and 17 years are still growing and therefore they need a better diet and new clothing. The Government should look into the
442
system. The young appear to be discriminated against probably for traditional reasons; I do not suggest that the Government have consciously decided to discriminate against them. However, there is pressure on them at home because they are a financial burden. When considering the problem of the young it is increasingly obvious that they face a variety of problems at one time. There is a transitional period during which they are trying to find a direction in their lives and also the means to pursue it.
I was interested in particular in paragraph 35 of the report dealing with the setting up of advice shops for the young and the introduction of a new youth card. There has for some time been a requirement for advice shops for the young. Many schemes are available to help young people, assuming that we have overcome the financial difficulties but, unfortunately, they are difficult to track down. If we accept that such young people will not be used to dealing with forms and so forth in classrooms—and I accept that many people will not agree—they must be assisted through the complications of finding help. To a degree schools can provide such assistance, but people who have not done well at school will not have taken full advantage of the careers advice service. Once one has left school, one's situation changes.
Greater emphasis should be placed on providing a centre of information for the young. It is hoped that they will then be able to find their own way onto the various schemes that have been mentioned. If they can go on one of the many government training schemes, the PETRA programme or the European youth scheme, they will be better placed to take advantage of employment opportunities throughout the Community.
I repeat that I was not a member of the original committee. But I believe that unless a co-ordinated approach is taken to help young people in that way, whether through a ministry or some sort of glorified committee, the problem will never be properly solved. Most people waste a great deal of energy chasing around in circles trying to find answers. They become dispirited and they give up, but the problem could be dealt with through the existing mechanisms. I ask the Government to help young people to use the existing machinery.
5.30 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for the kindly way in which she chaired the committee. Not only the committee but the whole House is indebted to her for the very hard work which she put into steering the committee through an enormous amount of evidence, both written and oral, which provides the resultant report before your Lordships today.
I fully agree with the recommendations of the report but I trust that some means may be evolved for co-ordinating the different government departments in this country which deal with youth problems. One problem raised by the 1992 single market is how much the mobility of young people in Europe will increase from this country and the other way round. On the whole witnesses agreed that disadvantaged young

443
people would lack the resources to move much or to travel in search of employment and accommodation. Obviously, they will not be able to sustain a job or training if they are searching for somewhere to live.
In her evidence, the director of the national bureau said that in recent discussion in Brussels young people with physical disabilities have been highlighted. The national bureau wished to ensure that any special provision or modifications would be built in to the design of buildings and would include the special needs of the blind, deaf and otherwise disabled. The needs of the disabled, whether in terms of sight, hearing or physical mobility, are often forgotten, even now.
Another point of anxiety which emerged from several of the witnesses was how little available information there was about the likelihood of young people moving in Europe in the 1990s. Apparently we have no idea how many young people from EC countries can be expected to come here. It appears that many member states of the EC have problems with small groups of disadvantaged young people who form an isolated element in society. The existence of that group as revealed by the evidence given to the committee may have serious implications for integration into Europe.
In evidence from Shelter, we were told in particular of the French foyer system. That is a form of hostel but different from the English meaning of "hostel". The system is education and training centred and led. Shelter is trying to establish a similar system in this country but adapted to local needs. The foyer is essentially a young person's hostel which provides link training employment and housing with a large element of social education and development of social skills within the foyer. Thus, a young person when leaving afoyer will have made friends and will not feel lonely or isolated. The foyer system does not cover all needs; but if developed, it could go a long way towards integrating young people into society.
From some of the evidence which the committee heard, it was evident that the profusion of qualifications is confusing to young people and the various opportunities on offer are as muddling as Hampton Court's maze when trying to take advantage of training in Europe. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has already explained the PETRA programme. The intention to extend and revise that programme is to be welcomed in particular for those young people who have left education at an early age and are not qualified to attend programmes for those in higher education. The overall objective is to increase the European dimension for technical and vocational education leading to a recognised qualification.
To conclude, I wish to mention that Shelter reports that the Department of Employment has expressed an interest and I understand that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Robert Jackson, proposes to visit some French schemes later this year. The department has also seconded a civil servant to investigate the links to training agencies. That is very much to be welcomed.
444
I am delighted to know also that the Commissioner, Madame Papandreou, is particularly interested in the European foyer scheme which would provide the means for young people in Europe to be mobile without being at risk of exploitation and homelessness. I hope very much that that scheme succeeds.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, my concern is not with the majority of young people in the European Community but with those that this report describes as the:
"small but significant group of especially disadvantaged young people who form an isolated or 'marginalised' element of society"
in all the member states of the European Community.
This disadvantaged and alienated section of our society has been particularly visible in our cities this last summer—stealing cars; wrecking, burning and looting houses and shops; and fighting with police officers. Particularly shocking this last few years have been the huddled shapes of children sleeping in doorways and the young beggars in the subways of the London Underground. Indeed, we seem to have returned to the standards of Victorian England.
These unhappy young people seem to have become more visible. That is partly because of the vivid images we all see on television, partly because different groups in society are much more intermingled than they were even as little as 30 years ago when I first started work in the East End of London. The East End of London used to be a vast foreign country stretching from Aldgate Pump to beyond the Royal Group of Docks with its own, often violent, culture but with its own values and a considerable degree of homogeneity. That culture has fragmented and has not only become more multi-cultural but also has rich and poor living cheek by jowl in close proximity where the affluence and possessions of one inevitably increase the envy and despair of the other. This is true not only of the Docklands development area but also of the so-called "crescent of deprivation" of Islington, Hackney and Tower Hamlets which lies around the eastern fringes of that symbol of money-making—the City of London.
Other cities of the United Kingdom are subject to the same phenomenon as we have seen in Oxford, Cardiff and in Newcastle this summer. Indeed, I understand there is a luxury development being built within sight of the Meadow Wall Estate which, moreover, has had no effect on the appalling rate of unemployment—85 per cent.—among the young people there.
In London in March this year—and the number must have increased since then—there were calculated to be 40 unemployed for every advertised vacancy. Few of the unemployed, especially from places like Islington and Hackney, will have the necessary skills to succeed against this level of competition. Quite rightly a great deal of emphasis has been placed on training people in vocational skills so that they can enter the job market. However, for those with no hope of getting a job such training must seem a hollow mockery.

445
There used to be intermediary rungs on the ladder between the affluent and the less well-off in our society, which gave young people hope and the incentive to work hard to improve their position in life. Now, for perhaps 10 per cent. of our population, 5 million or more people, the gap appears to be unbridgeable between their own situation of damp and decaying, or non-existent, housing, on featureless estates, with struggling schools and closing factories, and the situation of their near neighbours with their cars, centrally heated homes and foreign holidays. That impression of what constitutes a normal family life in Britain today is confirmed by endless glossy images on television. As Professor Ashton said in his evidence to the European Communities Committee, there is a real danger of a group of young people being "trapped" below the base of the labour market.
Young people whose lives are empty and who can make no plans for their future will inevitably become bored and depressed (indeed, boredom is often a symptom of depression) and so they seek interest and excitement wherever it may be found, often by turning to crime. As the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, said last week:
"thousands of youngsters … get into trouble because they are bored and say that they have nothing to do".
She advocated more opportunities for young people to take part in sport and I would not disagree with that, but we need to do far more if we are not to have a large and permanently disadvantaged underclass increasingly prone to crime and violence as the gap between themselves and the rest of society widens.
First, we need long-term strategic planning on a regional basis to provide the necessary consistent framework for local authorities so that they can improve the infrastructure of housing, employment and education. Those cannot be left to the vagaries of market forces or quickly scrambled-together inner city initiatives imposed by central government. The Government also must delegate more real power to local authorities to enable them to respond directly to the local problems with which they are familiar. For example, by being allowed to spend their capital receipts from the sale of council houses on further house building.
Currently, European Community grants for declining industrial areas tend to be absorbed into central government funds. EC funding should be additional to existing funding and not be subject to the expenditure controls imposed on local authorities. In another part of Europe (France) the mayor of even the tiniest commune of 100 people is a discretionary budget holder. We need to learn to have that sort of commitment to local knowledge and autonomy.
Secondly, there needs to be more immediate support for youth workers and other agencies in both the voluntary and statutory sector that can introduce different dimensions and some hope into the lives of our young people. As my noble friend Lord Richard pointed out last week, two-thirds of local authorities had to cut back on their youth provision last year. It
446
is possible that that might in part be connected with the problems that we have seen with disenchanted and antagonistic youth.
Education can take many forms, in addition to the purely academic or vocational. In the absence of any reasonable prospect of obtaining a job, as in parts of London or Newcastle, it may be that not vocational education but education to develop self confidence and social skills is what is required to enable young people to escape from the trap to which they are condemned. For some of them crimes against property must have a symbolic significance as well as providing excitement and a means to acquiring consumer goods or ready cash. Urgent action is of course needed to reduce the current high level of property crime.
The recent Home Office report on crime prevention —the Morgan Report—refers to the need for durable long-term schemes to divert young people from crime. The words "durable" and "long-term" are very important. Policy, as many witnesses to the European Communities Committee testified, must be coherent and co-ordinated between different agencies. Without those requisites, we will continue to be surprised by the wholly predictable responses of young people to feelings of despair and entrapment.
5.42 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, yesterday throughout the country we spent time remembering the young people killed in two successive world wars. I therefore particularly welcome the opportunity today to debate in your Lordships' House the prospect of the future of our present young people who, we believe, will not face the trauma of going to war. Nevertheless, they experience other kinds of problems which we must attempt to solve with the co-operation of the Community, governments and voluntary organisations.
The programmes initiated by the Commission in favour of young people seek to provide models of good practice with a European dimension in matters of education and training, leaving national, regional and local authorities the task of implementing and running the programmes. To my mind, among its many other duties, that is an ideal role for the Commission, with the co-operation of governments and voluntary agencies. I particularly welcome the report coming from Sub-Committee C and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, on producing the document which is so full of information. It covers a wide range of matters. In fact, the wide range of its contents reflects to a large extent the many problems which affect youth and which cannot be given a blanket overall solution. Each problem must be dealt with separately, carefully and looked at on its own. We must have the sense and understanding to say, "This is a problem here. It will not be the same as elsewhere and the solution will not be the same". That is an important aspect that comes out of the document.
Among the three documents which form the basis of the report, there is a list of a wide range of European Community activities relating to youth.

447
They all give opportunities to young people who would otherwise not be able to benefit from local initialives.
I should like to make a few points arising from the report itself. In paragraphs 102 and 103 I was somewhat surprised and rather sad to see no mention of the role of Members of the European Parliament in acting either as a source of information to their constituents or as a connection between their constituents and the European Commission. That is part of their job. I hope that out of this debate will come an understanding by the British public that that is what MEPs are elected for. It is their job to act as a link between the central authority in Brussels and their constituents.
Another point which concerned me was the number of departments involved in dealing with any specific subject. I know that it is difficult in an administration for one Minister to be responsible for one subject. However, in one programme to which I shall turn later we had to deal with the DTI, the Department of Employment and the Department of Education and Science. One never really understands to whom one is meant to speak and what the result will be. That is a failure to recognise the need for one contact to deal with one specific problem.
Another point I wish to make concerns a statement by Professor Brimmer, who speaks of young people not being able to move south due to high rents. At one stage Reading and the area around the Thames Valley had an unemployment rate of only 2 per cent. Firms were desperate to obtain young people from the North of England—or anywhere in the United Kingdom. Housing, flats and every conceivable kind of amenity were offered. Either the young would not come at all or, if they did come, they would stay only a few days or a maximum of a week. They returned home because they were happier at home without a job than being in what was to them an alien culture. They may have missed their girl friend or the shops that they knew, spoke a different kind of language or had different interests. My point is not that the children went home; I can understand that. But to say houses are more expensive in the south and therefore young people will not come south is not the easy answer. It is a more fundamental and difficult human problem.
The other point I wish to make concerns evidence given by Professor Ashton in paragraph 67. He gives a variety of reasons why some young people do not appreciate the value of education. He mentioned matters such as the national core curriculum. I am certain that those young people not interested in education have never heard of the national core curriculum. In any case, that is a comparatively new episode in our educational history. I suggest that it is more the attitude of the parents. They believe that education is free; they go away for the day and leave their children at school. It does not matter what happens to them. However, those of us who for many years have dealt with members of the Asian community, for instance, know full well that the vast majority of those parents, and certainly those I have had the honour and pleasure of knowing, pay the most tremendous attention not only to education but also
448
to the success of their children. In the Thames Valley schools one will always find Asian children doing extremely well in their work. That has nothing to do with being less deprived or more deprived or having less or more money. The value that parents attach to the importance of education for their children and that they should prosper in a British society affects the child's attitude. That is probably more fundamental than the national core curriculum.
The head master's approach to education and the value he attaches to it is also important. Within the space of 10 miles one can have 200 children leaving a school's sixth form where every child obtains a job of some kind, training or a place within a college of education. Yet a few miles down the road the headmaster of another school will say, "I tell my children that if 50 per cent. obtain a job they will be lucky". The attitude of the headmaster has a tremendous effect on education. I do not believe that I can go along with some of the easy answers which are given as regards some aspects of the report.
I wish to mention three youth programmes, two of which are mentioned in the report. I have had the honour of being connected with them both in their foundation and in their running as either the chairman or in some other capacity. The first is the COMETT programme which has proved to be an invaluable tool. It was started in 1985 at Windsor by the then commissioner, Mr. Peter Sutherland. It has stimulated links between industry, colleges of education and universities which certainly did not exist at the time. That was through the establishment of what is known as UETPs, which are university educational links. TARGET in the Thames Valley was one of the first.
These bodies are concerned specifically with advanced technological training, especially information technology, resulting in the sharing of experience; effective technological transfer from research to industry, the setting up of training projects on a trans-national basis, and thereby giving young people opportunities for work placements. The level of student placements on the Continent has been outstanding. In the first COMETT programme which ran for between three and five years, 4,000 young people throughout Europe exchanged work experience in different parts of the Community. If one can measure success in terms of statistics, within its first year COMETT II, the second stage of the programme, has benefited 4,000 students with the possibility of exchange.
Therefore, not only are young people being encouraged and enabled to learn about the other countries of the EC; they also acquire other languages and technical skills. The exchanges have proved beneficial not only to the young themselves but also to the companies. They have started contacts and learnt themselves. Many of the companies in the Thames Valley which received young French and German students are very loath to see them return home. Links have been built up. One noble Lord has already mentioned that these young people will return to the firms where they received the work experience. That can only be to the good.

449
The other side of the matter is that it makes young people, who would perhaps not be prepared to look at their local industry or go to a local firm because it is a "dirty job" being an engineer, go abroad and suddenly see a new aspect of industry; they return with a completely different outlook. As can be seen, the COMETT programme has been a considerable success. It has had a multiplier effect. The task force of DG V in the Commission is to be warmly congratulated on the initiative and stimulus that it has given to making the project so successful throughout the Community. I very much hope that the Government will put all their weight behind seeing that the COMETT programme is continued when COMETT II comes to an end.
There is another initiative which has had considerable support from DG X. That is the information and cultural directorate headed by Commissioner Dondelinger. It has given very great help to the European Community Youth Orchestra. That is in quite a different field. It was launched in 1975 by Mr. Heath. It has been in operation since 1977. Over 1,200 young musicians from all the 12 member states have played in that orchestra throughout the Community and outside in countries such as India, China and the United States. That orchestra has played under the batons of the world's leading conductors. From the beginning Claudio Abbado has been its musical director. That of itself draws support not only from the Commission, but from governments and from private sector financiers. In my view that is the ideal trio for financing any projects of this kind. The orchestra has played under the batons of Herbert von Karajan, Sir Georg Solti and Vladimir Ashkenazy during this year. They are just a few of the very distinguished conductors who have given their time.
This activity is a model that we should follow in other fields. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, mentioned that sport was a good idea but perhaps did not put too much stress on it. Leading sportsmen could give of their time to help young people, particularly the disadvantaged and the disabled, to run sports meetings, or motor racing drivers might work out some of the terrible complexes that we now see in joy riding. If sportsmen who lead in playing football, rugby or tennis were to give of their time, they could do a tremendous amount to attract young people into a world of leisure which is not connected with crime, but with enjoyment, skill and leadership. The sports leaders in this country and throughout the Community could do a great deal to change the attitude of so many of our young people who lead such disadvantaged, unhappy and sometimes dangerous lives.
Without taking up too much of your Lordships' time, I wish to mention an organisation because of the comments made about the Youth Forum that consists of people who are no longer young. A European youth parliament has recently been established. It met for the first time this year at Oxford. It gives an opportunity for young people to discuss national political issues at EC level. The youth parliament will
450
be meeting regularly. It has already arranged for a session in April 1992. That will unite young people of all backgrounds, creeds, religions and race to discuss European matters with a European dimension.
These programmes give an example of excellent co-operation with the Commission, stimulating and co-ordinating national action and encouraging both national, regional and local initiatives in order to give opportunities for young people to benefit from membership of the EC. That includes all those whether disadvantaged or not.
I wish to comment on the point which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, rightly made as regards information reaching the young. What is necessary is not so much a meeting of the members of the steering committee of ministers, because they speak only to themselves or to their civil servants, but conferences of voluntary organisations. They are the bodies which are in touch with the recipients and those at the grass roots who need the information and who can use it. From time to time meetings of voluntary agencies attended by the Commission and a representative of the Government might go at least some way to bringing this information to the young so that they know what opportunities are available to them.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I shall speak only briefly because so much of the ground has already been eloquently covered by our chairman. I wish to make two points. There must be few reports before this House to which a dozen or more government departments have contributed responses. That illustrates not only the quality of the report and of our chairman, but also the widespread concern and commitment of many government departments as regards the problems of young people.
On many occasions the Government have said that all young people should have the opportunity to take part in education and training until they are at least 18 years of age. There is a substantial commitment to this end contained in the White Paper, Education and Training for the 21st Century. As has been said, the committee's principal finding was that many young people in the Community face multiple problems. Those with minimal education and training are likely to have difficulty in obtaining permanent employment. Apart from those about whom I wish to speak in more detail, the committee also concluded that there exists in many member states a small but significant group of specially disadvantaged young people who form an isolated or marginalised element of society. They have been eloquently spoken about by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton. They have been called by the media deprived or depraved. The conflict goes on in this country as to which is the cause of the situation.
The existence of this group and the many facets revealed by the evidence we received has profound implications for integration in Europe. The factors have been very well summarised by Shelter: the failure of the housing system to meet the needs of the young; the level of unemployment and the stagnation of wages in real terms; the progressive withdrawal and

451
reduce ion of benefits; and the complexities of benefits, relationship breakdown with parents and the decline of the extended family and community support, the relative failure of education and training systems to prepare young people for their role in society—something more than technical training—and the general social pressures giving rise to expectation of both economic and social independence. Many voluntary and statutory organisations have described these problems and the wide contribution of government departments to this response indicates an anxiety to contribute to the solution.
Another approach referred to by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, is to look at the experience of the young in the 16 to 25 year-old age group in terms of transition from dependence to independence. How does one facilitate the integration of the young into society? It was argued in evidence to us that other models in Europe may offer the young better opportunities of achieving independence—for example, in France. But transferring systems from one culture to another can be fraught with difficulties. Therefore, because of the complex and multi-faceted nature of this problem, the committee recommended that the Commission itself should draw up a general report on the situation of young people throughout the Community.
Some would argue that this could be an important development in 1992, when Britain assumes the presidency of the Community. In this area the role of the current president could be vitally important and the nature of the problem and the responsibilities involved would make the president a central focus. Such a policy would fit in with the declared intentions of the Community.
I ask the Government whether under these circumstances they would not reconsider the question of having a minister for the young or some other co-ordination role. Are the Government prepared to depart from the view expressed in their response that young people can best be served through actions which address specific issues rather than treating them as a minority group?
Perhaps I may tell your Lordships of a recent report which has given rise to anxiety. It is a report by the Children's Society which I think must be considered. It is a report based on 72 individual cases from five district health authorities in Wales and the West of England. They found that young people were being admitted to mental hospitals because of difficult behaviour at school or at home, problems with their friends, aggressive behaviour, or stealing. Once in psychiatric care there were no legal safeguards to protect their rights. Drugs, physical restraint and confinement in "time out" rooms were all used to control their behaviour.
Hearing this, one can understand the anxiety that is being expressed. I believe that in such a situation, there usually will be a lead department in government. However, the evidence that we have received suggests the problem is more complex and requires a different solution. Addressing specific issues when certain important aspects are not covered by those issues could in some cases lead to failure and a waste of
452
resources. One feels that under these circumstances we cannot avoid the responsibility of co-ordinating the whole field in this country and in Europe. Such a role seems to me to be an ideal opportunity for the British presidency in 1992.
6.4 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I speak as a member of the committee whose report is before the House and therefore, with your Lordships' leave, from the Back-Benches.
I commend the report to your Lordships. It is the result of much painstaking work in which we were helped by a large number of people and institutions, including voluntary organisations who made representations to us, and of course by our invaluable staff. I join many of your Lordships who have spoken in the debate in commending the work and the leadership given to us by our chairman the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood.
There is no doubt that for some young people 1992, and all it stands for, is an exciting challenge. I have spoken to many young undergraduates who relish the idea of working elsewhere in the Community and who are confident of their ability to do so, equipped as they intend to be with good degrees and language skills. They are the fortunate ones. In the main, they come from relatively privileged backgrounds and stable family situations. Sadly, that is not the case for a number of young people. That was why the committee was right, in my view, to concentrate on the plight of the disadvantaged and the underprivileged.
However, the programmes embarked upon by the Community were criticised by a number of those who made representations to us on the basis that insufficient had been done to reach disadvantaged young people. The Commission is apparently aware of this, and it is now proposed that in the extension of the Youth for Europe programme at least a third of the appropriation will be set-aside to assist those from disadvantaged backgrounds. That is to be welcomed.
There is the further problem that youth organisations are not always run by young people but often by adult professionals in the field. There appear to be real difficulties in involving young people themselves. We discovered as a result of the evidence submitted to us that unemployment among young people is now perceived as a major problem—not just in the UK, it must be said. In Spain and Southern Italy, it actually appears to be worse. Nevertheless, it is quite a significant problem in the UK. Then there is family breakdown—as one witness put it to us, it is not much good wishing that we could go back to some mythical Victorian era. After all, not everyone had stable family backgrounds then. Dickens and Disraeli both knew about that and described it in their novels.
We have to face present-day conditions when one in three marriages ends in divorce, and there is a substantial increase in single parent families in households often headed by women working on low pay. Then there are often difficulties with step-parents. Many young people leave home because they no longer feel at home there. Sometimes they suffer physical or sexual abuse. As the Director of Shelter

453
put it to us, "It is not possible to turn back the tide. History is against you. Policy you can change in terms of housing and in other ways. Individual behaviour is somewhat more intransigent."
Thus some young people are caught up in a vicious circle—without a job they cannot get housing, without an address they will not get a job. It must be said that on this score we had some very pessimistic evidence. For example, NACRO said that there was "a revolving door syndrome—no home, no job, no money, crime, increasing isolation from society, imprisonment, no home on release and so on, back again in prison not long afterwards." The Director of Shelter also warned us that once young people are sleeping rough they can become a law and order problem.
Homelessness among the young is a problem not only in the UK, although it seems to have become worse here in recent years. We were interested to try to find out how our neighbours in the EC, whose societies face much the same kind of strains as our own, were coping. It seems that in Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium special facilities are available; and in France, as we have heard from the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, there is apparent provision of low-rental hostel accommodation. These seemed ways of coping with the situation to some extent.
The Low Pay Unit stated without equivocation that the reason for homelessness among young people was that they could not afford anywhere to live. The Wages Act 1986 has had the effect of excluding young people from the protection of wages councils with the result that there has been an overall fall in the pay of young people in the relevant industries. Moreover, it was alleged that there are 62,000 16 and 17 year-olds out of work but not included in the unemployment statistics since as a result of recent legislation, such young people cannot claim unemployment pay, and the promises about places on youth training schemes have not all been fulfilled. It is scarcely surprising that in such circumstances some young people eventually land up on the streets. I do not believe that many can be there by choice. The other day I gave money to a young man who was begging in Holborn. He was clearly shivering with cold, and he looked as though he had been there all night. If there was any other option, I cannot believe that people would choose to live like that.
We have all seen examples of lawlessness on the part of a minority of young people—so much so that the Government are to bring forward a Bill to deal with what is wrongly termed "joyriding", although there can be nothing particularly joyful about an activity which results in deaths and injuries and in widespread public disquiet. It has been strongly denied by some spokespersons on behalf of the Government that this kind of activity results from deprivation, and there is a tendency to blame the parents. The young people concerned may not be homeless, and some—but by no means all—appear to have jobs. But I recall those television interviews with some of the youths—not themselves involved but supporters of those who were—which took place
454
against the background of the gaunt and dismal housing estates where they lived. "Well, everyone does it", they said; "What else is there to do around here?" Surely that is evidence of deprivation of a kind. It indicates educational and cultural disadvantage if nothing else.
The Government are now putting a good deal of emphasis on training, and of course they are right to do so. Far fewer young people in the UK are in full-time education or vocational training between the ages of 16 and 18 than in other European countries, particularly Germany. The committee therefore, rightly in my view, strongly reiterated the recommendation that it made in its report on vocational training —that all young people in the United Kingdom between the ages of 16 and 18 should either be in full-time education or undergoing approved vocational training. They should not be in dead-end jobs, or unemployed on the streets.
The committee also believed that there was a need for more co-ordination between Ministers on youth problems—either a steering committee of Ministers or a single Minister of State. We felt that the educationally underprivileged and seriously disadvantaged young represent a special problem to which particular attention should be given. We were made fully aware, if we did not know already, of the extremely worthy activities of many voluntary organisations, without whose involvement things would undoubtedly be a great deal worse and far more hopeless for many disadvantaged young people. Nevertheless, this is an area where the Government should take a lead and where the expenditure of money should be regarded as an investment, rather than simply expenditure. We were repeatedly warned by witnesses about the possibility of the creation of an underclass, alienated and dangerous. I hope and believe that the report of our committee makes a valuable contribution to the discussion of the very complex questions involved.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I join earlier speakers in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, on the admirable way in which she guided us through this difficult inquiry. It will scarcely come as a surprise to my colleagues on the committee if I say that I shall concentrate on only two paragraphs of the report, paragraphs 110 and 111, which have already been referred to by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunter. Those paragraphs refer in particular to the small but significant group of especially disadvantaged young people who form an isolated or marginalised element of society. The report goes on to state that it is not possible to identify a single cause for that situation. I want to discuss just one aspect of the problem and one possible solution. I should like to look at one of the most common causes of poverty and deprivation—the inability to cope with the pressures of modern life, especially in the inner city. That inability is very often caused by a history of inadequate parenting.

455
It is a natural instinct in children to love and admire their parents. When a parent lets a child down by deserting him, beating him or abusing him, the child, because the parent is his hero, will blame himself. Such children are left with a terrible feeling of guilt and inadequacy. I believe that such a child is handicapped just as much as one who is born with a physical disability. This emotional handicap often leads to disruptive behaviour and showing off, poor performance at school which then leads to boredom and truanting, and a feeling of alienation and rejection from society.
Unless such children are helped they will arrive at the age of 16 partially uneducated—sometimes unable to read or write—and with deep feelings of rejection and resentment against society. Then, at 16, that same young person is expected to go out into the world and find himself a training place, and to stick to it living on £27 a week. That may be possible if the young person is living at home but an increasing number of 16 year olds are being thrown out of their homes, either, as one noble Lord said, by their step-parent, or their mother's lover, or because there is not room in what is perhaps only a two-bedroomed apartment or house. How can a young person live without accommodation on £27 a week?
In practice, many have neither the motivation nor the education to seek a training place; and if they do they sometimes do not have the guts to stay with it when the going becomes a little rough. They get irregular low-paid jobs when they can, and for the rest of the time depend on crime or prostitution, living rough or dossing with friends. Under those circumstances they are at high risk of being drawn into drugs or alcohol abuse. What is frightening is that very soon those same young people begin to breed children. Those children are likely to become another generation in the same cycle of inadequate parenting.
The right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary and the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, have suggested, in different contexts, that we should blame the parents. I do not believe that to do so is realistic when one bears in mind that most of those parents were probably also emotionally handicapped as children and were brought up without satisfactory parental role models or any experience of a supportive family. They had no opportunity to learn how to relate to one another, to build a home and to rear children. And so the cycle continues.
Can this cycle of poor parenting be broken? I believe that it can, and I believe that it must. If it is not, we shall see a continuation of the rapidly increasing levels of juvenile crime and of rioting and disaffection in our inner cities. The cost of maintaining law and order will escalate. No society can afford to have a disaffected and disillusioned underclass who resent and reject the values which hold that society together.
It is important to realise that I am here talking about only a relatively small number of young people. The cost of helping this small group would be relatively low. The cost of not helping them could in time to come be disproportionately high. What this group needs is to have restored their self-respect and
456
confidence that they can relate to a society which they feel has rejected them. That can be done only by rebuilding their self-confidence and providing them with ongoing support.
Over the past five years I have been privileged to work under the auspices of the Children's Department of Toynbee Hall for a couple of weeks each year, with young people who fall into this category. The greatest revelation which has come to me—and this may be naive—is that these children are not bad people; they are potentially nice and lovable young people who have just had a terrible experience in their life which has screwed them up inside. They need help. To anyone who is prepared to accept and like them, "warts and all", I find that there is always a warm and positive response. Their great need is to have the affection of adults whom they can respect and trust. The ways in which that can be achieved will obviously vary according to the age of the child.
Up to the age of 16, the child's main contact with the adult world outside the immediate family is the extended family. Grandparents have an important role to play. It is encouraging to see that the Children Act gives a voice to grandparents.
Another point of contact is the teacher. If we are serious in wanting to tackle the problems of insecure children in inner-city schools, action must be taken to stabilise the teaching team. Children simply cannot relate to teachers, however good, if they are changing every year—sometimes every term or even more frequently. It seems to me that special action needs to be taken to create a corps d'élite of dedicated teachers who are prepared to stay in inner-city schools and give time and care to befriending children who need it. There is also a need for the curriculum to include such subjects as homemaking and parenting, and to give guidance and offer discussion on human relationships and decision making.
For those children who are in the care of the local authority, there is an urgent need for a major improvement in the provision of social workers in some inner cities. The report of the Social Services Inspectorate dated September 1990 shows that in March of that year there were 7,600 children on the child protection registers in the 32 London boroughs. Of those, 820 were unallocated to any social worker, due to staff shortages. That seems to me to be a crazy situation in areas where there are many vulnerable and deprived children. Obviously, because our inner cities are not the most attractive areas in which to work, all but the most dedicated social workers tend to leave as soon as a better job is offered. Like teachers, social workers need to be sufficiently permanent to enable stable and supportive relationships to be formed with emotionally handicapped young people.
In the context of the under-16s, youth workers and voluntary organisations also have a significant part to play. Children can go to them of their own free will. That helps to create access to supportive adults for children who resent authority. It provides such children with activities which occupy them, give them a sense of inclusion and offer them the possibility of proving themselves. Volunteers make excellent befrienders, but they need professional back-up,

457
screening and training. There is a need for a relatively foolproof system of vetting for both voluntary and professional youth workers. Modest amounts of additional financial support are essential to supplement all the excellent voluntary work which is being carried out.
Then, at the age of 16, we come to the transition from school to work. At 16, our emotionally handicapped young person is exposed to a new set of problems. Therefore, new sorts of help are needed. Several noble Lords have spoken about the complexity of the facilities which are made available by the Government. Last week I visited Tower Hamlets to try to find out what would be available to me if I was a 16 year-old. I could not actually fool the authorities that I was of that age; but I asked them to pretend that I was and to tell me what was available. While the "high-ups" to whom I subsequently spoke were most helpful to me, the staff at the counter, although equally helpful, did not have, in many cases, the information that a young person would have needed. I went first to the Stop-shop and then to the careers centre and finally to the Jobcentre. Information was difficult to obtain. I could expand upon that experience, but I shall leave it for another occasion.
The sort of help needed by young people from the age of 16 is careers guidance and counselling. I must say that the careers service I visited was very positive. There is a need for an opportunity to brush up on the three Rs without loss of face. Therefore, the course must be called something like "Business Studies" otherwise such young people will not attend. There must also be appropriate training opportunities, supervision and encouragement, with perhaps a tutor to persuade them to continue. These young people do not have great moral fibre. It is necessary to build up their self-confidence if they are to continue with a training course and then perhaps obtain starter jobs which are easy to get into. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to advice shops. I believe that, if such shops were properly staffed and equipped with the right information, they would prove to be an extraordinarily good idea.
Finally, I turn to the question of accommodation. There are many young people who have been turned out of their home for whom there is really no accommodation which offers them the kind of protection, advice and support that they need—certainly none that they can afford. Three or four weeks ago, I visited a Foyer Jeune Travailleurs in Beauvais. There are two of them in that city. The one I saw had 120 places and was of the standard of a first-class university hostel. In addition, it had an animateur who was concerned to offer activities, advice, suggestions and counselling to the young people. I believe that I am correct in saying that the cost of that facility was about £80 per week, which was paid by the social services for young people with problems or who were coming out of care. I made inquiries in Tower Hamlets this afternoon and was
458
informed that there are only two medium stay hostels. They have a total of 37 beds, whereas approximately 20 inquiries are received each day.
I should like to continue discussing the problems of the over 16 year-olds but I believe that I have probably already spoken for too long. I have just one further point to make. In my view there is an urgent need for a change of attitude in our society towards children. There must be a recognition that, whatever changes in sexual morality or behaviour may become acceptable, one principle must remain: "a child is for life"—not just for Christmas, not just for kicks and not just for personal gratification or to obtain a council flat. We have a duty as trustees of the children of the future to establish the principle that "a child is for life".
6.29 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, with the leave of the House and for the first time in 20 years, I shall try to speak in the gap of a debate. For the benefit of my noble friend on the Front Bench, I shall also try to be brief.
I was inspired during the debate not just by the general tone, as well as the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, introduced the work of her committee, but also by the excellent speech, if I may say so, of my noble friend Lady Brigstocke. I apologise to her for making a comment of approval as she rose to her feet. It seemed to me that it was worthy of my approval and that of your Lordships. I was much inspired by what my noble friend said about the ERASMUS programme, together with her mention of the German city of Mannheim. I was in that city exactly seven days ago while accompanying a committee from the other place. During the visit we had six lectures from six young doctors and scientists involved with the pharmaceutical industry. They gave us lectures on heart problems (myocardial diseases) in flawless English. There was one young lady, and five young men. When I asked them where they learnt their English, they told me that their fluency was normal because they regarded language tuition as part of their general education. At least four of them had taken part in programmes similar to the ERASMUS programme described by my noble friends Lady Brigstocke and Lady Elles. That showed that such programmes can have practical benefits.
I think I understood the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to say that those who drop languages early in their education tend to regret it later. When I was 15 I was recommended to drop science. I am not sure what that meant for languages. I was told at my school—an educational establishment not unknown to noble Lords and my noble friend Lady Brigstocke —to learn another language. That taught me a great deal. Great sporting skills, such as those of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, combined with a knowledge of languages, would do much for young people. My knowledge of French, German and Italian has been considerably improved through reading sporting newspapers. Without that the touch paper of my mind would not have been lit. Studying languages at school can often involve learning verbs one to 33 until one is

459
blue in the face. One is then taught about a wonderful author who brings out whatever wonderful culture he is describing.
Languages are a living thing. That has been the thread running through the debate. I hope that it is a relevant thread. If the work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and the committee helps to move forward one iota the study of languages and the friendship of young people—I do not know what the age limit is, because, although I look young, I am still benefiting from many of the topics that have been discussed this evening—then this evening's debate will have been one of the best debates I have heard during my 20-year career in your Lordships' House. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, first, I join the many noble Lords who have congratulated my noble friend Lady Lockwood on producing an excellent report. The task facing us is complex. The report goes a long way towards making an analysis and finding a solution. My remarks are further informed by the fact that I happen to be the father of three teenage children who have been educated in inner city comprehensive schools. One learns a great deal as a parent when one's children are in such a situation.
I shall divide my remarks into three parts: what is the problem? What solution is currently being tried? What more can we do? The problem of young people comes in two parts. There are those who are not within the disadvantaged minority, and I shall deal with them first. Their problem lies in meeting the challenge of 1993 and beyond. Can we somehow increase the mobility of young people? Can we ensure that they have adequate education and training to meet the challenge which will face them when they become adults and enter the job market? In that respect I must welcome, as have many noble Lords, the considerable progress made by polytechnics and universities in encouraging intra-country co-operation with France, Germany, Spain and so on. Many degrees and courses are new available to our young people of 18 years and over. There are combined English-French, English-German courses and other combined courses. That commendable achievement has happened recently. A great deal of work has been put into that by the about-to-be-abolished CNAA and by some universities, and we should welcome it.
With such courses and the ERASMUS programme difficulties arise because our students who go to university at the age of 18 have had woefully inadequate language training. Matters are improving, but one big problem I have in placing my undergraduate students into the ERASMUS programme is that they do not want to go abroad because they do not know the language. I currently have a German undergraduate student who took advantage of the ERASMUS programme to go to Italy. He thought that he should know Italian as well as German and English. He spent the summer in Brazil because he wanted to learn Portuguese. British youth lacks that attitude towards language learning. We
460
should do something about it, although I do not know what. They may be encouraged to learn a language by playing, watching or reading about sports, films and television. We should encourage them to have a much more positive attitude towards languages because they will be the key to their survival in the job market. I reiterate that any money spent in that way is an investment and is not merely expenditure.
I turn now to the disadvantaged, about whom many noble Lords have spoken. I was struck by what my noble friend Lady Hilton said about the dreadful situation, especially in the inner cities, that those young people face. No firm line can be drawn between who is disadvantaged and who is not. If the family breaks up, or there is unemployment or some other rude financial shock, someone who was not brought up to think himself or herself as disadvantaged suddenly becomes so. If there is a disagreement within the family, the young person may have to leave home and he or she then becomes disadvantaged. There is no firm way of classifying who is disadvantaged. However there is one simple criterion: many disadvantaged young persons are those—if I may put it this way—whom the schools have failed. As a result we must watch for the big black hole which arises between 16 and 18 years in our education and industrial training. If young people fall into the black hole, it is hard for them to get out, especially if they have left school without any qualifications and are unfit even to take unskilled jobs. It is that group upon which we should concentrate when we look for solutions. Thankfully, it involves a few young people only. We should not therefore believe that we should spend only a little money on them. We shall be spending a great deal on them if they turn out badly. They cost a great deal of money in a variety of different ways. For them, the system has not functioned. We should put a great deal of effort into doing something for them.
The committee's excellent report describes many of the things that are being done by the Community and the Government in co-operation with the Community. However, several problems still exist. The programmes, although interesting and reasonably well-funded, are complex. As many noble Lords have pointed out, the young person has no clear idea of what is available. The programmes are so complex that specialist officers are needed to work them out. If it is necessary for adults to work out the system on behalf of young people so that they can obtain a little more money, I wonder how much of the money available goes to the young people whom it is meant to benefit. We ought to ask ourselves: what trickle-down from each pound spent goes to the youth for whom it is meant? How much goes to the interstices of the various levels of bureaucracy? I was talking to someone in an active agency in these efforts, the CSV, who pointed out that in many cases often about 60 to 80 per cent. goes towards setting up the intergovernmental or international co-operative deal, and about 20 to 40 per cent. may benefit the programme. This is a severe problem. It is not just that we need more co-ordination among the agencies at various levels.

461
but we need simplification and clarity. We need less bureaucracy in the arrangements so that the money goes directly to the person concerned.
I ask the Government to take the matter of the youth card seriously. If we can get the money out to the individual young people, if they can benefit from it, if only we can know that 5 million youth cards have been used, we do not need an elaborate evaluation of who benefits from them. The people who benefit are those using the youth card. Just as the concession on rail travel across Europe with the European railcard has been immensely successful among young people, I believe that the youth card will give them access to concessionary fees across a vast number of activities. That would be greatly welcomed by young people and it would be a good way of spending the money.
Similarly, if we are to give advice to young people, not only must we have advice shops but young people must have easier access to Ceefax rather than those shops. We must find out the ways in which youth gets the information and not impose our own ideas on how information can be provided by us. As the report points out, far too many people who are concerned with the work are themselves not young, they just happen to represent youth. We need to find out what the customer wants and how he behaves in order that he should benefit.
I wish to raise one question. I am not clear; I need clarification about additionality. Is it the case that money that the Government receive from the Community for youth spending is regarded as a substitute for what we will spend, or is it additional to what we spend? That is an important point. I was not clear about it from the report. It would be terrible if money received from Europe were regarded as a pound for pound substitute for money which we should be spending. It should be regarded as additional, as pump-priming money on the basis of which we shall have a better resourced programme. I should like clarification on that.
By the same token, we should have a clear indication that the Government intend to do something fairly drastic about youth unemployment, especially the somewhat alarming rise in the long-term unemployed among the youth. It is a serious problem which we ought to address. It exists at the other end of the age scale, from the ages of 21 to 25, rather than from 16 to 18, but we must examine it.
One problem which has arisen in this regard is the abridgement of the entitlements which young people used to have, especially the 16 and 17 year-olds. They have lost some of their entitlements in recent times. It would be desirable that young people aged from 16 to 25 should have equal entitlement as far as possible so that by giving them money, by decentralising and by reaching out to them we enable them to benefit from the programmes rather than that we should paternalistically design programmes for them.
6.44 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, first I wish to say how much the Government
462
welcome the Select Committee's study of this important subject. I know that its fourteenth report, Young People in the European Community, is the result of a painstaking and detailed examination of a number of wide-ranging and difficult issues. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and Sub-Comittee C on the results of their work. The report itself and the points raised during this debate help to emphasise the wide measure of consensus on the subject.
I have no doubt about the concern in all parts of this House, and indeed on the part of all interested parties both in the United Kingdom and across the European Community, to ensure that young people have the best possible start in life. This concern is based upon a common understanding that our future depends upon ensuring that young people receive the formal and informal education and training they need to develop their full potential and to meet the challenges that will face them in the 21st century. Each of us believes that it is vital not to fail them.
Hence, where differences about this subject exist, they are about means rather than overall aims. Indeed, as the Government made clear in their written response, we share many of the views expressed in the committee's opinion. We agree entirely with the committee that Community training and exchange programmes can contribute to the vocational and personal development of young people and that exchanges of young people between the member states can contribute to the encouragement of their awareness of the Community.
We also welcome the focus of the PETRA and Youth for Europe programmes on disadvantaged young people and those who have left full-time education at an early age. However, like the committee, the Government have substantial concerns about agreeing to European Commission proposals for large-scale expansion of programmes before full evaluation of existing initiatives takes place.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, suggested, the Government believe it to be essential to secure value for money from European Community expenditure, which is paid for by the taxpayer in just the same way as domestic public expenditure. This means there should be no less rigorous an approach to the evaluation of EC policies than there is to our own. We have therefore argued consistently in Brussels that adequate evaluation is needed before proposals are put to the Council of Ministers to renew and expand programmes. Nevertheless, we are making some progress. For example, the Council decision setting up the new PETRA programme makes specific reference to "objective and external" assessment, which will take place twice during the life of the programme.
We also note the committee's support for the inclusion of the voluntary sector in the Youth for Europe programme. The United Kingdom is particularly well placed to benefit because of our strong and flourishing voluntary bodies. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to their invaluable work with young people. We share the Select Committee's hope that they will play their full part in this new development of Youth for Europe.

463
However, we would prefer that any expansion through Community programmes takes place after evaluation of the achievements of the experimental phase Of the programme. This seems the right way to ensure that we build on solid foundations.
The Government also recognise fully the concerns expressed in the report about the number and complexity of vocational training programmes. We agree that Community expenditure, whether on training or in the youth information and related areas covered in the Commission memorandum, Young People in the European Community, needs to be co-ordinated effectively to achieve the best possible value for money.
We would very much welcome moves to improve co-ordination between different Community programmes, to improve the flow of information to their target groups and to improve and simplify administrative procedures. The concerns expressed in paragraph 103 of the report are an excellent illustration of why this is another area where we will continue to look for every opportunity to improve value for money. I think this message was not only repeated in your Lordships' House but is now being understood in Brussels.
The committee expressed the hope that there will be a formal council of Community youth ministers in the near future. Each presidency of the Community determines the number and type of meetings of ministers during their term. We have welcomed and participated fully in Community meetings of officials and of ministers responsible for youth matters but we do not believe that the need for a formal council of youth ministers has been demonstrated. Programmes such as PETRA, ERASMUS and COMETT, which are lo Diced after by the Commission Task Force for Human Resources, Education, Training and Youth, are operated effectively under the aegis of existing specialist councils.
One point on which we disagree with the committee is whether the appointment of a single minister for youth in Britain would improve co-ordination among departments on policies which affect young people. I am sorry if inadvertently I gave the sub-committee any appearance of complacency. However, I must emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, that we believe that young people can best be served through actions which tackle specific issues. Most problems and opportunities faced by many young people are not exclusive to that age group. A young person can be a 15 year-old still at school or a person of 24 who may be married with three children. They have little in common.
However, I agree with the committee that where policy issues cut across departmental responsibilities it is essential to ensure a common approach. I cannot agree with my noble friend Lady Elles that that poses a problem. The noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, drew attention to the number of departments involved in the evidence given to the sub-committee. Your Lordships will have noted that our recent White Paper, Education and Training for the 21st Century was the result of joint work by my department and the Department of Education and Science and was presented by both Secretaries of State
464
and the Prime Minister. That is one excellent example of the co-operation which exists across Whitehall, and I could quote many others.
I now turn to issues raised which impinge more directly on domestic policy matters. Your Lordships have emphasised the importance of ensuring that young people are properly prepared for adult and working life. For the vast majority of young people a major concern is to ensure that they are able to gain entry to productive and satisfying employment.
There should be no doubt about this Government's commitment to continuing to improve vocational education and training arrangements. That was again confirmed by last week's Autumn Statement. My own department's total planned expenditure in the field of training, enterprise and vocational education next year will be £2.7 billion, two and a half times as much in real terms as that spent in 1978–79. In addition, almost £8 billion is available for expenditure on education and science next year—an increase of nearly 9 per cent. over likely expenditure this year.
The recent White Paper Education and Training for the 21st Century will build on the achievements of the past decade so that high quality education and training for 16 and 17 year-olds becomes the norm. It sets out policies to build on the successful contribution of the technical and vocational education initiative to curriculum changes for 14 to 19 year-olds in full-time education; to strengthen links between schools and employers through compacts and education business partnerships; to ensure the availability of appropriate and relevant careers advice to young people; and it underpins the radical new approach with the national record of achievement and the framework of national vocational qualifications.
The bedrock of a qualified population is, of course, the education system. My noble friend Lady Elles highlighted the importance of involving the parents in education where there is some doubt about participation. The Government are committed to continuing to increase participation rates. There is a wide range of policies and initiatives aimed at improving the quality of education and raising participation.
The Further and Higher Education Bill, introduced into this House on 4th November, includes measures to enable colleges to respond to the needs of their customers more flexibly and efficiently. Those measures will provide further incentives to continue to increase student numbers.
The Schools Examination and Assessment Council has recently presented advice to the Secretary of State for Education as to how core skills for 16 to 19 year-olds could be incorporated into A and AS levels. Core skills include communication, problem solving, personal skills, numeracy, information technology and foreign language competence.
Education and training is also becoming more outward looking. That is not just the result of EC initiatives such as the PETRA and COMETT programmes but is also the direct result of government policies here. The Government have been and will

465
continue to be active in promoting the objectives of the European Community resolution on the European dimension in education.
My noble friend Lady Brigstocke was concerned about the complexity of programmes being run from Brussels and mentioned her personal experience of some of the programmes, including the PETRA and ERASMUS programmes. I understand the difficulty, but European awareness is being built into curriculum developments in schools and in colleges of further education. Together with language learning and the increase in opportunities for young people to experience training and work placements in other member states, we can look to our young people to take full advantage of the opportunities offered in the European Community in 1993 and beyond.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, drew our attention to the problem of young people who have not done well at school and painted a picture of discrimination against them. I do not believe that to be true. Youth training is a very important element of our strategy to produce better qualified labour market entrants. About 261,000 young people are now on YT compared with only some 7,000 young people in training in 1978–79. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, that the Government guarantee to offer a suitable place to all 16 and 17 year-olds not in full-time education or work and to 18 year-olds whose entry into YT has been delayed, for example, by disability, ill health, pregnancy or custodial sentence. We stand by that guarantee.
A further improvement which I am sure will be welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, is the development of training credits. We believe that training credits will encourage and motivate young people to enter training and secure higher levels of skills and qualifications and that they will also encourage more employers to provide training for young employees.
However, we are also concerned for older young people who become unemployed. Planned expenditure on employment training will increase next year to provide a total of a quarter of a million places. The Government guarantee to offer a place on employment training, enterprise allowance, employment action, the job interview guarantee or a job club to everyone aged 18 to 24 who has been unemployed for between six and 12 months.
I know that during the course of its inquiry the Committee became concerned about a number of issues affecting the care and welfare of small minorities of young people. The Government recognise and share your Lordships' concerns for those young people with specific problems which might prevent them from taking a full and economically active part in society.
Mobility of young people in itself is no bad thing. Indeed, much European Community activity is designed to encourage such movement. For example, youth tourism was a key aim of the European Tourism Year in 1990, and the COMETT, ERASMUS, PETRA and Youth for Europe programmes each include elements which involve exchanges targeted at
466
different categories of young people. Other European Community initiatives seek to remove barriers to mobility for all sections of the population in line with the completion of the internal market.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, was worried about the difficulties that the disadvantaged would have with mobility. I must stress that, although there are European programmes as I have outlined, we also encourage a wide variety of bilateral exchange activity from within the United Kingdom through organisations such as the Youth Exchange Centre and the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges. A number of voluntary organisations such as the Girl Guides Association, the YMCA and Youth Clubs UK have international links through which they organise exchanges. The Government recognise the value of involving young people in international activity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, drew on her long experience of dealing with young people with a deprived background to remind the House of some of the problems faced by the young unemployed. She vividly contrasted the living standards of those, if I may paraphrase, who have with those who have not and warned us of some of the consequences of not tackling them. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, dwelt on the problems that young people face when they are homeless. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, highlighted various problems, including the inadequacy of parents, and suggested that the problem could be inherited.
We recognise that a small proportion of young people enter so-called vicious circles through movement to inner city areas causing homelessness, which in turn results in unemployment and a spiral of associated problems. There are problems in some of our larger cities and we are addressing them. For instance, the Employment Service runs HELP, a mobile jobsearch facility, special jobclub and drop-in centre together with a scheme to place the young jobless in catering jobs with accommodation. The single homeless initiative is helping young people sleeping rough in London through the provision of direct access hostel accommodation plus longer term accommodation for those currently in hostels. The Children Act enables local authorities to help young people in their area who may be homeless and whose welfare is at risk from lack of accommodation either by providing accommodation themselves or with the assistance of other housing agencies.
The committee's report recorded that a witness had pointed to a danger that some young people could become trapped at the base of the labour market and so become marginalised in terms of unemployment and housing. As we said in our response to the committee and as I have explained tonight, we recognise the need to provide support for those young people who have problems competing in the labour and housing markets and we believe that our policies are proving effective.
Britain's labour market and system of vocational education and training are more flexible than those in many other European countries. Young people most at risk of becoming marginalised have, because of our policies, a wider range of opportunities open to them

467
than their counterparts elsewhere. Despite some of the fears expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, the situation which faces such young people in Britain compares well with other countries. Despite recent rises, tie rate of unemployment among under 25s in the United Kingdom remains below that in most other European countries, and the latest European Community unemployment comparison for the under 25s across the Community shows that the United Kingdom is well below the average. Nearly 30 per cent. of under 25 year-olds are unemployed in Italy and Spain, over 25 per cent. in Ireland and nearly 25 per cont. in France and Belgium. The United Kingdom figure is currently 13.7 per cent.
I should like to deal with one or two of the points raised by noble Lords in the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, referred to the national voluntary youth organisations and their funding. The Department of Education and Science grant-aids directly some 70 national voluntary youth organisations for programmes of work involving personal and social education. Some small increases in cash terms have been made in recent years and grants in the presen: financial year amount to some £2.2 million. They will rise to £2.3 million in 1992–93 and further increases are anticipated from 1993–94 onwards.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to information shops for young people. Central government have provided the National Youth Agency with pump-priming support to develop a pilot project of about 10 information shops. The Department of Education and Science has met its agreed commitment to the initiative by providing £1 70,000 over two years 1990–91 and 1991–92, although pressure on budgets may mean that up to? 15,000 of that will be paid in the 1992–93 financial year. The Home Office has also met its agreed commitment by providing £232,000 over the three years 1989–90 through to 1991–92.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, mentioned the French foyer system. I understand that an official from the employment service is seconded to the London and Quadrant Housing Trust which has links with that French initiative. We welcome the opportunity to learn from the experience of others and I know that my honourable friend Mr Jackson has taken a personal interest in that link.
My noble friend Lady Elles drew our attention to three programmes concerning music and sport, and to the implementation of a Youth Parliament. It is the variety of opportunities to which my noble friend referred that makes the debate so wide-ranging and interesting. All the examples that she quoted are of great interest to young people.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, made an eloquent analysis of marginalisation and what he termed the cycle of poor parenting. I agree that that must be broken. The answer lies in action across a whole range of policies. It would be difficult to identify one t tat would take care of it. Education for citizenship is a theme in the national curriculum and the problem of teacher shortage and turnover is being successfully addressed.
468
My noble friend Lord Lyell and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Desai, drew our attention to language learning and the participation of young people in learning a language. We agree that language learning in schools should be valued. Provisional 1991 statistics show a continuing increase in the number of pupils taking examinations in modern foreign languages and indicate improvements in standards. The establishment of a foreign language in secondary schools as a compulsory subject in the national curriculum will increase the status of the subject.
I have dealt with a number of points brought to my attention by noble Lords during the debate. If I have not dealt with some points, I should be happy to write to noble Lords. The issues raised by the subject of this debate are both important and wide-ranging. The Government are committed to investment in the young people who are Britain's future. That was a major element of the increased funding for public services announced in the Chancellor's Autumn Statement last week.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, referred to the increase in information and chided the Government for not supporting that. That point was also raised by my noble friend Lady Brigstocke and by the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Desai. Last week, the Prime Minister launched the Under 26 youth card for young people in England and Wales. Under 26 is a discount card with a regularly updated information system on domestic and international services for young people. The Prime Minister welcomed the international dimension of the youth card, as I am sure will many noble Lords. It is available in 15 countries and, as the Prime Minister said,
"The more people who can see Europe, the more people will understand it".
Those are sentiments with which I heartily concur.
We are doing much to provide young people from all walks of life with an appreciation of Europe, from the provision of information, not only to the young but to all sections of the community, to curriculum development in our schools and colleges. But we must also be sure that our own house is in order.
There is great value in the European dimension but our young people deserve more than fine words. Our future prosperity depends upon their skills and abilities. We must provide them with the foundations from which each can achieve his or her potential. I believe that we have the right policies in place to ensure that young people can acquire the foundation on which to build their adult life.
Those policies are working. The proportion of 16 year-olds in education or training rose 23 per cent. during the 1980s. The number of further education students rose 25 per cent. also in the 1980s and between 1979 and 1988 the number of people gaining degrees or their equivalents rose by some 31 per cent., which is one of the highest success rates in higher education compared with our major Western competitors. With support for the Government's policies, I believe that young people can look to the future with confidence.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, this has been an excellent debate and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in it. Every issue which is contained either explicitly or even implicitly in the report and the evidence has been raised. The debate has been very wide-ranging and I know that the Minister will consider carefully what has been said.
I do not want to cover the ground that he covered in mentioning points made by different Ministers. I should just like to reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, who quite rightly took the committee to task for not including a reference to the role of MEPs and the part that they can play in assisting young people and citizens generally. That underlines the fact that, even as a committee, we are not yet geared to accepting completely the European as well as the national identification. No doubt that will take time.
I should like to thank the Minister for the way in which he and the Government have received our report. As he said, there is a wide measure of consensus not only between the committee and the Government but in all parts of the House. Differences are often about means rather than ends. I should like to echo the tribute that he paid to young people in the youth sector and in the voluntary sector. The committee was most impressed by the evidence that it received from those young people and by their dedication to other young people in trying to solve their problems.
I am sorry that we have not persuaded the Minister of the need for a formal meeting of youth Ministers or
470
even for the need for greater co-ordination at national level. Again, I should like to ask him to look very carefully at what has been said and perhaps to re-examine the evidence that the committee received from those involved in youth organisations in the country.
The Minister dealt at some length with the various domestic matters that were raised in the committee. From time to time we shall come back to those matters in the House in the context of the specific problem and not just in the context of youth issues. I underline the fact that, although the committee recommended setting up either a Minister for youth or a committee of Ministers involved in these affairs, it by no means said that the issues should not be looked at in depth by the department concerned. The committee said that we need a focal point and somebody to identify the issues and to make sure that they are not in any way overlooked as well as somebody who can speak for British youth in the councils in the European Community.
Once again, I thank all who have participated and given their support by listening to the debate. I hope that the discussion will continue and that as a result of the Europe-wide debate there will be a solution to some of the difficult problems which our young people currently face.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past seven o'clock.