Lords Sitting of 27 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 Chester.

The Lord Bishop of London
David Michael, Lord Bishop of London—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of St. Albans and the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Smoking and EC Tobacco Support
2.43 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, given that smoking is estimated to kill 431,000 European Community citizens each year, they support the £900 million annual European Community subsidy for tobacco growing.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the Government wish to see the European Community support regime for tobacco reformed in the most radical way negotiable. Ideally, we would like to see support phased out.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that most encouraging reply. But how, meanwhile, do we reconcile the spending of so much of our hard-earned taxpayers' money with the efforts of the health authorities here and in Europe to reduce smoking for health reasons? Can my noble friend say how much the taxpayers of this country will be expected to pay this year towards the growth of that lethal crop?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I agree that it is paradoxical to support the growing by farmers of a crop that is harmful to health. That is why we have consistently sought major reform of the tobacco regime and will continue to do so. But major reform will only become possible when our European partner; start to adopt the same firm line that we take.
My noble friend asked a second question. The United Kingdom contributes to the Community budget as a whole. Our contribution is not broken down or attributed to particular policies or commodities, either by the Community or by the United Kingdom. It is therefore not meaningful to talk of our contributing a particular amount to the costs of the tobacco regime.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that this is literally a matter of life and death? Continual heavy smoking can be a great drain on the National Health Service. There have been revealed in newspapers in the past few months the great trials and
1308
tribulations and the sadness that smoking brings to many people. Should we not now stop subsidising the growing of tobacco anywhere?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, by telling him of the Government's attitude to the tobacco regime. We have consistently campaigned for reductions in support on health and expenditure grounds. There has been some progress, but significant change will require other member states to join us. So far they have shown little willingness to do so, in particular the southern member states. We are pressing for the most radical reform achievable in the current review of the tobacco regime.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say how much is spent by the European Community on propaganda against smoking?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I can only answer for the United Kingdom. That figure is £3½ million per annum.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not the case that the majority of the tobacco being subsidised comes from Greece, which produces tobacco with no known market anywhere in the world? Does this not make the situation even more ridiculous?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, but one must bear in mind that 800,000 jobs are dependent on tobacco growing in southern member states.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is ludicrous that one corridor of the European Community should encourage the growing of tobacco at a cost of £1 billion to the European taxpayer while another corridor should ban the advertising by which they might hope to sell the product? Would not a proper use of the money be to encourage farmers either to grow other crops or to go into set-aside? If the Commission says they have no other crops, perhaps my noble friend will remind it that the same is true of sheep farmers in the hills and uplands of Britain. They have no alternative crop but have had headage limits imposed on them to their great disadvantage.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I agree with almost everything my noble friend said. The Government have consistently criticised the tobacco regime on health grounds and will continue to do so. We support the re-orientation of tobacco production away from high tar varieties as a useful step, but it is by no means sufficient.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, has my noble friend seen the report in today's newspapers that the eating habits of the British, particularly beef on Sunday, have a greater influence in causing cancer even than smoking? If that is true, will he discourage the production of beef?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I believe that eating beef on Sundays is a British tradition. However, I am afraid that the point is wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Rea: My Lords, even if the iniquitous tobacco regime—which the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, would agree could be described as daft—were to be put right, does the noble Earl realise that it would have practically no impact on the 110,000 tobacco-related deaths in this country? Has he read the report from the OPCS which was published yesterday? It shows that smoking is increasing in young women in this country. Has he seen reports of the recent experience of Canada and New Zealand where a combination of raising tobacco taxes and abolishing advertising has reversed this trend among the young people who will become the addicted adult smokers of tomorrow?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I have not read the report to which the noble Lord referred. The United Kingdom is recognised as having developed effective publicity campaigns on the subject over many years. Smoking prevalence has been reduced from 45 per cent. in 1974 to 32 per cent. now. Only the Netherlands has achieved a larger drop in smoking.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does not the carefully researched figure of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, of 431,000 demonstrate how widely exaggerated are claims by the Department of Health and the Health Education Council to the effect that 110,700 people die from smoking in this country each year? Does the noble Earl agree that we in the United Kingdom comprise only 16.37 per cent. of the population of the Community? Therefore, on a pro rata basis we could not account for more than 70,550 deaths which is only 63.7 per cent. of the figure churned out by the Department of Health.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, so far as I understand, the figures are correct. The figure of 431,000 quoted by my noble friend is accurate. I have been given the figure of 111,000 premature deaths annually in the United Kingdom. In addition, treatment of smoking-related disease currently costs the National Health Service £500 million.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the cost to the health service of smoking is estimated to be £350 million a year? The cost of running the National Health Service is £32,000 million a year and the cost to the National Health Service of diseases other than smoking is £31,650 million a year. Those figures perhaps put the matter of smoking in its true perspective. Will not the Minister accept the folly of the common agricultural policy which, as he has confirmed, says one thing but does something else? Will he give an assurance that no further such policies will be agreed at Maastricht?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, as I believe I have stated on four previous occasions when replying to this question, tobacco is an agricultural crop eligible for CAP support. In
1310
criticising the regime we are one member state among 12. We are alone in seeking fundamental change in the regime. There is strong support for the regime from the seven producer member states. Having said that, the noble Lord makes a good point. As I have said on previous occasions, the matter poses a dilemma for us.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, have the Government given any thought to encouraging the smoking of herbal tobacco which is so unpleasant that it encourages people to give up smoking altogether, as I did 50 years ago?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend's comments.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, is it not the case that the high tar, dark tobacco produced in southern Europe mercifully is not appreciated by the rest of western Europe, which imports the lighter tobacco? The subsidised tobacco is being sold at knock down prices to eastern Europe and north Africa and is damaging the health of the people in those countries.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, about one-third of the European Community's tobacco production is exported outside the Community. Over two-thirds of EC exports are sold to developed countries and only one-third to developing countries of the third world. Only about 10 per cent. of EC production goes to the third world.

Income Support Severe Disability Premium
2.54 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the average administrative cost of awarding income support severe disability premium for late claims for the period from April 1988 to October 1989.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, arrears sought through late claims for income support following a re-interpretation of the law by a social security commissioner are not payable for any period before the re-interpretation. In this instance the re-interpretation took place on 17th May 1990. Arrears for the period April 1988 to October 1989 are not now available. The cost is therefore nil.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that at the moment thousands of cases are waiting to be heard by tribunals? There has been a commissioner decision which enables adjudicating officers to support the cases, but they cannot pay the claims. Is this not an expensive way of rubber-stamping matters?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Countess is correct to say there are some valid claims. My original Answer referred to late claims. As the noble Countess will appreciate, those with late claims cannot now make an application. It is possible that there are some

1311
cases for which some but not all arrears have been paid, but I suspect that the number is small. The vast majority of such cases have been referred to commissioners. The administrative cost of identifying the small numbers that are possibly affected could be significant. However, we shall give careful consideration the matter of whether a special exercise should be mounted. I must stress that we should consider the total administrative costs of such an exercise in relation to the amount of money that might be paid out.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is not this matter waiting upon a judgment in one of the courts? If that is the case, when are we likely to receive that judgment which should enable those who are entitled to receive awards to do so once the decision is made?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is partly correct but partly incorrect in his remarks. I suspect he is referring to the Foster case which is before your Lordships' House at the moment. The decision on that case does not apply directly to the cases that we are discussing. It is for the Judicial Committee to decide when to make a judgment on the Foster case.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the Minister accept that until this August the severely disabled could claim arrears of benefit beyond 52 weeks where officials had made a mistake, but that following the regulation changes which were laid one day and introduced the next, that is no longer the case? Does the Minister still believe it is right and decent that the severely disabled should lose out because officials have made a mistake in assessing benefit?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness to the first occasion on which she has participated in a social security question. I was interested in her question, which is not related to the Question on the Order Paper. No doubt we shall have ample opportunities to debate the question of the noble Baroness on some future occasion.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the Minister aware that about 90 per cent. of these cases are brought on behalf of people who are totally incapable of managing their own affairs? There are many thousands of late claims as a result of the trawls which occurred before the August deadline. Each one of those claims has to be taken before a tribunal. Is the Minister satisfied with the working of the Social Security Act 1990?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am satisfied with the operation of the changes made in that Act. I believe that the noble Countess is slightly confused. As I have said, late claims cannot now be submitted as the time limit has passed. There were a number of claims that were presumably disallowed between April 1988 and October 1989 for the same reason as applied in the Crompton case. Some of those claims may result in a severe disablement premium being paid and obviously those cases can be considered.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister explain to the House in what particular the question of my noble friend Lady Hollis was wide of the Question on the Order Paper? On reading through the Question on the Order Paper the supplementary question of my noble friend seems germane to the issue.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper relates to the severe disability premium which is an integral part of income support. It also concerns the changes that resulted partly from the 1990 Act and partly from the re-interpretation of the law following the Crompton decision. That has nothing to do with the changes referred to by the noble Baroness.

Orimulsion and Acidification in the Welsh Uplands
2.59 p.m.
Lord Moran Lord Moran asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is correct that Pembroke and Ince B power stations are planning to use the fuel Orimulsion, and to increase their output; and how this would affect the problem of acidification in the Welsh uplands to which attention was drawn in paragraphs 11–6 and 11–7 of This Common Inheritance (Cm. 1200).
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I understand that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution is discussing with National Power the possible burn of Orimulsion at Pembroke. I am sure that HMIP will take into account the particular environmental circumstances of Wales when considering any application under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to burn Orimulsion at these power stations. Trials of the fuel by PowerGen have recommenced at Ince with the agreement of HMIP.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, which is encouraging. Is he aware that the two power stations concerned, one in Pembroke and one on Merseyside, have been operating at between 12 and 15 per cent. of capacity for the past 10 years because of the high price of oil, and that if they are able to burn this particularly cheap and nasty sulphur-rich fuel in future they may operate at full capacity but that will result in a substantial increase in sulphur emissions which will have a damaging effect on the rivers and lakes of upland Wales? Those rivers and lakes are already considerably affected by acidification.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am able to reassure the noble Lord. The Government are fully committed to implementing the European Community's large combustion plant directive. There can be no question of the use of a new fuel such as Orimulsion at an existing plant being allowed to cause the limits to be broken. I understand that the station recommenced the burning of Orimulsion on a long-term trials basis earlier this month with the agreement of HMIP under SI 318. The station is fitted with electrostatic precipitators which remove dust produced by the fuel.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend let me into the secret and tell me what Orimulsion is?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I can throw some light on the matter for my noble and learned friend. It is an emulsion of bitumen and water produced in Venezuela by Bitor SA and marketed in Europe under a joint venture between British Petroleum and Petroleos de Venezuela SA.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that it is recognised as being one of the dirtiest fuels in existence? Is he aware that it has caused considerable damage in this country near the power station where it has already been used? Is it not also a fact that it contributes a great deal to acid rain? If that is so, would it not be disastrous if we were to allow power stations to burn the fuel while at the same time trying to persuade countries in South America to stop destroying trees because of the consequences for the greenhouse effect?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right regarding the toxic aspect of Orimulsion. It is not a clean fuel. The point is that under the regulations laid down by HMIP there can be no question of adding to the amount of sulphur being emitted into the atmosphere.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, is it not correct that the fuel is sulphur enriched? Would the Government not do well to look at their own White Paper This Common Inheritance when considering the problem? Is it not correct that over the past decade the acute acidification of the Welsh uplands has been ameliorated? Does the Minister agree that it would be wrong to take 1980 as a base point for considering the matter, because if the two power stations—one in the south-west corner of Wales and the other a few miles from the north-east corner of Wales—are allowed to burn the fuel the trend of the past decade will be reversed?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we keep the White Paper in mind. The acid sensitive areas of Wales to which the noble Lord referred benefit from the fitting of FGD, for instance, at Ratcliffe, Drax and Ferrybridge. At Llyn Brianne a study has indicated that 30 per cent. of the deposited sulphur reaching the waters comes from the general direction of those power stations. Total investment by the electricity industry, both on new clean plant and new equipment for old plant, will be over £6 billion during the 1990s to counter that effect.
Baroness White: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we in Wales will not be satisfied if the Department of the Environment works out some arithmetical equation whereby there would be retrofitting of large power plants in the Midlands of England without any attention being paid to the acidified areas of mid and north Wales?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I have sought to demonstrate that the same environmental concerns will be applied to Wales.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I must confess that I share some of the worries of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. At first I suspected that Orimulsion might be a foreign laxative. On reflection, I am not sure that I was wrong.
Bearing in mind that Orimulsion is already being burned at Ince and Richborough and there are rumours that Scottish Power has begun to use it at Inverkip, will the Minister not agree in the light of the questions from many noble Lords that its use is potentially an environmental disaster? Will he confirm that the sulphur content of the substance, though nominally 2.7 per cent., after evaporation is 4 per cent., more than double that in coal; that at Ince the sulphur emissions are reckoned by the technical press to be 10 times that of oil; and that at Richborough black acid rain damaged hundreds of cars? Will he further confirm that the Secretary of State said that Orimulsion simply is:
"an operational matter for the companies concerned"?
Will the noble Lord advise his Secretary of State that Orimulsion is a major pollution worry for everybody who cares about the environment and that its use should not be authorised?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I can confirm that the fuel is high in sulphur, although I do not have the exact figures. I can also confirm that if used improperly it would be a dangerous environmental hazard. The incident at Richborough to which the noble Lord referred was an isolated one resulting from a breakdown of equipment. That problem has been rectified.
The type and quantity of fuel used by electricity generators is an operational matter for the companies concerned—and here I do not agree with the noble Lord—but it is of course subject. to emission limits imposed by HMIP under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I have been sitting here getting angrier and angrier because every one of his answers has been negative? Here we are sitting on millions of tonnes of coal, closing our collieries and importing from a South American country a fuel which is injurious to the environment and to employment. Surely the Government will do something to prevent that disaster.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has been so angry that he has not listened to my answers. I have been at pains to point out how much we care about the environment, as demonstrated in the White Paper, and the elaborate steps taken to prevent environmental damage from the use of this or any other fuel.

Indonesia: Supply of Arms
3.7 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the supply of arms to Indonesia.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, all applications to export arms and equipment to Indonesia are considered on a case-by-case basis. We do not allow the export of arms and equipment likely to be used against civil populations. In the case of Indonesia, that criterion extends to possible use against the civilian population of East Timor.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware I hat the Indonesian security forces possess many weapons provided by British companies, including Tribal class naval frigates, Hawk advanced trainer strike aircraft, Rapier air defence missiles and many others, as well as training and transfer technology? Have the Government granted licences and given permission for those weapons to be exported to Indonesia? Secondly, is it the case that the Secretary of State met President Suharto on 18th September to discuss further defence co-operation? If so, what was the outcome of that meeting?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, my understanding is that all arms, whether or not those mentioned by the noble Lord, have to have an export licence. Under the United Nations Charter all nations have a sovereign right to secure the means of their own defence. Applications to export British defence equipment are scrutinised carefully on a case-by-case basis, as I have said. Exports of defence equipment to Indonesia are currently extremely modest, amounting to less than £3.5 million in the current year.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case, an I can the noble Lord confirm, that in 16 years of cruel and indefensible war a third to a quarter of the population of East Timor has been killed and during that period Her Majesty's Government have been selling arms to Indonesia? Does the Minister not agree that there is no case whatever for the sale of arms to that country? He said that only a small quantity of arms has been sold. Is he aware that that is not an adequate reply to the House at this time? Will he say what arms are being sold, what is their value and what aid Her Majesty's Government are giving to Indonesia at this time?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I do not underestimate the seriousness of what is taking place in Indonesia and I share the deep anxiety of the noble Lord the, Leader of the Opposition at the horrifying events there. The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has asked the Indonesian authorities for more information about those events. As the noble Lord may know, there is a commission of inquiry.
Details of the arms sales are a matter of commercial confidence. As I said, they are not sold on the basis that they could be used to repress the local population.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Indonesia has its own shipbuilding and aircraft industries and that arms are very easy to acquire from any part of South-East Asia, including Korea, let alone other nearby countries? Surely there is some balance in this matter.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, on the general point of the problems there, we are seeking a political solution, which is a different angle. However, my noble friend will know that under Article 51 of the UN Charter every country has the means to secure its own defence. We have that ourselves and in no circumstances have we the right to deny that to other countries.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, many noble Lords are interested in the appalling situation in Indonesia where mass slaughter goes on month in, month out. There are suggestions that many arms from Western Europe are finding their way there illegally. Will the Government check up to make certain that no arms from this country are entering Indonesia illegally? Will they also consider stopping any arms going there?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am happy to look further into that matter. As my noble friend Lord Caithness has said from time to time, he would be pleased to investigate any evidence that is offered in this matter.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, is not this situation of interest to, say, Australia and Malaysia under the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation? That treaty came into being when Malaysia became independent. Is not what is happening in Indonesia a cause of some anxiety to people over there? Are representations being made to the British Government about the situation? Is it not a matter in which they should take an interest and about which they should probably do something?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the situation is extremely complicated and we occupy different positions. We have not recognised the Indonesian invasion of East Timor and still regard it as having been invaded illegally while Australia recognises it as part of Indonesia. Perhaps that complicates the issue as regards communications.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, in the light of the Government's anxiety about human rights violations in other parts of the world, will the Minister explain the lack of consistency with regard to their aid and trade policies towards Indonesia?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I do not recognise any inconsistency between our policies there and elsewhere.
Lord Rea: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I hate having to get up in these circumstances because I know that this is an interesting and important Question, but your Lordships have agreed that we should move on after half an hour.

Business
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, after the first short debate my noble friend Lord Ferrers will, with the leave of the House, repeat Statements that are to be made in another place on the breach in Sunday trading laws and on Sunday trading.

Charities Bill [H.L.]
3.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment of 19th November be discharged and that the Bill be committed to a Public Bill Committee.—(Earl Ferrers).
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps I may question the advisability of what is proposed, notwithstanding that I surmise that it has been agreed through the usual channels.
We tried the experiment of taking a Bill in what is the equivalent of a standing committee some Sessions ago. That was the Pilotage Bill and it was hand-picked as being particularly suitable for being dealt with in that way, but the procedure was not a success. Among other matters that came to light was the fact that practically every amendment moved in Committee was moved again on Report.
As I said, that Bill was chosen as being particularly suitable for the experiment. This Bill is profoundly unsuitable. It is uncontroversial, but detailed. Widespread apprehension was expressed on Second Reading about the bureaucratic burden placed on charities, particularly smaller charities. One of the matters that will have to be explored is whether it is possible to relieve the smaller charities of that bureaucratic burden. There are a number of ways in which that could be done and your Lordships' House as a whole is in an incomparable position to review that situation. Many of your Lordships are trustees of charitable trusts and bring unexampled and unparalleled experience to bear on that question.
I know that the Government, with general consent, are anxious to have the Bill. The fear is that, if it is not taken off the Floor of the House, it may be lost at a general election and, if that is so, may not be seen again for some years. In my respectful submission, that is a mistaken view. It is precisely the kind of Bill that is taken up after an election by the government who have been returned, whether or not they are a continuation of the previous government. After an election, any incoming government will be looking for a comparatively non-controversial Bill which can be considered while the manifesto Bills are being prepared. There was a striking example of that in 1951 when the incoming government picked up a Bill prepared by the very astute political manager of the outgoing government—the New Towns Bill—because it was there ready for presentation.
We are placed in this position because we have far too much legislation. The programme looked light at
1318
the time your Lordships debated the Queen's Speech and it is light compared with a full Session's programme, but it has now again proved itself excessive for the time available for consideration.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the objection of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to the Bill being taken off the Floor of the House. I would be one of the first to advocate the advantages of having Committee stages on the Floor of the House, but when the noble and learned Lord said—I paraphrase his words—that the reason is that there might be a general election and that the Government would lose the Bill, that is not the way we were thinking. We considered that there was a certain amount of legislation to get through. In this House we have two major pieces of legislation—the Local Government Bill and the Further and Higher Education Bill—which have to be taken on the Floor of the House. It was our hope to have the Committee stage completed by Christmas. We considered that that was best achieved by having the Bill committed to a Public Bill Committee.
I remind the noble and learned Lord that any Peer can speak at a Public Bill Committee and any Peer can put down an amendment. However, they cannot vote; the voting has to be done by those who are selected. As the noble and learned Lord says, many people may be well versed in charities, and are trustees. They will of course be entirely welcome to attend the Committee, to put down amendments—I hope not too many—and to participate in the proceedings. The Bill will then come back to the House and, at Report stage, it will be possible to discuss the various issues.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, says that all the amendments that are put down in Committee will again be put down at Report stage. That is not an unfamiliar precedent. On a recent Bill similar amendments were put down at Committee and Report stages, and also at Third Reading. If my memory serves me aright, one noble Lord even sought to table a similar amendment on the debate that the Bill do now pass. There is nothing new in that situation. I hope that noble Lords might break with that precedent on this occasion.
I believe that if we commit the Bill to a Public Bill Committee it will expedite matters and that the Bill will complete its Committee stage by Christmas. It will give your Lordships the opportunity to discuss the Bill in full and a chance to have the Bill on the statute book, which I know we all want.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will clear up one point on the proposed procedure. Will the Public Bill Committee which takes the Committee stage of the Bill sit in the morning—as do many committees in another place—or in the afternoon simultaneously with the sittings of this House?
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend answers that question, will he bear in mind that we have some important Committee stages, no doubt to be followed in due course by Report stages, on major Bills which will be discussed on the Floor of the House

1319
in the afternoon? To my certain knowledge several of us who may he serving on the Public Bill Committee upstairs will also be interested in those Bills to be taken on the Floor of the House. The point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is important.
Earl Ferrers: My Lord, I quite see my noble friends' anxiety about being, as it were, split in two; it is a very inconvenient position to be in. All I can tell both my noble friends is that when the Committee sits will be one of the first decisions of the Committee. It will be for the Committee to decide its own procedure.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend amplify that a little? Can the Committee decide to sit both in the morning and the afternoon or alternatively on one or the other?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it will be for the Committee to decide to sit either in the morning or the afternoon or both. I fear that it could even decide to sit at some other extraneous hour should it feel so moved. But there will be a motion. If your Lordships agree to this Motion, the Committee of Selection will meet this afternoon. It is expected that the first meeting of the Public Bill Committee will be at 3.15 p.m. on Tuesday 3rd December. I hope that that will not be inconvenient to my noble friend Lord Renton and that he will not find that he prefers to be elsewhere.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pollution and Energy
3.24 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy rose to call attention to the case for modifying practices which cause pollution and for increasing efficiency in the use of energy in order to avoid predictable damage to the environment; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, earlier this month the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, initiated a debate on the report of the Select Committee on the European Communities on a similar subject—energy and the environment. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, had chaired a sub-committee considering four documents emanating from the EC Commission. It was a most informative discussion and a number of options and suggestions were aired. My intention today is to proceed from there on a world-wide basis. My aim is not to be repetitive but to complement that debate.
For example, the scope of that debate did not include transport, which has a significant impact on the environment while inevitably depending on sources of energy. The subject of transport, and the motor vehicle in particular, is definitely within today's agenda.
Before going further I declare again an interest. For the past 16 years I have worked with an international oil company, which is the operator for one of the largest fields in the North Sea. An important conference on the environment is to take place in Rio de Janeiro in June attended by virtually all the nations of the world. It has already been called the earth summit Through a series of conferences we must hope
1320
that policies will be agreed and acted upon. The poorer and less developed countries will need help from others. Unless most of the world works together towards the same objectives, the will to improve wasteful or polluting practices will be weakened. An individual country or group of countries may feel that their efforts can account for only a small percentage of the changes desired. They will ask themselves: is it worth the effort?
One of the principal subjects of anxiety at Rio will be global warming. There have been several debates in your Lordships' House on the greenhouse effect and the gases that cause it. Indeed, the subject was being raised in the House well before public interest was aroused outside Parliament. Scientists are still not agreed upon the precise effects in 30 to 40 years' time of emissions of greenhouse gases at present rates. I accept entirely that it may be some time before evidence can be evaluated conclusively. In the meantime, warnings about sea levels rising and other hazards are useful indications of very serious changes which may occur, if nothing is done, with devastating effects on some areas.
What we must register with alarm, I submit, is that the natural cycle, especially of carbon dioxide, is being distorted by the activities of human beings, by mankind. That is likely to be a dangerous process whether or not our experts can see the exact consequences. The rate of combustion of fossil fuels releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere together with the massive reduction of forests which absorb carbon dioxide is causing that distortion. The normal balance of gases is being upset.
The British Government and some other governments accept that corrective action is needed. At the Rio conference and elsewhere, I hope that they will convince others and come to agreements on where action and further expenditure are necessary and on the burdens that need to be shared.
The demand for energy continues to grow in this country and in others despite the recession. In the United Kingdom fossil fuels play the main part in meeting that demand. I understand that in this country 45 per cent. of the carbon dioxide emissions come from power stations. As the industrialisation of developing countries proceeds, it is likely that even larger amounts will be released. India and China will be using mainly coal-fired power stations. That is their intention. Therefore, we must continue to develop alternatives to fossil fuels where practicable. The world's accessible oil and gas reserves may, in any case, have been used up within about 100 years.
Of the alternatives, the nuclear sector can make the largest contribution. Renewable sources can help; for example, tides, waves, wind power and solar energy. At present only modest amounts of energy come from such sources or are in sight. One must not overlook the fact that there are difficulties in respect of all of them. I shall return to that subject later.
Energy efficiency, which includes avoiding wasted energy, must play an important part. The aim should be to extend for as long as possible the period of use of oil and gas reserves. As regards nuclear energy, the long-term aspiration of the human race must be

1321
fusion. Already life on earth depends on the benefits of fusion from the sun. The experiments at Culham in Oxfordshire at the Joint European Torus are designed to find ways of producing the fusion process at will on earth. The recent good news that an early stage has been reached successfully is encouraging. However, the process is still 50 or more years away from practical application. We and the next few generations must keep the planet clean and keep its ecosystems in balance until fusion becomes possible. No doubt fusion will have its own problems of waste and pollution, as recent correspondence in The Times has suggested. However, it should not upset the balance of the ingredients of the atmosphere.
Without the prospect of energy from nuclear sources—and from fusion in particular—the environment for our great-grandchildren and their descendants would look discouraging. Twenty years ago fusion was for the layman a panacea, providing efficiently for mankind's needs but likely to be unattainable. It was no more than a dream. If man could master the process, energy could be produced in plentiful supply from ordinary substances, such as seawater. One felt rather like the alchemists of centuries past who strived vainly to turn base metals into gold. However, we can now be optimistic about the long-term future.
Our immediate task is to change and to modify present practices and to persuade other countries, especially those in developing parts of the world, to take similar action. I was glad to read a speech made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy on 5th November. He stressed that energy efficiency was the quickest and most cost-effective way of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide. After pointing out that as much as 80 per cent. of the world's present energy needs come from burning fossil fuels, Mr. Wakeham advocated substantial improvements in efficiency and the development of alternative sources.
In Britain the Energy Efficiency Office has been promoting programmes to increase efficiency. And earlier this month the Government launched a three-year campaign entitled "Helping the Earth Begins at Home". I hope that those initiatives reach the majority of domestic consumers and exert influence upon their habits and plans.
The United Kingdom should play a part in improving clean coal technology. Coal will continue to be a source of energy for many years. The developing countries are likely to increase massively their use of it. The need to reduce the carbon dioxide and other pollutants from coal will become more urgent. If we in this country can, with our present knowledge and experience, achieve advances, there should be requirements in this technology in other parts of the world besides application in our own power stations. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is to speak in today's debate. He must know a great deal about the subject and I shall be interested to hear his comments.
Transport is responsible for much of the pollution of the atmosphere, motor vehicles in particular. It is
1322
probably the most difficult sector to curb or control. The petrol engine emits carbon monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbons. As from the end of next year all new cars in Britain must he fitted with catalytic converters which will reduce those emissions. I am told that petrol and diesel engines will then be roughly equal in their pollution effect. Work has been carried out on electric road vehicles which will avoid such pollution. However, as in the case of electrically-powered trains, the original source of the energy must be traced. If, as is mostly the case with railways, the electricity is generated from coal-fired power stations, the emissions of greenhouse gases have not been avoided. The battery in an electric road vehicle must be recharged. Again, one must enquire how the electricity supply was generated.
Incentives to economise within the area of transport on the burning of fossil fuels are being widely discussed: for example, EC Ministers have been considering taxation. It will not be easy to co-ordinate worldwide action. In the United States tax on gasoline—the American name for petrol—is small compared with ours. A British motor industry report published this month states that £20.7 billion of tax in the United Kingdom is collected from the motor industry and its customers. It further states that nearly half, £9.6 billion of that, is the duty on fuel. Americans, for whom the family automobile is a household god, are not ready to increase their taxes to the levels of Britain or other industrialised countries.
I return to the alternative sources of energy. While renewable sources should be given every encouragement, it must be recognised that environmental problems arise. For a comparatively small amount of electricity generated from solar and wind sources, considerable areas of land are needed for panels and wind vanes. Where suitable places can be found those sources can add useful contributions. Barrages and other tidal works are likely to alter riparian water levels, thereby upsetting bird sanctuaries and causing similar disturbances. Many noble Lords are aware of the objections that arise when such proposals are put forward. The problems are not insoluble but they must be identified at the earliest possible stage.
On Monday I asked a Question about landfill gas, a biomass source of energy. The Answer was encouraging and stated that good progress was being made in this country. I know that progress is also being made in other countries, in particular Germany. Methane, which would otherwise escape into the atmosphere, is one of the worst greenhouse gases.
In Britain, we have already exploited the principal opportunities that exist for hydro-electric power. Not a great deal more can be done in Scotland or in Wales. Will my noble friend Lord Astor comment upon the apparent anomaly in the recent legislation on the electricity industry? In England and Wales there is an obligation to use a certain percentage of electricity from non-fossil sources. I understand that that has already acted as an encouragement for the use for wind power and other sources. The equivalent requirement does not apply in Scotland where there

1323
are likely to be more suitable conditions; for example, for wind farms in sparsely populated areas or for wave power in lochs or the sea.
The incentive is lacking in Scotland. Is that intentional? What are the reasons? One reason may be that so much electricity is generated in Scotland from nuclear lower stations, compared with England and Wales, that the nuclear sector in Scotland does not need support. If that is the reason, could not some change be made to encourage use of other non-fossil sources in Scotland?
At the Rio conference no doubt an important subject will be further control of chlorofluorocarbons—CFCs—which deplete the ozone layer. I make only a passing mention of them because they are mainly used as refrigerating agents and are not an energy source. Insuring against leaks and proper disposal after use, which can be expensive, must be the continuing objective there.
I have ranged widely from looking at prospects for the whole planet several decades ahead to improving efficiency now in domestic households in Britain. I hope that the House will understand why I do that. We and other nations need to strengthen a firm determination to use the fuels and sources of energy now available in the most economical and least damaging way in order to protect our surroundings. Some of those fuels will in due course dry up and disappear To obtain full co-operation, it will be helpful to have before us the reassuring prospect, although many years ahead, that science and technology are on the way to unlocking new sources of nuclear energy which will be much cleaner and more parsimonious in fuel consumption. When that time eventually arrives, let us hope that the world's natural assets will have been preserved by willing and informed co-operation. I beg to move my Motion for Papers.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for introducing this debate. It allows us to speak on what is probably the most important subject facing the international community and the future of our planet as we know it. I must apologise in that I must leave the Chamber at 4.45 p.m. for a meeting, but I shall try to be back in time for the Minister's reply to the debate.
The noble Lord touched upon an extremely important point in his wide-ranging speech. It was almost a case of deja vu. Similar points were made when we debated energy in a global sense. The noble Lord referred to the forthcoming conference in Rio. The most important question to which it must address itself is how we are to provide enough energy for the world to survive in its present form. I quoted figures in our previous debate on this subject. I do not have them with me, but I believe that I said that the prediction was that the population of China will double in the foreseeable future and that the population of India would continue to explode upwards, as is the case in most of the developing but poor countries. We cannot deny them the right to energy while we have a proliferation of it.
1324
Much has been said about the greenhouse effect. That was dealt with today at Question Time when the House discussed the new fuel which is to he used. It would be disastrous if we were seen to be burning a fuel which has such a damaging discharge while at the same time, as the noble Lord quite rightly said, trying to persuade the countries in South America not to demolish their many rain forests. They do so for economic reasons, which they are able to justify. If we do not find an alternative to offer them, we are wasting our time.
In an obviously well-researched speech the noble Lord said that fusion will be available in 50 years' time. Can we wait 50 years? I do not believe that we can because we shall then be almost halfway through the next century. In my opinion the demand and pressures by that time will be appalling. The noble Lord said that the scientists are not sure what will happen if global warming continues to rise. However, we know that whatever the results are, they will not in any sense be beneficial.
One of the matters to which we must look more urgently than at present is our own performance. This country is now known as the dirty man of Europe. It was quite clearly illustrated and proved that our burning of fossil fuels—and the noble Lord mentioned the present figure of 45 per cent. although I believe it used to be higher than that—was the prime factor responsible for the acid rain which has devastated areas of Europe. I have a question for the Minister, which I do not put in a carping sense. The Government had a programme for the desulphurisation of our larger power stations such as Drax B and the other major power stations which still burn coal. Can the Minister tell the House what has happened to that programme and whether it is progressing as fast as was first envisaged? If he cannot give me an answer in his reply, perhaps he will place some information in the Library. I believe that if we do not prove by example that we mean what we say, we shall not be entitled to state at Rio what other people should be doing.
I have spoken about India and China but the noble Lord produced a figure on which we should concentrate our thinking. I believe I used a similar figure in a debate some time ago. The total known fossil fuels on the earth at present are expected to last another 100 years at present usage rates. If the population doubles in some of the densely populated countries, it will not last 100 years. What will take its place?
I know that there is a strong and powerful anti-nuclear lobby. My noble friend Lord Hatch is part of that. However, as yet nobody has found an alternative. There is no point in saying to people in China, Africa, India and the vast tracts of South America that there is power but that certain lobbies believe it should not be made available. People who are dying from hypothermia will not wish to be told that they are dying a pure death because they are unaffected by nuclear energy. In terms of contamination fossil fuels have probably killed more people than

1325
nuclear fuel ever could. There must be a review of the position of nuclear energy and its safe use; otherwise, we have nothing to offer those people.
The greatest user of energy in the world today is the largest and most powerful true democracy—the United States. Its wastage of energy is absolutely appalling. The Americans do not conserve any energy. They just pay through the nose for it. Their use of energy per capita of the population is disgraceful. They must look at that issue and start setting an example. I believe that the United States is the only major country in the world which heavily subsidises petrol at the pump. That is no incentive for people to stop or limit their consumption of petrol. They are known as gas guzzlers. Nobody aspiring to become the president of America would dare to attempt to deal with that situation because if he did so he would never be elected.
Those are some of the matters to which we must address our minds. The noble Lord referred to the transport industry. It has made substantial progress. He gave some figures which indicate that in the foreseeable future most of the pollution coming from exhausts will probably be eliminated. I believe he also mentioned the diesel engine. On the information I have received from people in the motor industry, the diesel engine can be geared to make a far better contribution than can the petrol engine to the exercise in which we are all so involved.
I want to talk briefly about transport in general. Basically, I am a big city man. I spent most of my life in the centre of Manchester and lived in Leeds for a while. A programme has been introduced for big cities to return to using tram cars, in which I travelled as a boy—quite a while ago! However, I find difficulty in understanding why we are bringing back that type of transport and at the same time allowing the cities to be absolutely choked by the motor car.
Either the Government or local authorities will have to look seriously at banning motor cars in city centres and conurbations such as London. Cars cause the biggest pollutant problem that affects people. I know that from living on a main road just outside Manchester. There is a continual passage of vehicles of all kinds, bumper to bumper—heavy goods lorries as well as saloon cars—passing my door in both directions. Sometimes I can taste the pollution. We must ask ourselves whether in a free society we should continue to allow that to take place with the toll it takes on people's lives, or whether we should grasp the nettle and do something about it.
I own a car. I use it as little as possible when I am in Manchester because I have reasonable bus access. It is not perfect but I can catch a bus into Stockport or Manchester almost door to door. When I want to travel to the main line station I can do the same. However, I notice that when I am doing that there is an endless line of cars collecting people and dropping them off. It all contributes to that which we are trying to eliminate.
I understand that a strong lobby is suggesting that we put goods back onto the railways to release the pressure on the roads and help the situation. My
1326
information is that it would be a difficult exercise at this point in time unless the Government were prepared to underwrite the billions of pounds of expenditure necessary to develop the railways to that extent.
We are left with the situation in this country whereby the two biggest culprits, as the noble Lord said, are the fossil fuel power stations and the motor car. I believe local authorities will find themselves in difficulty if they suddenly decide to bar the motor car from the city centres. Although I use buses—I do not want to be too political—enormous cuts have been made in the amount of money available for the provision of local transport services. I am convinced that many people are using motor cars to travel around the cities and into the centres because no alternative transport is available.
Some time ago I was in conversation with the present leader of Manchester City Council. We do not meet often because we hold different opinions on some major political issues. However, I asked him what is to happen with the new rapid light transit railway in Manchester. It is no good to me; it comes nowhere near my home. It travels from the north to the south of Manchester. Huge areas in the north-east, east and south-east, where most people live, are hardly touched by it. I wish it every success and I hope that it is a success. I also hope that it is only the start to a network of rapid light transit railway in that city. Other cities are introducing similar systems.
I do not believe local authorities and poll tax payers—they will be something else next year—should be asked to bear the burden of providing the funds to bring that system into being on an extended scale. The Government, whatever their colour, have a responsibility to do that. Unless they are prepared to provide the funds and diminish the use of the motor car, even with all the action the motor car industry is taking—and it is doing a lot to deal with the situation in this country—pollution will continue to rise with all the appalling consequences to people's health.
One of my finest memories is when we suddenly had no smog. I can remember a few years ago that whenever we had smog in London and other big cities the papers were full of reports of deaths from bronchial and heart-related complaints. In my opinion many people are still being affected in that way due to living 24 hours a day in the pollution arising from petrol stations.
Turning to power stations emissions, I could not believe it when I was told of the amount of pollution, in tonnage, being blasted out of our big coal-fired power stations. They were not talking of hundreds of tonnes but thousands of tonnes of pollution being blasted into the atmosphere in one place and falling to earth elsewhere on to some unlucky persons.
Once again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for introducing the debate. What I have said is perhaps said in a rather pepper-potted way. But I believe serious problems exist to which we should turn our minds. In my opinion the conference in Rio should not look at the situation with the jaundiced eye of those of us who have energy and, whether we like to admit it or not, are the polluters of the world. We

1327
must formulate an approach which will give encouragement to the emerging countries whose youth population will soon double, and convince them that we are on their side. We must offer them something quickly. It may be nuclear energy; there is nothing else on the table at present of a similar dimension.
Once again I thank the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate. I only wish it had a wider viewing and speaking audience in your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, he did a first class job in bringing the matter to our attention.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I could say something. Following his desirable objective of reducing the number of motor cars in cities, with which we all agree, perhaps he will accept that one thing that could be done, and done cheaply, is to make it easier to use a bicycle in cities. I declare an interest as a long-term cyclist in this capital city. There are virtually no facilities for cyclists and a small expenditure by central or local government could greatly increase the use of bicycles. It is one of the greenest and healthiest forms of transport available.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord is obviously fitter than I. Obviously cycling could be a successful and contributory factor based on the fact that the necessary parking or other facilities are made available. I should not have thought that would cost much money and the suggestion should be seriously considered by local authorities.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has introduced this debate this afternoon. We cannot have too many of them. I hope that we shall have a succession of discussions of this kind between now and Rio, and afterwards.
I have spoken before about transport and the question of vehicles and their emissions. I do not propose to go over that ground again. I shall leave that to other Members of your Lordships' House who are taking part in the debate. All I shall say about the subject is that it should be noted that the catalytic converter is not going to remove carbon dioxide emissions.
I would draw the Government's attention to the question that I asked during the debate on the humble Address regarding the omission in the Government's report analysing what had happened since the White Paper was published last year. Whereas the White Paper talked about the need for reducing traffic in cities, the report had nothing whatever to say about that. I should like to know whether the Government have now abandoned any hope of putting into effect the important matter which they raised in their own White Paper.
This afternoon I shall concentrate on the importance of using renewable sources of energy to reduce the polluting forms of energy which have already been widely mentioned. We go back to the
1328
time of the privatisation of the electricity industry and the institution of the non-fossil fuel obligation. The Government established a protected market for nuclear power. How has that money been used? Between 1979 and 1990 nuclear power and fossil fuels received £3,000 million in R&D; renewable energy received £203 million. Ninety-eight per cent. of the £1.15 billion which is raised each year through the non-fossil fuel obligation supports nuclear power. That adds £17 to the average household annual electricity bill. The amount spend on R&D for renewables adds only 40p. in its support for new renewable energy projects. I suggest that here the Government have their priorities wrong.
I want to use the question of wave power as an illustration of the way in which the Government have been neglecting the opportunities which have been opened up for the use of renewable energy. I have given the Government notice that this was the main issue that I wanted to raise. We recall the 1982 scandal—and it was a scandal—when the nuclear energy lobby deliberately falsified figures in order to purport to show that renewable energy was so much more expensive than nuclear energy. That has now been exposed. But as a result of that scandal and of the deliberate activities of the nuclear lobby, we have lost the research work that was being done particularly in Edinburgh by Professor Salter concerning what is known as "Salter's Duck".
Research money for the promotion of wave power ceased in that year because it had been shown, as a result of the activities of the nuclear lobby, that the cost of wave power was prohibitive. We now know that it was not. In fact, quoting from the evidence given to the Energy Committee of another place, a member of the department had this to say:
"if it is true that wave energy looks as though it can be produced at a cost as low as 5–5.5 pence per kilowatt hour … that would be very good grounds for investing more money in that particular area of technology".
I was shocked to find that in 1990–91 only£200,000 was set aside for research into wave energy. I believe that that figure has been raised in the current financial year to£300,000. That is a drop in the ocean compared to the millions of pounds that are being poured into research on nuclear energy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, very kindly sent me a copy of the Minister for Energy's Statement of 5th November when he announced the new amounts to be allocated to renewable energy. I welcome that Statement as a small increase in the provision for research into renewables, but there is not one mention in it of wave power. I ask the noble Viscount who is to wind up why wave power was omitted from that Statement. I believe that I know the answer. I believe it is because we are still suffering from the scandal of 1982. Because the wave power technocrats have been unable to get research money during the past nine years, so companies have been unable to develop because the technology has never been developed. However, it has been and it is being used in other countries where research provision is much higher than here.
What is needed if we are to use that project in this country and also, one hopes, export the technology

1329
abroad, bearing in mind what my noble friend Lord Dean was saying and particularly as regards the developing countries? What is needed in order to provide an alternative source of energy to those forms of energy which are produced with massive pollution? In this country the Government need to extend the contracts which are offered to those companies employed in renewable energy development. At the moment the contracts last only until 1998. No company can develop a programme of research that is going to have a cut-off date of 1998.
The non-fossil fuel obligation is restricting the number of renewable energy projects which could be used by this country. In 1990, only 11 per cent. of the 1,500 megawatts of renewable energy projects that were submitted to the Department of Energy were accepted. We need a policy of objective pricing. The way in which projected prices and the estimated prices of renewable energy have been distorted is a scandal. The Government must accept their responsibility. We need an objective pricing policy to enable the country to know what is on offer, at what price and what contribution renewable energy can make to the provision of our energy needs. We need a dramatic increase in research into and development of renewables, especially of wave power. We need planning controls so that local authorities are encouraged to use and provide for the various forms of renewable energy—wind power, solar power, wave power, landfill and so on.
We should not be so modest. The Government's target is for 2 per cent. of our energy needs to be provided by renewable energy. The Government have already found that in the commercial market there are companies offering much more than that 2 per cent. The 2 per cent. target should be increased to 10 per cent. by the end of this century, with a rapid increase afterwards. By the year 2000 we should be aiming to produce 10 per cent. of our electricity from renewables. If we achieved that target we should be preventing 23 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, 160,000 tonnes of sulphur oxide and a 100,000 tonnes of nitrogen oxide being emitted into the atmosphere.
Surely the whole story of energy provision and the Government's policy on energy over the past 12 years shows that this issue cannot be left to market forces. Government support is required for research and development and in many cases legislation is required to enable local authorities to promote renewable energy and to avert the disasters which loom over us in terms of pollution.
I have given this example before in the House but it is worth repeating. Two or three years ago a group of companies came to see me. The companies had developed a technique for the disposal of refrigerators which would not allow any CFCs into the atmosphere. But they pointed out that the technique cost money. They said that they could not take it further until legislation was provided to enable local authorities to pay the cost of the disposal of the refrigerators. That may seem a small matter, but it could be extended to refrigerators all over the world. We should consider the opportunities in this country for the development
1330
and export of this kind of technology. We should realise the tremendous difference it could make to the fate of the world and the great difference it could make to raising the standard of living of third world peoples just to the point at which they can sustain life.
Surely the Government should take up this challenge. They could make Britain the leading exponent of the abolition of pollution and at the same time marry essential development among the poor of the world with environmentally benign technology. That could give a great boost to manufacturing industry and exports and simultaneously make a major contribution to saving our planet.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I too would like to express appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for introducing this debate. It is, as he rightly said, complementary to the debate which I had the honour to introduce on the 11th November on the report on Energy and the Environment which was produced by Sub-Committee B of the European Communities Committee.
The case for dealing with the whole problem of energy and the environment is so vast and global that we cannot really pay sufficient attention to it in our various debates in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was absolutely right to say that there were gaps in our report. We could not cover everything. There were two gaps. First, we did not cover the transport sector. We deliberately did not cover it because we would not have been able to produce our report in time if we had. Secondly, we confined the report to what was happening in the European Community as that was our remit, whereas of course this is essentially a global issue. The noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy, Lord Dean of Beswick and Lord Hatch of Lusby, have covered these wider areas in their contributions to the debate.
I am glad that there is now an increasingly common acceptance of the importance of this issue. The Government have recognised that by their comprehensive document This Common Inheritance, the most comprehensive document on the environmental issue so far produced in this country, which was issued in September 1989. It has been promptly followed up by the first year report, produced exactly one year later, which points out what progress had been made and what jobs still need to be done. I should like to express the hope that, whatever may be the outcome of the next election, whatever government there may be, they will continue this tradition. There is no point in continually having to start again. We now have a comprehensive document with annual reviews. I hope that those annual reviews will be continued and that action will be initiated to achieve the objectives set out in the original document.
In looking at the question of energy and the environment I believe that the developed countries, of which we are one, have a double duty. They have a duty within their own countries to achieve the best standards of using energy with minimal harmful effects to the environment. They have an even greater duty to set an example and provide facilities for the

1331
developing countries. If there is an environmental risk in the future, it does not so much lie in what happens here; it lies in what will happen elsewhere if something is not done. In the vast areas of China and India, in the eastern European countries and in the Latin American and African countries there will be a surge forward in economic development and growth. Many of those countries, particularly China and India, have access to substantial coal reserves. They will use those reserves because nothing else is to hand. It largely depends on us as to how environmentally acceptably they use those reserves.
If we can develop systems to enable coal to be used efficiently and cleanly, we shall probably be making the greatest contribution we can to limiting the impact of global warming. That point was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and I fully support him on it. Britain has a big role to play. We have an enviable tradition over centuries of mining coal and using coal. We are now, with government support. launching into a study and development programme for clean coal technology. That should be expanded rapidly in conjunction with other countries which have made progress in this area. It is an important issue and needs to be tackled effectively.
There are two ways in which we can best ensure that energy is used with least damage to the environment in spite of the increased need for energy in future. First, we should look at alternative sources of energy which pollute less and modify existing sources so that they, too, pollute less. Secondly, we should use energy more efficiently. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has referred to alternative sources. I agree with him; more effort needs to be put in that direction. There are many alternative sources of energy which can be developed. My own company—and here I declare an interest—has recently invested in a substantial refuse-burning plant in South London where the alternatives of landfill no longer exist. We are going to burn this refuse in ways which are totally acceptable according to Community rules. We are going to generate electricity and produce heat. Therefore, out of this refuse we are going to be diminishing the need for putting more CO2 into the environment.
The problem we have had, and the big decision we have had to make, as have others who are interested in a project of this sort, is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, pointed out, the NFFO—that is, the non-fossil fuel obligation procedure—will come to an end in 1998, and yet the sort of project I am talking about requires at least 15 to 20 years before you can fully recover your costs and get into a satisfactory financial situation. I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, when he replies will be able to tell us something about that because we need to have some assurance that this incentive to produce energy from non-polluting sources is going to be continued for many years ahead.
When we turn to energy efficiency it is generally recognised that this is one of the most effective and immediate ways in which we can safeguard the environment in using energy. In the report of Sub-Committee B recently debated we referred to the energy efficiency gap. There is undoubtedly such a gap
1332
of at least 20 per cent., and probably a good deal more. What is becoming evident as one studies this question is that there are some fairly obvious ways in which this gap can be closed; in which we can, if we set about it with determination, make much better use of the energy we consume, and therefore obviate the need for ever-increasing amounts of energy consumption and pollution of the atmosphere.
The power stations happen to be the biggest users of primary energy. They convert primary energy into secondary energy, which of course has been one of the dramatic technological revolutions of the age in which we live. But they do not do so efficiently because of the nature of power generation. The most efficient current power station, if it converts primary energy into secondary energy achieving a 38 per cent. conversion rate, is doing very well. With combined cycle processes using gas, that can probably be increased to about 42 per cent. Combined cycle coal, using clean coal technologies, could get at least that far if not further.
However, that is not good enough. Much more needs to be done, and the solution to that is at hand. If the waste heat is harnessed through combined heat and power processes the conversion rate is doubled. You not only get the benefit of the generation of the electricity but you make use of the waste heat. I am associated with such a project in the city of Sheffield, where the heat comes from another waste incineration plant, and instead of being burnt to atmosphere it is piped through the city of Sheffield and is now providing a totally environmentally acceptable form of energy. There is no possible pollution whatsoever. Here too we need to make a much more determined effort. There is nothing abstruse or difficult about it. It just requires determination, concentration and the necessary capital involvement on the part of both the public authorities and the private sector.
Buildings are obviously another place where energy is consumed. We have to use energy in our buildings in order to keep ourselves warm. We have to have energy in buildings to produce things, and so on. Here we are lagging way behind the Continent in our insulation standards. We need to try to stimulate those. In our recent debate I referred to what they are doing in Denmark, and I should like to repeat it because it is a simple way forward. They have introduced an energy rating system for buildings which is obligatory. A certified energy rating document has to be produced every time a building changes hands. It is one of the documents one has to produce.
There is a system in this country that can be adopted which rates buildings from 0 to 10. I felt that I should not only talk about it but have it done, so I had it done to my home. I happen to live in a fairly old house. I thought that I had done a great deal to insulate it. I regret to say that on the Richter scale of energy efficiency I rated at 4.6. I was told that it was not bad for the sort of house I had, but I immediately put in hand further measures. I recommend your Lordships to do the same. It can easily be arranged. If you have any difficulty let me know and I will put you in touch with the organisation that does this.

1333
Then we come to transport. There is quite a lot going on in the transport sector. If we are talking about CO2 emissions we know that something like 20 per cent. of the emissions of CO2 in this country come from transport, and mainly from motor transport. That was made clear in the Government's report, to which I have referred.
Apart from the CO2, emissions there are the other emissions from transport that need to be dealt with. There are the gases such as carbon monoxide, unburnt hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen, all of which can be dealt with by the progressive introduction of catalytic converters. This is a desirable move. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, rightly said, that does not deal with the CO2 problem. The only way to deal with the CO2 problem is to make much more efficient use of our transport. The prize to be aimed for is to have more efficient cars in the first place and to drive them more carefully. If we had a combination of those two things we could be increasing our usage of motor vehicles but reducing our consumption of energy to drive them. This is a prize well worth going for. After all, the challenge we have is not to deprive ourselves of the benefits that energy brings but to make better use of it, and a more environmentally acceptable use.
I should like to conclude my remarks by repeating my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for introducing this debate and by repeating my firm conviction that we as a country have this double duty not only within our own territory but, even more importantly, to the third world to show how growth can be sustained and the use of energy developed in such a way that it will bring benefits not only in economic terms but also in environmental terms.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I should like to join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, on opening this important debate in such an interestingly wide-ranging manner. I agreed with most of what he said. Some of it has been explored in the earlier debate opened by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and he added significantly to what was said in that debate in his excellent speech today. This matter is so important that there is no harm at all in restating and reaffirming some of our conclusions in the field of energy conservation. As was said, certain areas were not discussed, such as transport and renewables, and this is an opportunity to touch upon them because they are critical to today's debate.
May I say in opening, and I am sure that the Minister will have some sympathy with this, that we have in the United Kingdom a governmental problem of organisation. I am the energy spokesman, the Minister is the environmental spokesman and we are talking about transport. In fact, departmentally speaking, Whitehall is simply not organised to cope adequately with a problem on this scale which cuts across so many departments. I have some sympathy with the Minister in attempting to answer us all.
Thousands of facts are put out to us but the basic fact we have to sit with is that the energy consumption of primary fuels is still rising this year, even in a
1334
recession, and it will get worse as the economy picks up. The two biggest energy consumers are electricity generation and transport. Probably the largest single area of energy wastage is in buildings, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned. Therefore anybody who is concerned to secure an improvement in this field must target those areas and make significant changes there. But it is not possible to make such changes without significant government intervention.
Electricity generation has been mentioned as a major factor and coal is still the dominant fuel for electricity generation. I believe that 70 per cent. of United Kingdom electricity is still produced from coal. It is much less in the OECD as a whole, with an average of around 40 per cent.; and it is declining here because of the decline in new commissions. However, 80 per cent. of our power stations' sulphur emissions comes from coal, and so there is a pollution problem. Coal is the dirtiest and least efficient of our fuels, although it is of course much cleaner than that nasty Orimulsion mixture that we discussed earlier.
So what do we do about coal? We should reduce coal dependency, and that is happening, as I say. In that context one might conclude that financial subsidies for coal are environmentally dangerous, but it would be a pity to eliminate coal because the United Kingdom has such large resources of high quality coal. Do we therefore switch to natural gas? That is happening on a major scale in electricity generation. There are targets to double gas firing in the United Kingdom by the year 2000. It is obviously much cleaner, but the problem is not as simple as that. Gas is, as has been said, in limited supply; so why exhaust it? Because it is limited, the price will certainly rise if there is a switch of demand to gas and in any case it is a premium energy. So why waste a premium energy on crude generation?
I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said from his much greater experience. Much more promising is the development of clean-burn technologies. The technologies are well developed, as he said. Apparently we can now remove up to 95 per cent. of sulphur dioxide from flue gases, even in coal-fired stations, and we can remove over 90 per cent. of nitrogen oxides from flue gases in coal-fired stations.
The technology is expensive, yet surely this must be one of the most important answers to the problem. In it lies more immediate scope, though not necessarily long term, than in renewable energies. We must invest more in developing even better clean-burn technology, and it must be applied to coal. It is worrying that some of the electricity generating companies are contemplating spending on clean-burning Orimulsion rather than on coal. I would think that is quite wrong and I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Dean said.
It is not appropriate just to make a mass switch to gas. If we put our major investment into this clean-burn technology we can develop a proper industry and export technology, especially to India and China, where the potential for pollution disaster

1335
has already been mentioned. I believe that by the year 2020 those two countries alone will be responsible for 30 per cent. of the world's emissions of CO2.
In that context I am bound to say—and I think perhaps the Government might privately be bound to agree on this point —that electricity privatisation has not helped. Whatever the commercial and economic arguments, that privatisation has definitely set back the cause of energy conservation and pollution control because it has meant a priority for maximising power sales and consumption. Too little investment is going into clean-burn technology because the companies have already downgraded their commitments to invest in coping with the problem of acid rain and because of their hostility to renewable energy. For all those reasons privatisation has not been helpful. I must ask the Minister why the Government still decline to regulate the utilities more firmly in this area of pollution. We should insist that they give a higher priority to environmental consequences in their generation. They should also give higher priority to conservation rather than consumption and they should be encouraged to give more long-term contracts for renewables, as has been mentioned. They must be made to resist the pollution nightmare of substances such as Orimulsion.
Transport is the other major problem area. It is directly responsible for approximately 30 per cent. of the primary energy consumption in the United Kingdom; indeed, the figure is probably 40 per cent. if one includes related consumption for car manufacture and road maintenance, and the consumption is rising. So we cannot deal with the pollution problem without dealing with the transport problem, and that is getting worse. In the Government's own figures the number of cars on the road is forecast to increase by some 100 per cent. by the year 2025 on current trends.
In pollution terms, the petrol engine is a very inefficient consumer of energy. It can be a dirty pollutant. It is responsible for over 50 per cent. of the nitrogen oxide emissions into our atmosphere. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, if I may say so, seemed a little optimistic about the future. I hope he is right but I am sceptical, especially in the light of the great expansion of car use in the third world. It is estimated that the full environmental cost of transport equals roughly 5 per cent. of GDP.
So what are the solutions? Theoretically one solution is quite simple. If you are not talking about practical politics you use fewer cars. That must come to some extent, certainly in towns, and it requires a switch to public transport, as has often been said, with greater use of light rail. One wonders when a government—any government, because I am not blaming the present Government alone—will fully grasp the scale of the problem and the expenditure involved.
I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said about facilitating cycling. It is cheap, it is clean, it is healthy and, sadly, very dangerous in present road conditions. Another solution would be more energy-efficient consumption by cars: slower speeds and smaller engines, for which more tax incentives would be justified. We must resist the trend
1336
towards larger lorries. I notice that the Austrians have legislated for smaller loads on lorries. Finally, there is the development of alternative car fuels. A great deal has been written on the subject, but, being practical, the technology of alternative car fuel is mixed and the environmental impact is often unmeasured.
The general area of energy conservation—the area which was discussed most in the debate initiated previously by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra—was well covered by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. I shall not discuss the details of what was said in the previous debate. To summarise for the record: it is in buildings where savings of up to 20 per cent. are possible and economic. We need grants and incentives for better insulation; we need tougher building regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, rightly referred to the UK failings and the Danish example. I have noted recent European reports that calculate that if all housing in Britain had basic insulation, that would reduce pollution over the next 50 years by 2,000 million tonnes of CO2 and 3,000 million tonnes of SO2 and save £2.5 billion a year. We need better and compulsory labelling of heating equipment. We need more financial incentives to invest broadly in energy conservation.
Turning to renewables, my noble friend Lord Hatch dealt with them at some length. The basic fact is that today only 0.5 per cent. of our energy supply is renewables derived. That is mainly hydro, much of which was started by the 1945–1951 Labour Government. So we have not made much progress there.
On wind, investment is rising but from a very low base. We need much more. In the solar area, particularly the passive solar area, there appears to be great scope for its use in individual dwellings. On biofuels—refuse, straw and wood —there is considerable scope for local, community energy generation; but again long-term contracts are needed. In the tidal area there is potential; and in the wave area, as has been said, research has been virtually terminated and one wonders why. The total research into that is still derisory.
In conclusion, the need for energy conservation, and for greater stress on energy conservation by the Government, on economic and environmental grounds is overwhelming. The Rio conference will be important, but it will achieve little unless individual governments act. Our recent experience is that market forces are not working well enough to achieve a switch to the environmentally friendly energy combustion which is necessary.
I am not opposed to market forces, but the Government must recognise that that is not a sufficient answer. The Government have, I confess, in the past two years shown much greater activity in that field, with numerous publications and announcements, but we still do not have enough action. We need a massive programme of energy conservation to match the scale of the environmental threat. I am afraid to say that I see no sign yet of action on that scale from the Government. I am always optimistic, and I hope that the Minister has more than words to give us.
4.44 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging and useful debate this afternoon on some of the most difficult and most pressing environmental problems. We in government do not underestimate the scale of the problems that face us. On the contrary, we have responded vigorously to the challenge both at home and abroad.
Earlier this month, in the course of the debate on the gracious Speech, my noble friend the Minister of State for Agriculture noted the publication of the Anniversary Report on the Environment White Paper, which was published in September.
One could hardly ask for clearer evidence of the Government's continuing commitment to the protection, and improvement, of the environment. The White Paper anniversary report set out specific policy proposals on the whole range of environmental issues. We intend to continue that rigorous practice of review. That is equal to the performance of any state and a great deal better than the majority.
The anniversary report was the first time that a British Government have subjected their policies to such open accountability. Line by line, paragraph by paragraph, we have set out the record. Where progress has not been as rapid as we might have hoped we have not shirked giving an explanation. But in most areas significant progress has been achieved: 250 of the 350 commitments have been met and over 400 environmental initiatives were taken in the first year of action; in addition, another 400 commitments have been made.
Those new initiatives cover the areas we are considering today: a £60 million energy efficiency scheme for public housing; a further £600 million for sewage treatment; and £42 million for recycling. Those are but a handful of the measures that we are taking this year to improve our environmental performance.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy addressed the question of global warming. The relationship between energy and the environment is a complicated one. Energy generation has a series of harmful effects on the environment: from smoke pollution to acid rain; from carbon dioxide emissions to slag heaps and water pollution. Each poses a different problem but there is a common solution: energy efficiency.
Nowhere is that more true than in remedying the problem of increasing CO2 emissions. Increasing use of fossil fuels by man has upset the natural balance of CO2 emission and absorption. We know that that is enhancing the natural greenhouse effect and will cause global warming. We now have a broad scientific consensus that, if we continue as we are, global warming will occur faster than the world has seen over the past 10,000 years. That will lead to rises in global average sea levels and to climate change.
The Government recognise the seriousness of that threat. It calls for a response on a number of fronts. Global action is essential: we are playing a full and active part in the negotiations for a climate change convention. Discussion in the Inter-governmental
1338
Negotiating Committee is now based on a possible convention text. I expect good progress to be made at the fourth meeting next month in Geneva.
The environment White Paper and the anniversary report set out a strategy to meet our target of returning carbon dioxide emissions to the 1990 levels by 2005, providing other countries take similar action. We are already taking many practical steps which make sense in their own right as well as contributing to controlling UK emissions of greenhouse gases. We are improving energy efficiency, promoting renewable energy sources and reducing transport emissions. We are planting trees to absorb the carbon dioxide.
Let us look at renewables. Over £24 million of support is available in 1991/92, and about 80 new projects are being initiated annually. We are working towards a figure of 1,000 megawatts of new renewable energy electricity generating capacity in 2000, a ten-fold increase. That is in addition to the long-standing use of more than 1,000 megawatts of hydroelectric plant in Scotland.
The non-fossil fuel obligation has given the renewable energy industry a great boost. It has helped it overcome the gap between demonstration and commercial development. The second order for 122 projects was announced on 5th November. The two orders have quadrupled renewable-sourced capacity contracted to regional electricity companies since 1990.
The targets for renewables and the extent to which they can help to restrain greenhouse gas emissions is under review. Both Scotland and Northern Ireland are being considered in the review. We are also preparing guidance on new energy technologies for local planning authorities. A new draft will be issued shortly for consultation.
In the foreseeable future, however, most of our energy will continue to be generated by burning fossil fuels. Energy efficiency is the fastest and cheapest way of curbing carbon dioxide emissions and conserving finite resources. The threat of global warming has provided a new spur to our efforts in the energy efficiency field. We can save money and save the planet at the same time. Since we are all energy users we all need to contribute. I believe that we all ought to follow the lead of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, by having our own homes looked at to see how they rate on the energy efficiency scale.
The Energy Efficiency Office has been promoting energy efficiency with great success. Its programmes alone have generated recurrent savings now worth over £500 million per year. The Ministerial Group on Energy Efficiency is giving the message a further boost. The group works to raise the profile of energy efficiency and encourage an energy efficient lifestyle.
I should like to turn now to the first year report of the group and highlight the new initiatives it has overseen. The Energy Efficiency Office runs the following major programmes: the home energy efficiency scheme provides support for low income households; the best practice programme provides independent and authoritative information on energy

1339
efficiency; and the regional energy efficiency officers publicise our programmes to particular industrial sectors.
Last month my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy launched a new energy management campaign—"Making A Corporate Commitment". This is encouraging senior management in UK industrial and commercial companies to make energy efficiency one of their top priorities. The financial and environmental advantages make this essential. Companies are asked to sign a declaration of their commitment to responsible energy management and the promotion of energy efficiency throughout their operations.
In the domestic sector, the Energy Efficiency Office and the Department of the Environment have launched a £10 million campaign "Helping the Earth begins at Home". The aim is to make householders appreciate that their own domestic energy use contributes to global warming and to persuade them to use energy efficiency measures. The campaign will last three years.
I hope that consumers will make use of another initiative: the new energy efficiency advice services provided by the regional electricity companies, British Gas and British Coal. These help people to use energy wisely and advise on energy efficient appliances.
The Energy Efficiency Office has developed with the regional electricity companies a voluntary scheme for the labelling of appliances, starting initially with refrigerators and freezers. Labels will show details of energy consumption and overall energy efficiency on a simple 1 to 10 scale, providing potential purchasers with valuable information. We have developed this scheme As an interim measure before the introduction of the EC-wide scheme in the next year or so.
The EC appliance labelling scheme is one of a number of specific proposals expected to be made under the EC SAVE programme for energy efficiency. We support the principle of this scheme and look forward to seeing practical proposals.
It may surprise noble Lords that public expenditure on energy efficiency this year exceeds £1 billion. Despite this, the level of the Energy Efficiency Office budget has been criticised. I shall respond to that specific criticism by referring to the Autumn Statement, which announced that the EEO budget for 1992–93 will be £59 million—a 40 per cent. increase in resources for Energy Efficiency Office programmes from the £42 million available this year. Further increases are planned.
There will be a 50 per cent. increase in resources next year for support for energy efficiency in low income households. Additional resources are being made available for the best practice programme and our regional and publicity activities. The budget also includes provision for expenditure on the first year of the new energy management assistance scheme. This fulfils a commitment to the scheme made in the White Paper on the environment last year.
This scheme will be targeted on enterprises with fewer than 500 employees. It offers financial support for project management assistance with the implementation of energy measures. From April it will
1340
subsidise the use of consultants for energy auditing, investment feasibility studies and project management of investments devoted to improving energy efficiency.
I said earlier that global warming is a global problem and, as such, it requires a global solution. Efforts made by individual countries would have relatively little impact on their own. Indeed, we risk exporting our emissions elsewhere if action in the UK results in importing more goods from other countries. Achieving a framework convention on climate change is therefore essential. But countries come to the negotiating table with very different national circumstances and a wide divergence in their capacity to take action. This is particularly true of the developing countries. We recognise that they will need additional financial help and the transfer of environmentally sound technology on a fair and favourable basis.
There has been a lot of discussion about this issue, both about possible financial measures and about ways of facilitating technology transfer to enable less developed countries' growth to be clean growth. The Government have responded to the call for additional financial resources by creating a new item of public expenditure for global environmental assistance, entirely separate from the aid budget. From this we are contributing £40 million to the global environment facility, which will provide grants for projects to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
In helping developing countries meet their growing energy needs the Overseas Development Administration supports projects designed to encourage energy conservation and efficient use. These include training, demonstration projects, institutional development and promoting awareness of the financial and economic benefits of energy efficiency. The Overseas Development Administration is also helping developing countries to conserve the tropical rain forests, whose role in absorbing carbon dioxide is so important. This country has financed studies to assess the likely impacts of climate change on developing countries; and we have offered to finance studies on greenhouse gas emissions and the cost of measures to limit them.
In the longer term, action to achieve the UK's conditional target for CO2 emissions will inevitably have to include increases, achieved by taxation or other means, in the relative prices of energy and fuel. Full market pricing of fuels to reflect their economic and environmental costs would have a fundamental impact in increasing energy efficiency. But it would also affect international competitiveness. Measures affecting the relative price of energy can only sensibly be taken when our competitors are ready to take similar action.
The EC Commission has proposed a combined carbon/energy tax, and the Government are participating in discussions on this issue. We will need to consider the proposals carefully, in particular their effects on this country and EC competitiveness. Much more analysis is needed before any decisions can be reached.
The UK target is the result of detailed work. We have assessed the feasibility and costs of possible

1341
measures to limit CO2 emissions in this country and the level of emissions we would otherwise have expected to reach in the future. A range of scenarios was considered for an array of assumptions about the economy, our use of energy, and the shape of our industry; these are all difficult to assess with precision. The target applies to the full range.
It is true that if GDP does not grow as quickly as the high growth scenario assumes, CO2 emissions will not rise as much. But that does not mean that it is easier to stabilise or reduce emissions. The less GDP grows, the less wealth we have to pay for the measures that will be needed to solve the problem. As for the timescale, new technologies can be developed given time, and investments made in the costly replacement of plants and products at the end of planned life times rather than prematurely. A sensible assessment of the speed at which innovations can be made suggests that a lot more potential change is possible within 15 years.
I have spoken at length about energy efficiency because this has been the main focus of the debate. But the Motion also refers to pollution control measures and I want to turn to these now.
Your Lordships will know that the Government have already introduced significant initiatives in the field of environmental legislation, designed specifically to reduce pollution and to minimise damage to the environment. In 1990, we produced the Environmental Protection Act, which had as its centrepiece the new system of integrated pollution control. IPC was introduced for industrial processes responsible for the major releases of polluting substances to air, land and water. It recognises that for such processes the different environmental media cannot be treated in isolation. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution enforces IPC and existing processes will be brought into the system over the next five years. The Act also gives local authorities new air pollution control powers in relation to a range of less polluting processes.
With IPC we have developed an approach to pollution control which puts us among the leaders in Europe and the rest of the world. The system does, of course, impose requirements on industry; after all, higher standards are the ultimate goal. But we believe that there are practical benefits for both industry and the environment. It also acts as a spur to innovation and opens up new markets for British industry in pollution abatement equipment and techniques.
It might be helpful at this point if I were to say a few words about our proposals for the new environment agency. Our intention is to create a powerful independent agency that will provide consistent and coherent controls on discharges to air, land and water. This will involve bringing functions into the agency that are at present carried out by HMIP; by the National Rivers Authority; and, for waste regulation, by local authorities. We have also proposed that the drinking water inspectorate might transfer to the agency.
We need an environment agency to provide a fully integrated, multi-media approach to pollution control. It would avoid the overlaps, and gaps and
1342
potential conflicts, that can exist between regulatory bodies. It would also help industry by simplifying its relationship with its environmental regulators. It would meet the real public concern which exists about the different status of the existing bodies: at present only the NRA with its independent board has a public standing and a voice of its own.
The environment agency will therefore be a major step forward. It will be able to develop a consistent and cohesive approach to environmental protection. It will be able to develop greater expertise and authority than the current arrangements allow. Above all, it will be a powerful voice in influencing the adoption of better environmental standards and practice. We issued a consultation paper on our proposals in October and we are at present seeking full comments on the options set out there. We hope that all interested parties will let us have their comments by the closing date of 31st January 1992. We hope to reach decisions on the structure of the agency in spring next year and introduce a Bill early in the new Parliament. We intend to use the interim period to develop consultative arrangements with the NRA and local government to pave the way for the creation of the agency.
One of the Government's White Paper commitments was to establish a dialogue with the business community on environment issues. The Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Trade and Industry appointed the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment in May. Since then the 25 businessmen and women on the committee have been working to an ambitious programme, mainly through three working groups on global warming, recycling and environmental management.
I shall now reply to some of the points raised in the debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said, he is the Opposition spokesman on energy. He quite rightly pointed out that I am the spokesman for the Department of the Environment. There is an overlap between the two departments. The noble Lord may have noticed that my noble friend Lord Cavendish is sitting at my left elbow and I hope he will steer me in the right direction as regards issues that relate to the two departments.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy mentioned road and rail. Many differences exist between road and rail, for example as regards the kind of journeys made and safety issues. It is not a case of choosing between a new road or a new rail line as both have their place. Both use energy, as do trams. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, mentioned that.
Rail can be more energy efficient than road in certain circumstances provided it is well used. As a mode of travel it is most suitable when many people want to travel in the same direction at the same time. Some 75 per cent. of the people who travel to London every day travel by rail. Comparability of assessment between road and rail is extremely complex. The Government have no bias against public transport: hence the current high levels of investment in public transport.
As regards the general question of environmental appraisal, the Department of Transport has just

1343
published a document on the role of environmental appraisal in road and rail transport. That document sets out the department's current methodology and copies have been made available in your Lordships' Library today.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy also referred to taxation and road transport. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has continued the policy of shifting the balance of motor taxation from vehicle excise duty to fuel duty. That gives the motorist a strong incentive to use less fuel and ensures that those who pollute most pay most.
My noble friend also asked me about Scotland and the non-fossil fuel obligation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has so far taken the view that a Scottish non-fossil fuel obligation is not necessary because of existing over-capacity in electricity generation and substantial existing renewables capacity within Scotland. However, the renewable energy advisory group under my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy is considering future exploitation of renewable energy sources in Scotland and would welcome submissions from interested parties. I understand that a number of Scottish renewable projects will be produced under the arrangements announced by the Government in May.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, referred to nuclear energy. He compared that energy with coal and other sources of energy. The Government believe it is right to maintain the nuclear option but the industry must be more competitive with other fuels without compromising its high safety standards. Further development of the nuclear industry will be reviewed in 1994.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy referred to wave energy, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. The Department of Energy spent £12.5 million on wave energy research between 1974 and 1979. The current expenditure is running at about £450,000 per year. The shoreline wave energy project on Islay is the most technically advanced in the world. The UK is collaborating in a European programme which is currently assessing the prospects for more wave power.
In 1988 it was decided to conduct a review of wave energy. A steering group with independent members was appointed. The review involved a detailed technical and commercial assessment of the leading wave energy devices, including Professor Salter's "duck." The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, mentioned that. The assessment is now largely complete and the interim report is about to be published. The outcome of the study will form part of the regular review of all renewable technologies.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, when will the review be published? I heard that it was due to be published in January and that there has been a postponement for electoral purposes. Will the Minister give a date for publication?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I cannot give a date, but the review will be published shortly. The noble Lord,
1344
Lord Hatch, also asked about wave energy and renewables. No separate wave band was included in the 1991 renewables order as there were no indications that enough wave projects would be in a position to take advantage of the obligation to make a distinctive band necessary. However, those who had developed wave projects were able to apply for inclusion in the other band indicated in the Secretary of State's November Statement. No wave projects appear among applicants for inclusion in the 1991 renewables order.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, also sought to draw comparisons between the amount of money spent on nuclear technology research and that spent on research on other technologies. That is not a fair comparison because the industries differ in size. The Government are committed to expenditure on research and development of all sources of energy which contribute to the security of the electricity supply. However, nuclear power is a proven and mature technology which is available now.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned combined heat and power. He made some interesting remarks about how waste can be turned into power. The Government will continue to promote the use of highly efficient combined heat and power schemes with the aim, set out in the Government White Paper, of doubling present capacity by the year 2000.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, talked about energy efficiency in houses. The Government are interested in the two energy rating schemes for new homes—Star Point and NEF. We are trying to define the common ground between the systems with a view to agreeing one system of assessment. We hope that that so-called home energy labelling will be sufficiently developed to enable it to be incorporated into the building regulations when they are next amended.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, covered a wide range of areas which other noble Lords and I have also covered. However, he said that the privatisation of the electricity industry has hindered energy efficiency. That is not true and I do not believe that the evidence shows that. If customers are properly informed about energy efficiency, and prices properly reflect costs, they can make the right decisions about their energy usage. Both utilities are obliged by regulatory schemes to set prices that reflect costs. In addition they have a statutory obligation to provide advice on energy efficiency to customers. Their licences oblige them to provide codes of practice on energy efficiency. Those codes have now been approved by OFFER. British Gas has produced its own voluntary code of practice. 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.
I seem to be becoming increasingly polluted and short of energy myself, but I conclude by saying that all environmental problems sound very daunting. I want to redress the balance by emphasising that the challenges which face us offer opportunities as well. Industry has created some environmental problems but it has also given us the means to solve many more.

1345
We want cleaner industrial processes; we look for advances in renewable energy technology; and we demand machines that use energy efficiently. The market for such products is growing, not only here but the world over. I hope that British companies will be the first to benefit from that market and in doing so improve the environment for us all.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to all those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. We still have some time left but I shall be brief. First, I must comment on something that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. He unintentionally credited me with the gift of second sight by saying that I had said that fusion would be with us in 50 years. My words were to the effect that it would be at least 50 years before fusion was available to us. No one can predict accurately when it will be available: it may be much further away than that. I mentioned fusion because it is reassuring to be aware that there is hope of better things in the distant future. Otherwise the future would look very black indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, as I hoped he would, spoke of the need for clean coal technologies. I was not surprised that he also felt that Britain could make a contribution which would be used in other countries. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said that coal was unfriendly to the environment unless technology could make it burn cleanly. I believe that we are all agreed that coal will be used in large quantities in developing countries and that we also have valuable supplies still in this country which we should like to use efficiently and cleanly.
I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Astor for his response to the debate, bringing us up to date as he did on international discussions and meetings on climate change. I shall read what he had to say in reply to my question about the non-fossil obligation. It sounds as though something is being considered to extend to Scotland measures which would encourage the use of renewables.
My noble friend also took the opportunity to make a statement about the new environmental agency. Some months ago I put down a Question for Written Answer asking whether that would apply to the whole of the United Kingdom or just to England and Wales. The answer I received then was that that was still being considered. It is clear from what my noble friend said today that it will apply to England and Wales only. He also mentioned the National Rivers Authority which, as I have pointed out before to your Lordships' House, in my opinion is misnamed because it has no jurisdiction in Scotland or Northern Ireland. Because it is called a "national" authority, the press and others have not taken that point. I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland announced a few months ago the establishment of a separate Scottish environmental agency. I am not surprised by that because the Department of the Environment and its Ministers have no functions in Scotland. That is how I expected things would work out.
1346
Again, I thank those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sunday Trading Laws
5.17 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I were to repeat two Statements made in another place this afternoon. The first is that of my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General who in his independent capacity as a Law Officer replied to a Private Notice Question on the steps he intends to take to prevent breaches of the Sunday trading laws. With the leave of the House, I shall now repeat his Answer. He said:
"Parliament has placed on local authorities the primary responsibility for enforcing these provisions. Two ways are open to them. They can prosecute traders or they can ask the civil courts for injunctions ordering traders not to break the law laid down in these provisions.
"Local authorities and others have asked me to take action in the civil courts because of the present uncertain state of Community law, which has recently been acknowledged by English courts, including the House of Lords. They say that this uncertainty impedes the ability of local authorities to get injunctions from the courts and that to go to court now puts too much of their money at risk.
"The Community law point is this. Defendant traders have been arguing in English courts that the provisions of the Shops Act are not compatible with our obligations under the Treaty of Rome. They say they breach Article 30, the free trade article, and they are no longer part of the law of England. It follows, they say, that injunctions forbidding them to break these provisions should not be granted. Both the House of Lords and a lower court have referred the relevant questions of Community law to the European Court.
"Meanwhile, the English courts have made one thing clear. Any authority applying for an interim injunction will have to undertake to pay the trader's resulting losses if it loses the case in the end.
"It remains the responsibility of local authorities to decide their own course of action. For my part, any decision that I now take is my sole responsibility as Attorney-General and not a decision of the Government. Matters of political policy are not for me but for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
"If I were now to bring civil proceedings myself, I would have to bring a very large number of actions. Those actions would be no less affected by the Community law point and I believe that I, too, would in the circumstances have to give undertakings as to damages.
"The law is not suspended. Local authorities can continue to apply for injunctions. Moreover, any

1347
trader who trades on a Sunday relying only on the present uncertainty remains liable to criminal proceedings.
"In the light of these and all other relevant considerations I have decided not to intervene. Naturally, I will keep developments under review".
I should now like to repeat the second Statement on Sunday trading, which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Home Office. The Statement is as follows:
"As the House knows, I have held an intensive programme of discussions with a wide range of major and conflicting interest groups on possible ways of reforming the law on Sunday trading. These discussions are continuing, although I must report that at this stage the common ground is limited.
"In 1985 Parliament endorsed in principle the conclusion of the Auld Committee that total deregulation is the only sensible reform. Although our subsequent measure was approved in another place, it was not passed in this House. Since then we have made it clear that we should be prepared to consider measures which fall short of total deregulation of the Sunday trading laws if they would be workable, enforceable, command popular support and would be accepted by this House. Despite our continued efforts and encouragement, the form of such measures remains widely disputed.
"The current uncertainty in relation to Community law to which my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General has referred is also a factor. It would not be sensible to settle policy on the merits of proposals for continuing to restrict trading in types or classes of goods until the compatibility of such measures with Community law has been determined. It is our intention, therefore, to bring forward proposals for reform once the legal position is clear".
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the two Statements made in another place this afternoon. Perhaps I may first make this comment to him: these Statements are not about the law on Sunday Trading. In other words, whether we agree with the existing law is not, frankly, the issue with which the Government are faced today. They are faced with a much simpler issue in many ways; it is not whether we agree with the law but whether the law should be enforced.
I found the Statements, taken together, bland almost to the point of being meaningless and disappointing in the sense that the Government propose to do absolutely nothing. Perhaps I may sound a word of warning to the Government. This is not a one-off issue in relation to trading over Christmas only. If it is permitted to continue, and does continue and is successful, that is the end for practical purposes of the Sunday trading laws in this country. I do not think that either House, Parliament as a whole
1348
or the people of this country wish our legislation to be so radically changed and almost totally abrogated in such a capricious way.
Perhaps I may ask the Government a question. What on earth do they expect local authorities to do? As the Court of Appeal has said, once you reach the stage at which there must be undertakings in relation to damages, it is almost impossible for local authorities, which are inevitably over-conscious at the moment of the cash limits that the Government are imposing on their expenditure, to go to the courts. For example, is the Minister aware that it cost Hull, which took a supermarket, B&Q, to court, £1.2 million? Do the Government expect local authorities throughout the country to repeat that type of expenditure against the background of a situation in which the defendant in the proceedings can always take the precise Community law point, which will probably mean that they will not get the injunction that they seek?
The Government say that it is their intention to bring forward proposals to reform the law when the legal position is clear. As a matter of practicality, may I ask the Minister when they expect the European Court to give its judgment? All I know is that it is supposed to be some time next year. Does that mean that between now and the time that the court gives its judgment in Europe supermarkets throughout the country will be allowed to trade on Sunday? The matter is not confined to supermarkets. I suppose that any trader at any level throughout the country will now be entitled to break the law apparently without sanction.
One of the extraordinary points about these Statements is that there is no condemnation by the Government of the supermarkets' actions. There is not even a breath of criticism of what the supermarkets are doing in this situation. Do the Government approve or disapprove of what they are doing? If they disapprove of what they are doing, why on earth do they not say so rather loud and clear?
I shall conclude what I have to say to the Minister and to the House. I do not want to go on too long about this matter because the points are fairly clear. Whatever the merits of the existing law on Sunday trading, there is one principle on which I should have thought that we would all be able to agree; namely, that the existing law should be enforced. There cannot be one law for the supermarkets and another for anyone other than supermarkets.
The House will remember—noble Lords will no doubt forgive me, but as I speak from this side of the House perhaps they will expect me to say it—the ferocity with which the Government have approached people who did not pay their poll tax, sometimes for the most honourable of reasons; for example, because they disagreed with it fundamentally and in principle. Let us compare that ferocity with the way in which the Government are sitting down and allowing major supermarkets—major portions of British industry—to behave in this way.
It is an unfair and unprincipled way for the Government to behave. What lessons are people in this country supposed to draw from that situation? I shall tell your Lordships the lesson that they will draw.

1349
It is very simple; namely, that there is one law if you are rich and powerful and another law if you are not. That is not the message that should go forth.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has said. It seems to me to be a truly extraordinary situation. There was not a breath of criticism from the noble Earl, or from the Attorney-General or Mrs. Rumbold, who, I understand, made the Statements in the House of Commons, about what those powerful public companies have said that they intend to do.
Is the noble Earl aware of the statement made by the chairman of W. H. Smith, Sir Simon Hornby, at its annual meeting last month? He said:
"As far as breaking the law is concerned, I am afraid that we will have to continue to do so".
As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, rightly said, Ministers have been quick to condemn, and rightly so, members of the Anti-Poll Tax Federation who have decided to ignore the will of Parliament. They have been critical of trade union leaders, and rightly so, when they have decided to ignore the law of this country. Why, when powerful public companies are concerned, do we find such an extraordinarily different attitude on the Government Front Bench? Does the noble Earl recall that, when a number of those companies decided to do this a year or more ago, to her credit, Mrs. Thatcher made it clear that she was firmly opposed to what they were doing? Why is there now such silence from Ministers?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I must thank both noble Lords for their contributions. However, I am surprised that they should have seen fit to attack the Government on this matter. The noble. Lord, Lord Richard, knows perfectly well what the position is: the law is uncertain. The noble Lord shakes his head even before I have divested myself of my thoughts. He knows perfectly well that the law is uncertain. The Government introduced the Shops Bill in 1986. It passed your Lordships' House, but was rejected in another place. Therefore, the position remains as it is until the warring factions at the two ends of the spectrum on Sunday trading can be brought into some sort of harmony. Until you alter the law in another place and in this place, the law remains as it is. We want to see the law altered and made reasonable, but we cannot do that until the opposing views in another place come to some form of agreement.
There have been cases in which it has been considered that our law is incompatible with Community law. Such cases have gone to the European Court of Justice, and that is the position at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that Sir Simon Hornby says that he will continue to break the law. If you are a purist, you might say that he must be a clever person because he obviously knows what the law is when it is perfectly clear that the law itself is uncertain. The noble Lord keeps on interjecting nonsense. I can only tell him that the courts do not know what the law is and the House of Lords in its
1350
judicial capacity does not know what the law is. The matter went to the European Court of Justice, which has not yet given its view. That is the position.
My right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General thought that it was right in answer to a Question to say what the legal position is, and that is what he has done. I can only tell your Lordships in the generality that Parliament makes the law, the law must be obeyed and it is up to the prosecuting authorities to take such action as is necessary and appropriate. That is the position which my right honourable friends in another place sought to explain.
5.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, the Churches are united on this matter. They accept that the law needs to be changed. We believe that there are workable and enforceable proposals which are in the public domain. Both the "rest" proposals and the "open" proposals allow smaller shops to open to cater for recreation, emergencies, social gatherings and travel. The law has always had anomalies. The rest and open proposals are workable. That is not what causes some people to reject them; it is because they do not propose total deregulation. At present companies have shown their contempt for the law and for the attempt to find some consensus. I do not believe that those companies seek that.
I was pleased that in the Statement from Mrs. Rumbold read by the noble Earl the Government stated:
"Since then, we have made it clear that we should be prepared to consider measures which fall short of total deregulation of the Sunday trading laws".
That is a firm step towards the possibility of consensus. The Churches are unitedly opposed to unrestricted opening of shops on Sundays. USDAW, the shopworkers' union, stands with them in the wish to keep Sunday as a special and different day. The Government often express strong anxieties and views about family life and the spiritual values of the nation. We believe that to keep Sunday as a special and different day is a basic part of responding to those hopes.
The Government have asked the Association of District Councils to act as honest broker in seeking a consensus for modest change. Those genuine attempts to move forward are set on one side because powerful and wealthy companies announce in so many words that they will break the law. The Government appear to be saying: "I do not see how we can avoid that; the law is set on one side while an appeal is settled". They do not say that about other laws. Laws remain laws until they are altered.
Mrs. Rumbold is quoted on the tickertape as saying that she does not condone what the companies do. I hope that we may hear as much from the Government's Front Bench in your Lordships' House. The Government often express anxieties about family and spiritual matters. They also express many worries about moral matters. If we allow big business to break the law, how can we argue that poor or young people should not break the law?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool for saying that his believes that there are workable and enforceable proposals in the public domain. I hope that there will he. However, there needs to be a great meeting of minds before the problem can be resolved. My right honourable friend Mrs. Rumbold is doing her best to bring people together to find a way through.
The right reverend Prelate said that the law is suspended. That is not so. As my right honourable friend the Attorney-General made clear, the law is not suspended. Local authorities can continue to apply for injunctions. Moreover, any trader who trades on Sundays, relying only on the present uncertainty, remains. liable to criminal proceedings. I am glad that the right reverend Prelate gave me the opportunity to reiterate what my right honourable friend the Minister of State said in another place. None of us in the Government condones the plans by some retailers to open on Sundays before Christmas. I commend those who remain committed to complying with the law. The right reverend Prelate is right. Those in positions of great authority—and big business commands great authority—who break the law give a very bad example to others. It is to the upholding of the law that we should all be committed.
Baroness Young: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that like other speakers I find both Statements unsatisfactory? I am grateful for his last remarks. However, it is unsatisfactory for my noble friend to state that the law is uncertain, and, as I understand the Statement from the Attorney-General, to state that the law is not suspended and that traders who trade on a Sunday are liable to criminal prosecutions. Those are two difficult and contradictory statements.
I believe it wrong that anyone should break the law, and wrong that we condone in any sense those who do, for all the reasons given. It puts those retailers who feel quite properly that they must stand by the law in an extremely difficult and unfair position. I ask my noble friend to consider carefully not only the general principle of upholding the law but the example that this position will set and the complexity that it will create for a great many people.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the difficulties to which my noble friend refers. I understand that those who continue not to open on Sundays find themselves in a difficult position. The noble Baroness states that she finds the Statements unsatisfactory, but she will be the first to understand that the position is unsatisfactory. The only way in which one can achieve the right position is, first, by determining whether our law is compatible with Community law, and, secondly, whether between us we call, if necessary, find a way to make such alterations.
It is not for government to say what the law is; it is for the courts. It is not for government to prosecute; it is for the prosecuting authorities. That must be the position.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, I always listen with the utmost respect to the noble Earl. Sometimes I find myself pleasantly surprised, but not today. I cannot express the indignation that I feel that Her Majesty's Government should in effect say, like Pilate, "We wash our hands of this. It is nothing to do with us"
Sunday is central to the life of this nation. Sunday is part of the Bible of this nation. It is an indication that at least we are a Christian nation by tradition. There has been no public clamour for opening on Sunday. Some men have said, "We haven't been doing well this year and therefore we shall open on Sunday". They are deciding the law of the land.
Earlier this week we debated the sovereignty of this land. We are now told that Parliament, the judges of the High Court, and the House of Lords are not able to pronounce without the kind permission of those people in Europe. If ever there were an indication that our sovereignty has disappeared, it is that. What I had considered the highest court in the land is a middle court, and the highest court is in Europe.
I ask the Minister at least to acknowledge that this action is a back door attempt to defeat the will of the High Court of Parliament in this land. The representatives of the people in another place made clear within the past two years that they were not prepared for the wholesale destruction of Sunday. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, is right when he states that a handful of men can change our way of life and an established system in our land unless there is some backbone in Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, is this not a case—
Noble Lords: Minister!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps it will be convenient if I try to answer each question briefly. I understand the anxiety expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy. The Government have not washed their hands of the matter. We tried to alter the law four years ago. The noble Viscount, who held that most exalted position of Speaker of another place, will know that if its Members do not agree with a proposal there is no way one can force it down their throats. Perhaps if the noble Viscount had then occupied that exalted position he would have guided the deliberations in a different way. I repeat, the Government are not washing their hands of the matter; the fact is that it was then impossible to alter the law. As a member of the Community we are subject to Community law. We cannot say that there is a supreme authority which tells us what to do; we must ensure that our law is compatible with Community law.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us resent the suggestion that the Government are to blame for the difficult situation now being faced by the country due to the present state of the law? It is obvious that the first fault lies with another place for wrongly and foolishly rejecting the perfectly sensible legislation which the

1353
Government put forward and which your Lordships adopted. The responsibility lies with another place for the considerable mess in which we have been placed.
Will my noble friend note another point, in particular in the context of the eloquent outburst of the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy? It is nonsense to say that if one authorises Sunday trading one is destroying the Christian character of the country. Noble Lords will recall that for many years the law in Scotland has permitted completely free Sunday trading. Any Scot will intensely resent the suggestion that Scotland is any less a Christian country than England. Indeed, I have enough Scottish blood in me to share the resentment. Will my noble friend indicate that as soon as the Government are free to move—I appreciate that they must await the decisions of the European Court, which are never quickly delivered—they will bear in mind that most sensible opinion wishes to feel that in this respect, as in many others, this country draws up alongside Scotland?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there was a nice sting in the tail of my noble friend's remarks. I had intended to thank him for coming to my rescue and being an ally in suggesting that the Government were not at fault. There are not too many friends to be found in respect of this subject. When one is in Government the arrows come from all directions and I was appreciative of that support. However, I was less appreciative of my noble friend's penultimate remarks. My right honourable friend has stated that it is our intention to bring forward proposals for reform once the legal position is clear. I cannot tell your Lordships what that position will be. I know that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is at one end of the spectrum while the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool and others are at the other end. Somewhere agreement must be reached.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he cannot use the argument about there being two ends to the spectrum? At one end of the spectrum is totally free trading while at the other are the complete Sabbatarians. The bodies that have put forward proposals to the Home Office represent the middle of the road position and the consensus to which others should approximate.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's strictures; he said that I could not use the argument of there being two ends to the spectrum. However, he promptly did so and included the middle part. All shades of opinion must be considered.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is also a problem in regard to Sunday sport. The laws relating to playing sport on Sunday have been regularly discarded and ignored. That applies in particular to the right reverend Prelate's cricketing friends who charge admission to cricket matches on Sundays. I wonder whether the right reverend Prelate has ever taken action against them.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not know whether the right reverend Prelate has taken action against
1354
anyone. I am sure that had he done so he would have been on his knees. The issue of sport is far removed from Sunday trading.
Lord Elton: My Lords, surely the argument of the spectrum is relevant. I am sure that my noble friend agrees that we cannot expect to achieve unanimity on the subject but that we must obtain a consensus among the majority. That is achievable on the basis of either of the packages that have been mentioned. Although we have been told that the law has not been suspended, it is disturbing to be told that it is too expensive to enforce. If it is too expensive for Her Majesty's Government to enforce how much more expensive is it for local government to enforce? If it is not enforced at all shall we not have seen the whole dam washed away and the traditions of this country changed willy-nilly without the consent of Parliament?
I sympathise deeply with my noble friend's difficulties which are not of his or the Government's making. However, a great effort must be made among those involved, including the Sunday traders. It would be most encouraging to this House and another place if, for once, the large corporate bodies which have announced their intentions of breaking the law in order to compete with each other joined in an alliance to obey the law so that none cuts the others' throats.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his sympathy and for saying that the problem is not of the Government's making. We all wish to see the matter resolved and there are two ways of doing so. The first is to find out exactly what the law is, and in that respect we must wait for the decision of the European Court of Justice. The second way is, as my noble friend said, for people to get together and to find a common course. My right honourable friend the Minister of State is prepared and willing to meet everyone concerned to find a solution.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, on a point of order, perhaps I may ask whether the noble Lord the Leader of the House is watching the clock in order that the rest of our business is not impeded?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that I am watching the clock most carefully. According to the Companion to Standing Orders and the agreement of this House we should bring the questions to a close in three minutes.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the House of a quotation by Sir Winston Churchill. He said:
"Sunday is a divine and priceless institution … the necessary pause in the national life and activity; it is the birthright of every British subject … and above all our great heritage, and one which is our responsibility, privilege and duty to hand on to posterity".
What the superstores propose is an offence against the law. Within the past 12 months the High Court of Parliament has decided that Sunday is a special day. Do we give in to greedy people who want more money and power? Furthermore, what about those people who do not want noise and disturbance?

1355
Almost five years ago I spoke twice in this House on the Shops Bill and once on Sunday trading. I then asked:
"What example do we give to young people, especially those who are disillusioned, undisciplined and unemployed, if they see materialism grow stronger and Sunday no different from any other day? … as a committed Christian I deplore their [the Government's] action and, equally as bad, the indifference which many, alas, express towards God and all that Sunday stands for. I remember with sadness that this was originally a Christian country but I rejoice to see our Jewish friends continue to observe their sabbath and day of rest".
Perhaps I may read to your Lordships, as I did then, from the Ten Commandments:
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the feelings of the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, on this subject. They are shared by many people.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I am extremely concerned about one aspect of this breakdown of law and order. As a lowly solicitor I was always under the impression that the law remained in force until it was changed. Here we see that the law is being not suspended but put in abeyance. Is that a precedent for the future so that whenever any matter is referred to the European Court, UK law will be in abeyance? I am extremely worried about that and hope that the Government will take action.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the law is not in abeyance. It is as it is. It is not for the Government to say what is the law but for people like my noble friend Lord Brentford to take action to pursue those who break the law. I repeat that it is for the courts and not for the Government to decide what is the law. As I tried to explain, we shall do all that we can when the position with regard to the law is known and when the position with regard to another place is more flexible.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I know that noble Lords consider this to be an extremely important subject but perhaps we should move on and stick strictly to our rules.

Youth Training
5.51 p m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley rose to call attention to the problems affecting the provision of youth training; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that I have drafted the Question on the Order Paper so that the words "youth" and "training" have lower case initial letters in order that we shall be able to spread the debate quite widely if noble Lords should wish to do so, although I am aware that most of those who are to speak will, like myself, home in on the workings or non-workings of the Government's youth training scheme.
There are certain basic statements bearing on this matter to which the overwhelming majority of citizens of western democracies would subscribe today and would have subscribed over the past 50 years. One is
1356
that in order to survive and be prosperous society needs to employ the capabilities of all its citizens. I quote the words of Professor Whitehead:
"In the conditions of modern life the rule is absolute, the race which does not value trained intelligence is doomed. Not all your heroism, not all your social charm, not all your wit, not all your victories on land and sea can move back the finger of fate".
Although Professor Whitehead may have meant that to apply largely to an intellectual elite, the intellect of society is found in all its members, at all levels. If a society is to be successful, it should be fostering those intellects in all its people, however low down they may be on the intellectual or social scale.
The second and complementary statement with which I suggest that almost all would agree is that the citizens of this society are entitled to the opportunity to work at a useful job and to the opportunity to train for such work. Society has a duty to see that they have that opportunity. Of course there are people with extreme Right-wing views on economics and society who would maintain that it is not a matter for government. (Indeed, there are some who say that there is no such thing as society.) However, that would not be the consensus which is deeply rooted in the Judaeo-Christian philosophy of the duty of society to the individual which we inherit in this House.
However, it is not merely a matter of positive advantages which accrue to both society and the individual by encouraging the opportunities for people to work creatively. There are also the negative results which are possibly even more moving, or at least they tend to move government rather more. If you do not provide work and training for work, you end up with poverty, with all that that implies: poor education, slums, poor health, a higher death rate and everything which goes with poverty and the creation of a subclass of society.
The second matter which goes along with poverty—not entirely but to a certain extent—is crime. If people do not have work that they can do which they value and do not receive the training so that they can have such work, they will take to crime; and it will be by no means the least intelligent who will feel that they must do something and will find their stimulus in crime.
It leads also to drugs. That is largely due to an inability to find work worth doing. If anyone believes that poverty leads, as has sometimes been thought romantically, to a sense of community, they cannot have much experience of it because poverty divides people. Community comes from a certain ability to live on a par with your neighbour without jealousy or want.
The Government accept these basic principles or they would not have a youth training scheme. We must assume that they intend that scheme to work, not least from their fairly frantic claims time and time again—I expect we shall hear them again this evening but I hope we shall not—that it is working. It is not working. As a result of the dispute on that matter which grows between the Government on the one hand and the whole of the rest of the country on the other, enough figures to demonstrate the degree to which it is not working have emerged—sufficient, I

1357
suspect, for the Government to begin to admit it. What better occasion on which to start admitting it than this evening?
For example, I have up-to-date figures for Greater Manchester. The figures are supplied by Church Action on Poverty, which has a wide range of contacts. On 14th November there were 3,088 16 and 17 year-olds not in education, unemployed, not on a youth training scheme, registered with the careers service and willing to take up a YT scheme place if offered it. I hope that the figure of 3,088 will not be dismissed by the Minister as similar figures were dismissed last week by a Minister in another place as "excessively clear". I am not entirely sure how one can be "excessively clear" in one's figures on such matters.
Many other figures were supplied to me but that one is not untypical. The shortfall of jobs and opportunities is not surprising when we consider the state of the labour market and the economy. But the fact remains that sufficient valid and useful youth training schemes are not forthcoming and it is wilful to pretend that they are.
The effect of the shortage of jobs and training places is much as one would expect given the social security arrangements in the area. It must be remembered that many of the youths left home for reasons not entirely of their own making; some of the women are pregnant. I understand that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester is to give us some information and discuss the difficult problems and horrible cases that exist of people who suffer from being caught in that trap. Not least among those who are caught are the employers. They suffer financial disadvantages under the present scheme if they take on many people with disadvantages.
Considerable credit should be given to the Government for introducing the scheme. Basically it is an imaginative one. If it worked, on the face of it we would welcome what it is doing, though I suspect our society's malaise is such that if we are to crack the problem completely we need to go much deeper than a Conservative government are ever likely to go.
A certain amount of credit should be given to the Government. But the scheme is not clear where the role of government ends and the role of employers and charities starts or stops. I mentioned the strain placed on employers in making their decisions; equally, strains are placed on charities. One major national voluntary body discovered that its contribution to the schemes that it started has now risen to 51 per cent. of the total cost. We must ask whether that is what the Government intend. We must ask whether the charity, with all the good will in the world, is right to spend the money it receives in that way or the Government right to place the responsibility on its shoulders.
Another charity, the Children's Society, has pointed out that:
"The system assumes, in its procedures, structures and benefit levels, that all 16/17 year-olds should he living at home with their parents, in spite of the fact that many do not have secure family backgrounds".
As I say, that is often not the fault of the children. The society points out further that,
1358
"It assumes that if young people fail to provide for themselves, or to be provided for, it is their fault. It assumes that they do not need as much to live on as someone a few years, or even a few months, older".
It almost reaches the stage where it assumes that they do not need any money at all.
The Campaign for Work has summed up the situation by saying:
"The Government's policies are perpetuating cultural norms which act as barriers to the creation of a high-quality workforce. Young people are seen as a flexible and cheap source of labour by employers, to he employed during the upturn and discarded during the downturn. In other countries, young people are seen as a vital resource to be nurtured and developed".
My primary incentive in tabling the Motion stems from my interest and involvement in the work of Church Action on Poverty. But it is an area where both the heart and the head should join. We are neither looking after these youths, nor providing adequate training and instruction for the growth of our economy. I beg to move for Papers.
6.6 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I wish to call attention specifically to one of the points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. I am grateful to him for introducing the debate in the way that he did. My point concerns the training of young people with additional or special needs.
As the noble Lord said, an immense problem exists due to the fact that payments must be output related. In most cases that means an attainment of national vocational qualifications at level two or three although in some cases it is possible to pay at level one. That makes employers hesitate when dealing with people with needs.
Some schemes exist explicitly for young people with additional needs. The societies working in that line find the problems faced by young people are as much social as they are educational—emotional/ behavioural problems, attendance at court, family problems, persistent absenteeism and so on, including, in one of the National Children's Projects, four people with no homes. If they were not on the scheme, they would receive no income.
One boy was referred by the social services because of sexual abuse. One pregnant girl is not regarded by employers as likely to have output-related income. The scheme therefore took her in and carries her in its voluntary work. If she was not on the scheme, she could be eligible for £15 bridging allowance but no more, and would not be eligible for income support until 11 weeks before the birth.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, mentioned one of the voluntary societies leading the field and the increase in its costs over the past three years from 39 per cent. to 51 per cent. Not only does it regard that as increasingly unjust and unfair in connection with its subscribers, but it is now reassessing whether to continue in the work at all. That would be a terrible loss. At the moment it is investing £850,000 a year in special work for young people with additional needs.
The balancing of principle and compassion is complicated in every sphere of life that we touch. There are seldom simple answers. There is no simple

1359
answer here. Very few TECs have made any real attempt to understand the requirements of young people with special training needs or to take action. Will the Government undertake to urge all TECs to tackle that area seriously, and in particular to encourage them to provide far more substantial financial input to the excellent schemes mounted by voluntary societies for young people with additional needs?
6.9 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I very much welcome this debate. I propose to speak only briefly like the right reverend Prelate because in the debate on unemployment two weeks ago I talked largely about training, including training for young people. I am delighted to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. I was about to call him "my Bishop.' but that may sound a little too possessive. I live in his diocese and I have the best possible reason for knowing of his interest in education and training matter. and in matters of wider social concern which he has expressed again today. I particularly agreed with what he had to say about young people having special needs and I propose to say a little about that from my own experience.
It seemed to me that I could best contribute to the debate by gaining a closer understanding of what is happening in the area in which I live. I have therefore been in touch with the training manager of the North & Mid-Cheshire Training & Enterprise Council—NORMID TEC, for short. She has told me (for it is a lady) that in that area about half the total number of 16 and 17 year-olds seeking a training place under the youth training scheme find one with an employer and often a large employer like ICI. Those young people are well looked after in the quality of both the training and the work experience that is provided by the employer.
The difficulty arises with those receiving training from other providers such as colleges of further education and trusts. For that training to have sufficient value it must include adequate work experience. Smaller firms in the area are suffering greatly from the continuing recession, being unable to take on more employees and in some cases having to make existing employees redundant.
In those unhappy circumstances they are understandably reluctant or unable to give trainees the work experience that they need. That in turn means that those undergoing training cannot obtain a national vocational qualification and their employment prospects therefore suffer. Smaller employers are also experiencing difficulty in paying the employer's contribution to the overall costs of training. There is a further knock-on effect in that training providers, unable to find employers who will provide work experience places, feel that they cannot take on more trainees; there are simply too many in the pipeline.
The TEC of which I am speaking is doing its best to overcome these problems by means of various initiatives. Members of the board are making direct approaches to employers. Limited financial subsidies are being offered to training providers to help them
1360
meet the additional demand on their resources and so on. But to the extent that in the situation that I have described it is not at present possible to provide every eligible 16 and 17 year-old with a training place, the Government's youth training guarantee is not being fulfilled. In that I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Beaumont.
I hope that that is an accurate summary of what is actually happening in north and mid-Cheshire. My purpose today is primarily to recount the facts. But of course the question arises as to how the Government can ensure that what the noble Viscount told me two weeks ago in our debate on unemployment actually comes to pass. Perhaps I may remind him of what he said:
"Under the YT guarantee all young people aged 16 and 17 who are not in a job or full-lime education are guaranteed the offer of a place on YT. The Government are fully committed to the guarantee and will continue to deliver it".
He went on:
"I can say that no TEC will he prevented by lack of resources from meeting the guarantee".—[Official Report, 13/11/91; col. 621.]
It seems that if that unequivocal commitment is to be met, then in Cheshire at least more resources will have to be provided. I have no difficulty with that, for it is part of the policy of investment for long-term sustainable growth that must be undertaken if we are to alleviate unemployment and improve our productivity and competitiveness.
To judge from a report in yesterday's Financial Times TECs are experiencing similar problems in taking up the 27,000 training credits the Government are offering to young people who have left school this year. Speaking last Monday at the launch of the second tranche of credits to be awarded to TECs, the Secretary of State is reported to have said that more young people than expected had stayed on at school or gone into further education. They had therefore not taken up the option of a training credit. On the other hand, the chief executive of Kent TEC, which I understand has had only a 15 per cent. take-up of its 3,000 credits, has said that the fundamental problem is that employers are not taking people on. However it has arisen, the present shortfall will not, I fear, help to allay the fears of TECs and training providers that their resources may prove inadequate to meet the Government's YT guarantee.
As the noble Viscount knows, and like the right reverend Prelate, I am concerned about a further problem affecting the training of young people; namely, the scarce resources available for those with special needs, for example, to improve literacy and numeracy. I have talked before of how youth training in an admirable centre catering for such people near my home has recently had to end altogether owing to a government-induced cut in the centre's budget. I shall not elaborate on that further now except to remind the Minister of the recent recommendation of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations that public funds should be ring-fenced to accommodate people with special training needs, and that TECs, employers and training providers should be given financial incentives to target those needs.

1361
I do not know how many of your Lordships have seen a copy of the letter sent to the Secretary of State earlier this month by the Chairman of the House of Commons Employment Committee. Its contents are based on responses received by 1st November last from 69 TECs in England and Wales to inquiries made by the committee concerning the youth and employment training guarantees. No doubt some of those responses are by now out of date, but they lead me to think that the current anxieties of the North and Mid-Cheshire TEC to which I have referred have wider application, as my noble friend Lord Beaumont asserted.
I understand that today Members of the Employment Select Committee in another place have been seeing the Secretary of State to discuss these very issues. It will be interesting to learn in due course whether the additional planned increase in expenditure on Department of Employment programmes recently announced for next year will in practice enable TECs to fulfil the youth training guarantee. I very much hope that it will.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I must apologise to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for not being in my place earlier in the debate. That was due to the combination of a prior engagement and the vagaries of the Circle Line.
I want to make it clear from the start that I very much support the Government's initiatives in relation to training. Although it would have been better if they had been taken sooner, they are immensely necessary and desirable. I wish to spend just a few moments referring to some of the young people who are still slipping through the net. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has referred already to young people with special needs. The particular group I had in mind are children who have truanted from school during the last one, two or even three years of their school lives. Very often they come from families where they lack parental support and where they have a low level of self-confidence and motivation. As the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said, these young people deserve support. They are handicapped and are just as deserving of support as physically handicapped people.
The first and most important thing they need is motivation. In this respect I should like to refer to the Government's report Education and Training for the 21st Century. It states at the beginning, and quite rightly:
"There are still young people leaving school without the motivation to continue learning".
The problem is that the Government's policy of motivating these young people while they are still at school does not work if they have stopped being at school. Within the same document the Government refer to measures designed to encourage the improvement of the quality of the curriculum. Indeed we have all been very much involved in debates on the national curriculum. If the curriculum can be seen by young people to be more relevant, the level of
1362
truanting will undoubtedly be reduced, although I am sure it will never be eliminated. We are still left with the problem of young people who have been truanting over the past three or four years and will be truanting over the next two or three years, perhaps before all these changes have effect. For them the key role falls to the careers service.
My experience of the careers service is relatively limited. The people I have met in the careers service have seemed to be dedicated to doing their job as well as they possibly can within the resources that are available, but the resources are never adequate. Perhaps I may quote again from the report. It states on page 5:
"We will strengthen careers advice and vocational work in schools".
I repeat the point that it is no use doing that in schools if the children are not there. What these young people need at the age of 16 is for the careers service to be able to make contact with them. The careers service is trying to do that but a great deal more could be done, particularly if the access points were in some cases less threatening.
I had an opportunity the other day to visit the careers centre at Stepney Green. It is located in a fine William and Mary house. There is a half flight of beautiful stone steps, and probably a couple of stone lions. I was almost frightened to walk up those steps and push open that swing door. I am sure that a young person who is rather alienated from school and from society would never walk through that door. The careers service has to set itself up in an unthreatening environment which young people feel safe to approach.
The careers service must also convince these young people that training is worth while for them. In that context some kind of aptitude testing, which is not at the moment done, may be relevant. Modern aptitude testing is quite a sophisticated science. In addition to the objective value, it might also be useful in convincing young people that they are capable of doing something. So many of them lack that self-confidence. There has to be a perceived relevance to the training courses on offer. Hidden in there somewhere has to be the possibility of topping up skills not fully achieved because of truanting without a total loss of face. If you are a macho 16 year-old Cockney kid on the streets of east London you are not going to be seen walking through a door marked "Reading and Writing"; you are not prepared to admit that you cannot read and write. But if somewhere built into your course is a unit called "Business Studies", which is in fact reading and writing and perhaps elementary computer work, you can achieve those skills without a loss of face.
Finally, there is a need for follow-up support through something like a tutorial system for young people who do not have family support. Someone has to see them into the training scheme and talk to them now and again to see how they are getting on. When they fall out of the training scheme because they do not like the face of the man who is teaching them, or for whatever reason, someone should be there to pick up the pieces, go through the problem with them and

1363
help them get into another scheme. In this respect there is a great role for volunteer befrienders. Befriending is an important voluntary function which the Government are supporting through the Safer City Scheme. They are wise to do so and I would encourage them to do so even more.
Some additional resources would be required to look after these young people. What a worthwhile investment that would be. But it would be wasted if while they were on their training scheme they were under intolerable stress because they did not have anywhere to live. The problem of accommodation is peripheral to the issue we are discussing today. Young people come out of children's homes and are put into single room flats. They may be lonely and lack help, support and guidance. Still worse is the situation of children who are thrown out of their family homes, for either good or bad reasons, and are left on the streets with literally no visible means of support except, if they are lucky enough to get on to a training scheme, the £25 a week that that entitles them to. Those young people need not only accommodation but companionship, guidance and support. Why are we prepared to give these facilities to university students but not to these young people who need them so much?
I wish to make two more points. One relates to what I would call pre-training courses. A great many young people at the age of 16 do not have a clue what they want to do in life. They usually want to be a jet aircraft pilot, a double-glazing salesman or anything completely zany. I suggest to the Government that what is needed is what in the industry is now beginning to be called taster courses: young people spend a year experiencing a variety of training for jobs that they might go into and at the same time brush up on their basic skills.
Perhaps I may mention to the House an experiment in this direction which is being carried out by a forward looking headmaster in a high school in Deal, my home town. He has entered into an arrangement with the adult training centre to become a training provider for 16 year-olds. They have an entirely flexible course. They do not have to be there from nine until five. They have a menu of activities. Their menu is agreed and, rather like a university, they go in for the lectures that are appropriate to what they are doing. The menu is a mixture of life skills courses—courses such as learning to drive a motor car, which is very much appreciated and brings in the kids. Mixed in with that are things which they need to know and the beginnings of some kind of career training. It is an interesting formula for smoothing that difficult transition from what should be school to the world of work.
Finally, I should like to float one idea which may be rather more controversial. A great many of the young people whom I know would like to get into the services. We know that for very good reasons all governments are opposed to compulsory national service There is also a funding problem and of course the services themselves feel that it would dilute their professionalism. Is it inconceivable that it would be an interesting idea to raise what one might call for the sake of a name a national service regiment? It would
1364
be voluntary and would involve one year of full-time, uniformed, residential training. The objects would be to build self-esteem, to learn to work in a team, to learn life skills and to help choose a career. It would be a residential pre-training course.
The programme would include all sorts of physical activities and a certain number of military type activities and it could be clothed in a partially military context, in the context of emergency and disaster relief or something of that sort. Recruits could bring their training credits, which would partially fund the scheme. There would be a need for funding for accommodation, but on the other hand the accommodation would presumably be in redundant Ministry of Defence barracks, which might well be cheaper than funding these young people in hostels in the cities, which is what, alternatively, ought to be done for them.
I conclude simply by saying that there is a great need to address ourselves to the problems of these young people who are falling through the net.
6.31 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley, first, on his success in winning the ballot and, secondly, in introducing this topic. We are told that Napoleon, when he interviewed his marshals for promotion, used to begin by asking, "Are you lucky?" When my noble friend is asked that question he can reply, "Yes, I am lucky. I won the ballot". I am glad that he was.
On 6th March of this year Mr. D. J. Dickinson, chairman of the Training and Enterprise Council for London East, gave evidence to the Select Committee on Employment in another place. He expressed the hope that the youth training service would be used for strengthening our skills base. That is a hope that we on these Benches share. Our commitment to quality training is strong and continuing, is repeated and will continue to be repeated.
But Mr. Dickinson also expressed the fear of running,
"'blotting paper' or 'register effect' unemployment programmes, with negligible re-skilling content, where the civil service remains the puppet master and TECs become mere puppets in all practical terms."
In that combination of the fear of penny-pinching and creeping bureaucratic control I fancied I heard, and perhaps other noble Lords did too, the voice of my noble friend Lady Seear. This Government have not got a good record in working out what things are going to cost. They have in fact quite a habit of miscalculating. Since it is one of the crucial business skills to be able to get your costs right, my taxi driver recently said to me, "If these people were in business, I don't know how they would carry on".
In that context we must consider whether it is Mr. Dickinson's hopes or his fears that are being realised. It is clear that a number of young people are not entirely satisfied with the quality of training they are getting. I know that there are a number of dedicated employers, such as those to whom the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester and my noble friend Lord Rochester referred. But there is a long history of

1365
the state putting burdens on employers during a recession. Employers often find those create difficulties.
The MORI survey showed that 63 per cent. of those who had done youth training thought that what they had received was not entirely useless. My noble kinsman Lord Henley on 24th July quoted that figure with pride. I am not quite sure that pride is the appropriate emotion. I appreciate that 16 and 17 year-olds can be a critical audience, but I wonder whether there is an area here in which the customer is always right. One of the crucial objects of such a scheme must be to convince those in receipt of training that they are receiving something valuable in which they can take a pride. Whoever's fault it may be, if that achievement is not made, the scheme is to an extent failing in its purpose.
The placements on youth training schemes are often really rather short for giving any sort of quality training. In the MORI report, 31 per cent. of those sampled were there for less than a month, and 58 per cent. for less than three months. I do not know how good a training one gets in that time, but it is a matter on which some doubt is legitimate.
There is also considerable concern among 16 and 17 year-olds about the amount of money available to those who take the training. That was found both in the MORI report and in Professor Sinfield's survey done for the Bridge Project at the University of Edinburgh. Youth training rates are actually below income support. They were low enough to start with. They have not kept pace with inflation. Out of that sum you have to find fares to get to work. That is an increasing burden on anybody taking a low wage job of any sort. If the fares are added in it is doubly below the level of income support.
I know that the Government are increasingly inclined to put forward the idea that it is possible to live below income support levels. Many remarkable things have happened in the history of the world, but that confidence is not altogether well placed. We have surveys indicating difficulty in getting, an adequate diet on income support. Below that level it may become very hard indeed. These difficulties were acute enough in the first place, but at the moment we are facing a combination of cuts in government funding plus rising unemployment, and in the six months up to May 1991 training and enterprise councils had cut 3,360 places. Those figures come from the National Council of Voluntary Organisations.
At the same time you can roughly gauge the demand from the number of those in receipt of bridging allowance. In the six months to February 1991, this rose by 22.3 per cent. What is the purpose of the bridging allowance? It was introduced in 1988 at a rate of £15 a week. It is still at that rate. Is this meant to be a living payment? If so, can we have an explanation of how it can be effective at that level? Or is it, as the sum suggests, simply meant to be pocket money? If it is, what is the useful purpose in paying pocket money to people who have no home to go to, nowhere to live, and very likely no pockets without holes in which they can safely put the pocket money?
1366
I should like to hear that there is some hope that the bridging allowance may eventually be raised, and in the process what job it is meant to do. My noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley has quoted statistics about waiting lists for youth training places. I shall not quote any more, but I have a lot of others here. One of our big problems is the dual purpose of the youth training scheme. It is supposed to provide an industrial training, and it is also supposed to be a social security guarantee to provide the means of subsistence for 16 and 17 year-olds not otherwise entitled to benefit.
There is a real difficulty in achieving this dual purpose. One of the difficulties is in the length of time it takes to get a youth training place. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, in a written reply to me on 22nd October, said that he could not tell me how long the 16 and 17 year-olds who would register for youth training normally had to wait for a place. He said that the information was not held centrally. In that case I should like to know how can the noble Viscount say, with the confidence he exhibited in gesture a few minutes ago, that there is a guaranteed place? When is the place guaranteed? It is no good if the place is only guaranteed in due course: there ought to be an entitlement to income support for those who have registered for a youth training place and to whom it has not yet been made available. Mr. Robert Jackson, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, speaking in another place on the 18th of this month, said that managing the delivery of a guarantee of this kind for hundreds of thousands of young people was not a simple, straightforward operation. He is obviously right about that point. I do not dispute what Mr. Jackson said, but it is important to remember that everything depends critically on timing. But of course if it depends critically on timing for the Government it depends equally critically on timing for the young people concerned. We need to ask whether this guarantee of a youth training place is really any more immediate than the ultimate guarantee of an old-age pension.
There is also of course a dual-purpose problem, in that in a scheme run by employers, from which they have to be able to derive some benefit or it would not be fair to ask them to do it, they must be able to refuse some of those who are sent to them for placement. Twenty-two per cent. of those in the MORI sample who had applied for youth training places had been refused. That may be no fault of theirs, but it should not deprive them of a right to eat.
I am glad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester talked about the special problems of pregnant women. because I sometimes wonder whether a society which treats its pregnant women in this manner really deserves to survive. If there is anything to which the phrase "social cruelty" appropriately applies, I think it is the treatment of pregnant 16 and 17 year-olds. It is also worth remembering that the European Community has recently decided that maternity comes under health and safety, which is subject to majority voting, rather than under social security, which is not.
European Community law is extremely strong on prohibiting discrimination and the European Court,

1367
in a judgment reported in The Times on 20th November, has given to individual citizens the right of action against their national governments for breach of Community law. I think the noble Viscount would be well advised to check whether what the Government are doing here is in fact in breach of any Community law.
We have great difficulty in gauging the scale of this problem, because large numbers of 16 and 17 year-olds seem to have simply disappeared from the figures. They have become un-persons; they are forgotten; they do not exist for bureaucratic purposes. In October 1988, when this scheme came in, there were 70,535 16 and 17-year olds registered unemployed, of whom only 14,677 registered for youth training at the beginning of the new scheme. We do not know what happened to the others. The AMA, surveying 1,800 16 and 17 year-olds in Manchester who were unemployed in 1988, found that 450, or 25 per cent. of them, cannot now be traced.
Can we assess the scale of this problem? The Unemployment Unit has an estimate that 90,000 people are missing from official figures and 65,000 of them are without any form of financial support. Those are significant figures, if they are correct. I have tried to check them by finding out the numbers of young people in full-time education and checking them against the total number of 16 and 17 year-olds in the country. However, I ran into an unexpected and interesting difficulty here. We have the figures which were given in a Written Answer from Michael Jack on 23rd July last and he gave 784,000 as being in full-time employment; 724,000 in full-time education; 260,000 in youth training in England and Wales; 13,000 in receipt of bridging allowance; and 21,000 in receipt of income support. That makes a total of 1,802,000.
It was on the basis of those figures that my noble kinsman Lord Henley argued on 24th July that the scale of the problem of the disappearing teenagers was not significant. But there is a problem about those figures. They cover 1,802,000 16 and 17 year-olds, but there are only 1,238,000 in the country; so the total is about 50 per cent. greater than the total number in the country.
It does not take much imagination to form an hypothesis to explain that. There is clearly a degree of double-counting and 16 and 17 year-olds go out of education and into employment with a good deal of regularity. So this means there is simply no way of checking from Government figures how many 16 and 17 year-olds have no visible means of support. The Government are in fact prisoners of their documents. When an historian complains that he is the prisoner of his documents he can at least say, "Please sir, it is not my fault: I did not make the documents." However, the Government cannot do that. We have here, I think, an example of the disadvantage of the Rayner principle: that government statistics should be gathered only or primarily for the government's use. It means that if awkward people like me want to ask awkward questions like this,, the Government simply do not have the means to supply an answer. I think they need to be able to supply an answer and I should like to know what the answer is.
1368
I think the reason why the Government do not believe in this problem is because their records are made up in such a way that they do not show the figures properly, and, because information is not in the records, they think it is not there. They reprove us for relying on anecdotal evidence, but where there are no records you have to rely on such evidence. I make my living relying on anecdotal evidence for research. It has to be used with care but there are some things which you can find from anecdotal evidence which have a very high degree of probability; and that very large numbers of 16 and 17 year-olds have nothing to live on is one of those things.
6.48 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity created by the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, of again addressing the House on the subject of youth training. It is not so very long ago that the House gave some attention to the subject when a debate took place on the report of the Select Committee on the European Communities, Young People in the European Community. Much of the debate at that time centred around the problems of the deprived and the underprivileged to whom the committee had given a great deal of attention. It is noticeable that the debate this evening has concentrated very much on the same area. Youth training is a strand of particular importance when trying to deal with the complex questions raised by the whole issue of underprivilege and deprivation among young people. It plays a crucial role in trying to deal with those problems.
There is a wide measure of agreement about the importance of education and training. As the Minister put it when replying to the debate at col. 464 on 11th November 1991—I quote what he said because I think it is important—
"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".
I am sure everyone agrees with those sentiments. Our disagreement arises out of how such worthy objectives should be achieved. The difference between the Government and this side of the House can be summarised by saying that the Government's philosophy has been to rely on the voluntary approach when it comes to vocational training and that training, as they put it, has to be employer-led. On our side we have often felt that that approach disguises the Government's desire not to spend too much money.
Some of the institutions that were doing a reasonable job of work have now disappeared. From time to time I have raised in the House the issue of industry training boards. All except one—the Construction Industry Training Board—have gone. That board has only a short life guaranteed. It is said that the training boards were not effective; on the other hand, matters would have been a great deal

1369
worse if they had not existed. Two boards—the Construction Industry Training Board and the Engineering Training Industry Board—had good levels of achievement.
The Training Commission then disappeared, following amendments to its constitution which increased the number of employers on it. Now we have TECs. I do not criticise TECs. Many worthy people have become involved in them and are anxious that they should succeed. I am sure that we all hope that, but there are frequent complaints about lack of resources. We have heard some of those complaints tonight. Many feel that they do not have the financial backing to provide the services that are needed, especially in the area of career development and counselling. They would like to provide more services, including services for young people with special needs.
Then we had a succession of schemes aimed at young people. There was criticism because they were seen in some instances as not providing quality training but simply a means of taking young people out of the unemployment statistics. Because of the poor reputation of such schemes among young people, take-up has not been as great as the Government hoped. Moreover, as mentioned by a number of speakers, including the noble Earl, Lord Russell, recent social security legislation has removed from young people in the 16 to 18 year-old category the entitlement to unemployment benefit. Although the impact has been modified by making exceptions in the case of those suffering hardship, according to information I received this morning from NACAB there are still instances of young people suffering hardship who, nevertheless, have no income.
The result has been to increase the number of young people sleeping rough on our streets. They are, in the main—according to organisations active in this area—unemployed young people. The Government have repeatedly said that every young person who needs it will be guaranteed a training place. Yet, according to the information I have, there are long lists of young people waiting for training places which are not available. Much of that is in London, but Sheffield and Newcastle also report that more young people are seeking places than there are places available. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that situations obtains in Manchester. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, also referred to problems in the Cheshire area.
In the meantime, there has been a substantial increase in the number of young people on bridging allowances. That is paid, as has been said, to young people waiting for a place, but it lasts for eight weeks only. NACAB reports disquieting numbers of young people who have exhausted their bridging allowances, who still have no places and who in the meantime have nothing on which to live.
The Minister will no doubt repeat the guarantee that he has already given the House. He did so as recently as 1lth November when we debated the Select Committee's report. He said that there would be a place for every young person who needs one. But that
1370
guarantee has been given before and we still have the reports that have been relayed to your Lordships tonight.
Of equal importance is the quality of the training provided. Traditional attitudes often prevail, with the result that young women are shunted towards work regarded as more suitable for females; and the more technical training, leading ultimately to higher paid employment, is not presented to them as an opportunity. There are reports of many young people leaving schemes without qualifications. Clearly, training should lead to a recognised qualification.
In the report the Select Committee published last year, attention was drawn to this country's failure to develop what we called a "training culture". There have been some signs of progress in that there are perceptible changes in public attitudes. The establishment of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications was a positive development. "Our aim" says the NCVQ,
"is to establish a qualified society".
Of course we all agree with that. To achieve it we have to begin with young people. As the Minister said in the debate on 11th November, "We must not fail them". But that means providing the resources and a coherent national framework where everyone—educationists, employers, training agencies and young people themselves—know what is available and what has to be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, referred to a report in the Financial Times. The article is disappointing. When the training credit scheme was introduced it was regarded as a useful innovation. It was supported by unions and employers. Pilot schemes were agreed, and everyone believed that it would help achieve more training for young people and also give them some sort of choice. Unfortunately, it would appear that the scheme is not doing what everyone wanted it to do. The headline to the Financial Times article was:
"Training credits fail to win takers".
It would seem that one of the problems is that employers are not taking on people in a recession because the recession has bitten deeply into training provision.
The training credit scheme will have credibility only if it represents a genuine opportunity for young people to train. It is my understanding that over the past four years almost £400 million has been cut from the youth training budget. I should like to hear from the Minister how it is intended to make good that loss in the future. That is especially important in view of the situation of young people when it comes to unemployment. Again, according to NACAB, it has been estimated that unemployment among 16 to 17 year-olds rose by 66 per cent. between July 1990 and July 1991 (from 57,500 to 90,500) and that youth unemployment is generally rising faster than unemployment overall. That, it says, is bound to lead to increased demand for training. It may also lead to more disadvantaged young people sleeping rough on the streets and in situations that we all deplore and desperately want to avoid.

1371
I emphasise again the view held on this side of the House. The voluntary system will not ultimately work and more and more resources will be needed if we are to solve the problems that we have been debating.
6.59 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for introducing the debate on youth training,, however the initial letters are designated: whether they are in lower or upper case. I also thank the other noble Lords who have participated in the debate. I have noted the concern and gravity with which their contributions have been made and I fully appreciate the seriousness with which noble Lords view the topic we are debating.
I halve listened with great interest to the points that various noble Lords have made. I wish to reply in detail to them. However, before I do so I think it is well worth reflecting briefly on the very great success story which the youth training programme we know today represents both for the Government and for the country.
Indeed, before this Government came to power there was no such thing as youth training as we know it. The very idea was alien to a labour market which assumed that most young people leaving full-time education at the age of 16 would find their own way into the world of work. With luck most would get a job with perhaps some minimal associated initial training,. But there was no understanding of the importance of well resourced and structured arrangements for helping all our young people to bridge the enormous divide which exists between school and the workplace; no rudiments of a planned and supported period of integrated vocational training, and work experience leading to vocational qualifications.
In those days, we had the youth opportunities programme, which was essentially a work experience programme with, for some, an element of training in it. In 1978–79 in England and Wales there were on average only about 6,000 young people receiving training under the youth opportunities programme.
From these modest beginnings, when they came to power the Government, recognising our lamentable performance in this respect compared with our major industrial competitors, steadily increased the training component of the youth opportunities programme. Then in 1983 they introduced the youth training scheme which, it can truly be said, revolutionised our national training and vocational education arrangements for school-leavers. For the first time in this country, and still uniquely in Europe, the Government guaranteed the offer of training to every 16 year-old, and subsequently to 17 year-olds as well, who left school without a job to go to.
Initially a one-year programme, YTS had developed by 1986 to a two-year offering. It included stringent equal opportunities requirements and special provisions for young people with disabilities and other special needs. At the time these arrangements broke new ground in underpinning the access to and support
1372
in training of many of these young people. For them the chance of meaningful and gainful employment through YTS training was something entirely new.
These improvements were carried over when last year YTS gave way to youth training. Youth training has an increased emphasis on achievement of higher level skills, particularly at craft and technical levels. It has additional flexibilities for the training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies which manage the programme at the local level, allowing them to respond more to the local needs of particular labour markets and of individuals.
YTS introduced foundation training into many sectors where it hardly existed before, for example in retail and clerical work. YT is now the accepted route into the workforce for young people in many occupational areas and industries. It is attracting year on year a greater proportion of those who choose to enter the labour market. It has become in a real sense a part of the infrastructure of working life.
If one looks at the figures a truly impressive picture emerges. Currently there are 260,000 young people in training in England and Wales—a more than 40-fold increase compared with when the last Labour Government left office. Since the inception of YTS in 1983 over 3.1 million young people have been trained. That so many youngsters have chosen training—for it is a voluntary programme—clearly demonstrates the value that the customer places on it.
The individual successes achieved by trainees are equally impressive: 80 per cent. of all participants and 87 per cent. of those who complete their training go into jobs or further education. Sixty-six per cent. of completers gain a vocational qualification which for an increasing number will be a stepping stone to the learning that they will need to update throughout their working lives. I must tell the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that not surprisingly a recent survey showed that the vast majority—80 per cent.—of trainees had found their time on the programme either useful or very useful. That is something we should remember. As your Lordships will certainly appreciate, from all those thousands of individual successes will also emerge another and equally valuable benefit from our enormous investment in youth training in recent years—the future competitiveness of British industry.
I speak advisedly of investment. The provision for the Department of Employment announced earlier this month in this year's public expenditure settlement included an increase in the youth training budget. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, asked me for the figures for this year and the next: they are £842 million for this year and £853 million in 1992–93. The Government have made that decision in full knowledge of the falling numbers of 16 and 17 year-olds due to demographic trends and of the sharply increasing and much to be welcomed staying on rates for those young people in full-time education. That represents a continuing investment. Youth training expenditure over the next three years will total over £2.5 billion. It is difficult to know what greater evidence there could be of the Government's commitment to their guarantee and to youth training as a whole.

1373
There has been considerable talk in the course of this debate about cuts in training expenditure; of the Government's not caring about young people or the training they receive. I hope your Lordships will therefore understand why I have felt it right to devote these introductory remarks to setting that particular balance straight and to reminding your Lordships of the very proud record which the Government can claim in their management of this most important matter.
I now wish to turn to points that noble Lords have raised during the course of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said that society had a duty to give an opportunity to work and an opportunity to train for that work. I believe that that is exactly what the Government are doing by not only allowing young people to continue in further education if they wish but giving a government guarantee of a place on youth training if they wish to pursue another course of action. It is entirely up to them whether they wish to remain in further education, to obtain a job or to receive youth training. The Government do not believe, therefore, that it is an option for young people to become unemployed. There is no need for a life of poverty or a life of crime.
The noble Lord also quoted the figure given by Church Action on Poverty of 3,088 16 and 17 year-olds in the Greater Manchester area not in education. Careers statistics are difficult to interpret. There is serious double counting—as I believe the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will have understood—in quoting lengthy statistics. It is difficult to adjust the lists that may be held by the careers service on any day. I believe that the noble Earl suggested that people remain in further education, go into jobs or slide between the two. It is a practical difficulty to know exactly where people are.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for what he said about the difficulty of the figures. Can he then tell us how he knows with such great confidence that the guarantee is effective?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall come to that in a minute; it was one of the points brought up by the noble Earl. Many young people go back to school, go into jobs or even go into training. That is not necessarily reflected in the figures. It would not be right to exaggerate the figures and possibly put young people off. It would be wrong to give young people the impression that there was no opportunity to gain a place on youth training.
The noble Lord gave the Government some credit for introducing the youth training scheme. I am glad to receive any crumb of comfort in this debate. The Government have never tried to hide the fact that employers are under a strain at present because of the recession and that has affected their provision of work experience places. However, I stress that the Government do not believe taxpayers should bear the entire costs of training. The funding models therefore assume a significant contribution from employers. Employers should contribute to the cost of training as
1374
they are the main beneficiaries of a better skilled workforce. In the interests of realistic quality training, it is desirable to place trainees with employers.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester drew our attention to the training of those with special needs. He appeared to indicate that those with special needs were treated in the same way as ordinary youths on youth training. It is not always necessary for those with special needs to be placed on a programme in order to reach NVQ level 2. We understand that such a process may be beyond their scope. However, I am sure it is still right to keep that objective in view.
The right reverend Prelate also appeared to indicate that the TECs would have some difficulty in fulfilling the requirements placed on them. TECs are required to show in their plans how they intend to provide suitable training provision for people with special needs. TECs' performance against their plans is regularly monitored by local officials responsible for training. TECs are free to vary payments to providers to take account of the additional costs of special training needs. Performance bonuses are paid to TECs achieving the agreed targets for training those with special needs. TECs are under contract to provide suitable training for those people with special needs.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, shares the same diocese as the right reverend Prelate. He drew to our attention the problems that smaller firms are facing in this matter of training as there is currently pressure on their existing workforce. There may therefore be a reluctance to provide places for youth training. The noble Lord mentioned the NORMID TEC. The other day a letter was sent to the Select Committee on Employment in another place which states:
"At the halfway stage in the financial year NORM ID TEC has sufficient training places available to satisfy the demand for the guarantee group".
In saying that I am not suggesting that there will not be some difficulty in finding the required places. However, no TEC will be prevented from providing places due to a lack of resources.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for quoting from the letter. I do not wish to enter an argument with him now. However, if he reads the letter in more detail, he will note that at a later stage it makes other comments which bear out my remarks.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall certainly study the letter with great care. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, also drew attention to the scarce resources available to those with special needs. To a certain extent I have replied to that point by saying that it is a duty of the TECs to fulfil the terms of their contracts. If employers cannot take on trainees, placements may have to be delayed. Some providers may need to find temporary alternatives such as in-house or college based training to fill the gap. What is important is that suitable training is given to people and that they should be assessed for the training they require. If that means they have to wait for a suitable place, it is better that they should do so than receive unsuitable training.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, supported the initiatives the Government are taking to help young

1375
people with their training. I am glad the noble Lord recognises the great strides that have been made in the past 10 years. I have identified some of those strides today. The noble Lord has deep knowledge of underprivileged people and those youngsters who play truant from school. I know he cares about them deeply and I have been privileged to hear him speak about them on more than one occasion. Youth training provides for those people—the noble Lord suggested they may be falling out of the net—by a period of initial training. The careers service can designate such youngsters and their problems can be dealt with.
TECs have a wide discretion in these areas. Youths may receive initial youth training to help them become motivated and to develop basic skills in literacy and numeracy. They can be given remedial education. TECs can spend money on trainee support and many TECs are developing new careers advice services. The Government are asking for bids for development projects in that area.
The noble Lord suggested establishing a national service regiment involving a one-year full time residential training course. The participants could cope with emergency relief and other such matters. That is an interesting idea. It is difficult from the Dispatch Box to place a precise cost on that scheme which would find favour with the Treasury. If the noble Lord has calculated a cost for the scheme, I hope he will write to me about it. There is even an armed 5ervices YT scheme which young people can apply for if they wish. However, that may not be quite what he has in mind.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said he shares the Government's commitment to quality training for young people. I am glad we share the same objectives. The noble Earl suggested that the youth training allowance was below the level of income support. I question that assumption. My understanding is that the allowance is above the level of income support for that age group.
The noble Earl asked what was the basic purpose of the bridging allowance and commented that the figure of £15 had remained the same since it was introduced. I can confirm that that is so. The basic purpose of the bridging allowance is to provide young people who have left an initial job or a YT place with financial help while they are searching for or waiting to take up further job or YT opportunities. It is not considered to be an income support measure. The bridging allowance is not intended to cover living expenses. Most claimants will be living with their parents. Those who do not can claim income support. I believe that we have the important safety net for young people that if perchance, for one reason or another, they are not living at home they have an opportunity to claim income support. Having difficulty getting a place is one of the factors which will be considered for the award of the severe hardship payment.
The noble Earl asked me directly when is a place guaranteed. He quoted an Answer from my honourable friend Mr. Jackson. The Government believe that the mere fact that numbers of young
1376
people are apparently waiting to take up a YT place at this time of year is not in itself evidence of failure to meet the guarantee.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg the House's pardon for intervening, but what are they expected to live on in the meantime while they are waiting?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at present the parents of young people will be entitled to extended child benefit. That will continue until Christmas, I understand, and always has done. It is an extended benefit which lasts for a further 16 weeks after the beginning of September when young people would choose either to go back to school or to seek some other course of action.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that there is an enormous number of young people who do not have parents or whose parents are not prepared to support them under those circumstances?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords. That is precisely why income support is available for those young people. However, we are agreed that those living at home should not necessarily be entitled to income support. As I explained earlier, they have no reason to be unemployed. There is an opportunity for further education, youth training or employment. That is a situation which is covered by the regulations which we have provided for young people.
Not all young people registered with the careers service would necessarily take up a YT place if offered one. Some careers services are still updating their records in the light of options taken by some young people to enter the labour market or return to school. It can take time to find the right place for some who have very specific preferences or for particular disadvantaged young people. Those are all factors which serve to exaggerate the true extent of demand for YT.
The noble Earl quite rightly suggested that a programme which involves 260,000 people is difficult to manage. It involves enormous practical difficulties, including predicting how many young people will stay on at school, how many leavers will get jobs, how many will come forward for training and how many will change their minds in between. Therefore, it is important that the options are available to young people, as I suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. However, I do not believe that unemployment should be tolerated as an option for young people.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, also suggested that there were difficulties faced by pregnant young women. That was also a point raised by the right revered Prelate. Those young women are still covered by the YT guarantee. Many of them receive training while they are pregnant, as no doubt the noble Earl is aware. They will receive their YT allowance up to the time when they will be entitled to income support, at the time the noble Earl suggested.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, indicated very clearly where our paths diverge. She said that government philosophy was to rely on the voluntary

1377
approach and that it should be employer led. I believe that the voluntary approach for young people is an important one. The fact that the TECs are employer led brings realism to the local conditions of the labour market in their areas. That is why it is important that this Government have that philosophy.
The noble Baroness also suggested that youth unemployment was rising. We have had various debates on the subject over the past few months. All I can say to her is that, yes, of course there are difficulties facing young people at the moment. However, our record on youth unemployment is better than that in the remainder of the European Community.
The suggestion that the youth training guarantee is not being met in even a single TEC area is one which the Government take very seriously indeed. The Government stand fully by their commitment to young people. We do not wish to disguise the fact that there are difficulties in a small number of areas, primarily in and around the capital. Working closely with the training and enterprise councils concerned, we have been addressing those vigorously, with resources and in a number of other ways. The current position is that the Government have always been and remain fully committed to the YT guarantee. We shall ensure that it is met and, where necessary, we shall ensure that no TEC is prevented by lack of resources from meeting the guarantee.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down will he be kind enough to answer my point about training credits? That is very disappointing because it was a scheme which had very broad support. Both unions and employers supported it and wanted to see the pilot scheme succeed. It is very disappointing to see the FT report that there has been a failure in take-up. Has the noble Viscount any comments on that?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the training credit scheme is destined to be very successful. I shall certainly look very carefully at the FT report. Perhaps it would be better if I were to write to the noble Baroness.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I should very much like to thank all noble Lords who have joined in the debate this evening. It has been a good one in so far as it went, although not necessarily very productive. However, it may have sown seeds which grow into better and larger plants.
I am particularly grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester for his specialist contribution and to my noble friend Lord Rochester. Between the two of them it appeared as though it would turn into a debate on the North West, particularly as I chose Manchester for my main example. There was also a moment when I saw the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool on the Benches opposite and thought that he might also join in. I do not believe that there is any harm in looking
1378
at one part of the country in detail, without dispersing one's interest, so that one can see what the problems on the spot are. I am very grateful to both speakers.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for his speech. I find somewhat constricting the conventions of your Lordship's House which militate against one referring to one's friends as one's noble friends if they sit on other Benches and sometimes make one refer to noble friends who are not one's friends but who sit on the same Benches. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, was able to participate and very interested in some of his original and pertinent suggestions.
In his otherwise very full answer, the noble Viscount did not, unless I missed it, respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about aptitude testing. That is an important and good point and I hope that the noble Viscount will take it back to the department for consideration. If he has anything to say perhaps he will write to the noble Lord and myself because we are interested in the matter.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall be happy to write to the noble Lords.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount very much.
We then came to the Front Bench speeches. I should like to say immediately what a great pleasure it is to listen to the noble Viscount responding with interest and sympathy, as opposed to some of his colleagues who sometimes deliver their briefs in a monotone which suggests, rightly or wrongly, that they could not care less. It is a great pleasure and privilege, and a reassurance, to listen to the noble Viscount and I hope that he will spread the habit.
The very good speeches from the two Front Benches on this side underline the important point that this is far too important a matter not to become the subject of party politics. It is often said that it is too important a matter to become party politics, but, without the strong urge of united parties who care passionately about these matters and are prepared to put forward alternative schemes and form alternative philosophies, I suspect that in the end nothing much will be done. I was grateful for those two speeches.
My noble friend on the Front Bench asked me early in the proceedings, "Are you lucky?". I said that I was lucky because of my success in the Ballot. Indeed, I am lucky. It is important that we in this House, who are all comparatively lucky, from time to time turn our attention, as we do, to those who are not at all lucky, who live lives of considerable misery and frustration and who lack money and all kinds of things that we take for granted. I make no apology for having raised this subject once again tonight and I hope that it will continue to be raised at not too great intervals until something much more satisfactory is done. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Animal Procedures Committee
7.33 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take on matters raised in the Report of the Animal Procedures Committee for 1990 (Cm. 1646) and in particular in Chapter 3 (Research to reduce animal procedures); Chapter 5 (Scientific work on primates) and in Chapter 6 (Use of animals in safety testing of cosmetics and toiletries).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, contrary to what noble Lords may think, this is not the Question to exclude all other Questions. Although I agree that it is a rather lengthy one, it is so solely for the purpose of being helpful to the Minister and to noble Lords who might be interested in the subject.
It is five years since the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 was passed. The transitional period of bringing it fully into operation has now ended. it took over three years and, as a result, everything now being done in licensed laboratories is being done by licensed people, whether personally or on project licences authorised under the Act. The new regime is now fully in operation so we are able to look at it and will be able to do so more closely in the future to see how it works.
I am particularly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. who is the present Chairman of the Animal Procedures Committee, is to take part in the debate. This is the fourth report of the Animal Procedures Committee and it is written in an agreeable and persuasive style. In fact, when reading it, it is a little difficult to think that there is anything seriously wrong anywhere, but we must be on our guard against all forms of bureaucracy and institutional tradition. There is something about institutional life that requires a remedy which is so difficult to find, but which in so many directions we now describe as "the market". The market is not included in this case, but supervision is.
I wish briefly to refer to one matter which is not detailed in the Unstarred Question, but which appears early in the committee's report. It refers to the case of Professor Feldberg who was discovered using animals improperly and unlawfully and in contravention of the licence under which he was working. It created quite a scare at the time. Although the committee's report refers to information appearing in the media as though, somehow or other, there was some divine origin for disclosures of that kind, the fact is that it was part of the discovery by the animals' "MI5". It was undercover work undertaken at the expense of an animal welfare organisation, which gained admittance to a laboratory and was able to take 40 feet of film of a professor at work unlawfully in that laboratory. Both the Animal Procedures Committee and the Medical Research Council, which had authorised some of that work, had to pay serious attention to the implications of that discovery.
One of the features about the case which hurts me personally is the suggestion that, because the professor was 89 years of age, that alone disqualified him from
1380
being competent to do the work that had been assigned to him. I resent that business of being too old for work. It is a matter of how good you are and how able you may be. The test of granting a project licence is not necessarily age but competence at all ages, ability, reliability and integrity. Everything was wrong with that man, his age included. It was one of those cases which should never happen again, but of which Britain's story is so full. Apparently, one of the reasons for the charge was his age, so we now have an age limit on the issue of project licences—not an age limit of 89, but of 70.
It is sometimes desirable to impose a general rule in order to exclude the isolated case, but—this is the point that I want to put to the Minister—the fundamental weakness in this case was the failure of the named veterinary officer and the named care officer to discharge the responsibilities laid on them by the Act to be vigilant and to draw attention to anything being done improperly. If it fails there, the whole security system may collapse. Paragraph 2.12 on page 4 of the report stresses the importance of ensuring that those named officers, whose names are up in the laboratory as being the key people to be on watch with responsibility to call in veterinary advisers and to stop unauthorised work going on, carry out their responsibilities with courage.
I hope that I may receive an assurance from the Minister that the system of named veterinary and day to day care officers is reinforced by a strict instruction that those who accept such responsibilities should discharge them zealously and courageously while safeguarding against misuse of those animals. That was the intention of the provision.
Chapter 3 refers to research for alternatives. It was referred to by the Animal Procedures Committee. The hope of millions of cruelly treated, miserable specimens in laboratories lies in the discovery of alternatives to their use for laboratory purposes. Yet the grant given to the Animal Procedures Committee for research on alternatives, replacements or refinements which reduce the use of living creatures, though a small amount, was summarily cut as part of Government policy. The cut in grant interfered with research that was in progress, some of which was wasted because once interrupted it could not conveniently be resumed.
What is the current grant? Can it be relied upon to be at the disposal of the Animal Procedures Committee? I believe that the amount is very small. However, it may have to be enlarged if it is to be adequate to finance research which has the potential to find alternatives to the use of animals. If we cannot find those alternatives there will have to be a campaign for the reduction in the use of products—cosmetic, pharmaceutical, kitchen, garden and workplace—which require animal testing.
Cosmetic products occupy a separate part in the report. They are involved in the research programme into alternatives. May we have the assurance that I seek, that there will be no further arbitrary cutting of the grant without proper notice? Indeed, will the grant

1381
be adequate to give the Animal Procedures Committee a small margin to build up some reserve against needs of an urgent character, whatever they may be?
A good deal of voluntary work is being done on the replacements of animals. The fund for the replacement of animals in experiments for medical research is doing good work. It raises much money for independent research. Private companies are indulging in that on their own account. All those factors are needed to reduce the number of animals in laboratories.
My next point relates to primates. Matters are being raised now which require us to consider the operation of the project licence system. Animal Advocates in Scotland—the organisation behind the discovery of Feldberg—has also been behind the scrutiny, on a highly sophisticated basis, of about 100 project licence cases in the past year or two to see whether the projects can be justified. A very large dossier has been sent to the Home Secretary and to the Animal Procedures Committee of cases which have been independently examined in that way. The full disclosure appeared in the Observer newspaper a week last Sunday. Noble Lords will probably wonder, as does the article and other people connected with the newspaper, whether there is justification for some of the projects for which licences apparently have been granted. Under the new regime the Home Secretary is responsible for the granting of project licences. These licences are necessary to define and to limit the scope of specific procedures for the purposes referred to in the project licence. It is therefore no good passing all the responsibility to the laboratory or to the scientists. The work authorised by the Home Secretary must be justified. How can we be satisfied that it has been properly scrutinised?
Over 600 project licences were issued in England in 1990, and about 60 in Northern Ireland. That is a large number of project licences to scrutinise in order to consider whether the purpose of the experiment justifies the pain that may be inflicted on the animals. That is the key question in the new regime. Under the new Act—and never before—the Home Secretary has responsibility for weighing up the balance between what will be done to the animals and the value of the purpose which the experiment is intended to serve. It is his judgment that can prevail, subject to the right of appeal. It is the project licence granted by the Home Office that can be the source of doubt and difficulty.
How shall we achieve some monitoring system of project licences issued by the Home Secretary? They are not automatically scrutinised by the Animal Procedures Committee. It may undertake observation on particular cases. It may have cases referred to it by the Home Secretary for its opinion. The Home Secretary has the right to appoint an assessor to advise him on certain matters. But we must now have some system whereby there can be scrutiny of project licences granted by the Home Office which offers the opportunity for doubt to be expressed as to whether the projects are justified.
I shall not go into detail, but there is a growing restlessness. I fear that we have reached the stage in
1382
the operation of the Act at which many people are doubtful about its effectiveness. If such doubt spreads, we are in for trouble. There are two animal matters that I wish to keep out of the next general election; this aspect is one of them. I do not believe that there is at present a need for parliamentary or political campaigns on experiments on animals. We have the machinery. It has been in operation for five years. It has greater scope than perhaps we realised. I believe that the Home Secretary should be encouraged to use the provisions more fully and to give some safeguard.
I suggest that there should be a monitoring committee, a body of referees, or assessors, appointed to whom the automatic right of audit should be granted so that a judgment can be made; not for publicity purposes but in order to advise the Home Secretary as to whether project licences are being granted on the basis for which the Act intended.
We are dealing with a bureaucracy that is used to acting in this delicate field. Perhaps an independent viewpoint on what that body does would be beneficial; otherwise, we are in for more undercover work. After all, such undercover work apparently plays an important part in the disturbance that exists in the public's mind as to the use of animals without their knowledge. The trouble in the Quorn hunt was made known through undercover work. Feldberg's work was made known through undercover work. There are other undercover jobs in progress now because people are determined to find out the truth. It is better to set up a safeguard within the system than to leave the growing "MI5 for animals" to find out.
I now turn to Chapter 8 of the report entitled "Forward Look". Is the Minister keeping under review the composition and balance of the Animal Procedures Committee? Of the list of 21 members only one name has no letters after it. Presumably that person is the well-informed layman who sits with 20 experts in the law, philosophy, veterinary surgery, medical surgery and so forth. What is his mission? Does he represent the well-informed members of the public who wish to question what is being done? Such voices are not numerous on the Committee, and that aspect should not be lost.
The only layman on the Animal Procedures Committee is the only member who is also on the Farm Animal Welfare Council. Therefore, he must be good—very good. He is probably one of the most active and valuable members of both committees. He is the only person to be honoured by membership of both. However, he needs reinforcements. I ask on behalf of the Animal Procedures Committee whether its composition is being kept under constant review. Is it getting ready for the forward look?
The forward look must have as one of its prime responsibilities the non-fundamental research aspect of the use of animals in laboratories. Toxicity testing is that grievous act of finding the toxicity element in a specific substance. It involves the horrid Draize test which is designed to discover from New Zealand rabbits' eyes what eye shadow will do and what is the reaction when other substances are put into the eyes. Therefore, it is said to be a safeguard against unnecessary injury to members of the public.
If women were more restrained in the use of cosmetics many animals could be spared a great deal of misery. Women should be more perceptive in where they shop and what they buy for their adornment because animals lie behind the development of so many of the products. The forward look must be bold and imaginative if it is to carry public confidence into the future. I ask the Minister for assurance on the questions that I have put to him. I hope that the debate will be noted in the future activities of the Animal Procedures Committee.
7.55 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for introducing the subject. The document is not an annual report but a revolution which the committee has put into operation. It has caused an immense change which in due course will earn the gratitude of many people. The committee consists of extremely able and experienced people who know what they are talking about. Their judgment is of great value. I did not understand some of the words used and could not find them in what is euphoniously called the Oxford Shorter Dictionary. In reading the report I had to guess what was meant.
I wish to read to your Lordships part of a letter which I believe is most important. It was sent by the Home Secretary to the chairman of the committee. It stated:
"We … should begin to make a significant contribution to the aim which we all share to reduce, refine or replace animal procedures".
That is a step forward. I congratulate the chairman of the committee for obtaining that statement which sets out the aim that for years many people have sought to attain. It is a great achievement and I wish to express my congratulations to the chairman.
We stand in a perilous position in relation to Europe. How can we know whether some law will not be passed in Europe before we can make such changes? I wish to ask my noble friend to clarify a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. It involves an unfortunate episode in which insufficient anaesthetic was used. The investigation took place largely clue to the stimulus of a young lady. The story is curious but I shall not go into it because I do not know the details. Surely it was a job for the inspectorate, so why was it not involved? I do not know whether the inspectorate reports directly to the committee or to the Home Office. However, it is precisely the kind of case that it should investigate.
I am aware that 10 or 11 cases were examined but the case to which I have referred was special. One was a little surprised by the way in which it was handled. Is it conceivable that the inspectorate is not sufficiently on its toes? I make no suggestions but the matter should have been investigated by the inspectorate.
The report is a great step forward and is a great reflection on the present management of the Home Office. I know that many people oppose the report and that many other people take violent action to try to impose its recommendations. That is wholly undesirable. When we are making progress, such violence is totally and absolutely unnecessary.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for initiating this debate on the report of the Animal Procedures Committee for 1990. I have the honour to be chairman of the committee, a position that I have held for almost two years.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for his kind remarks. I must inform him that the inspectors are responsible to the Home Secretary. While the committee is in close touch with them in the sense that they report to it and discuss various matters, their duty is to report to the Home Office. They are Home Office inspectors and not inspectors of the committee.
The committee is an independent statutory advisory body established under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Its membership includes leaders of industry, science and the academic world, as well as those whose primary interest is animal welfare. They include a professor of law and a professor of philosophy.
In giving advice to the Home Secretary, the committee is bound to have regard both to the legitimate requirements of science and industry and to the protection of animals against avoidable suffering and unnecessary use in scientific procedures. Therefore, we are concerned with the nature and severity of the procedures carried out and, equally important, reduction of the number of animals subject to procedures. Those numbers have continued to fall for some years—a trend much to be welcomed.
Much of the work of the committee is highly technical. Its strength lies in the quality of the debate on matters of great difficulty. Of course, there are differences of opinion and emphasis among such diverse interests. My experience is that there is a high degree of agreement on the fundamentals and such openness on differences that discussion is useful and productive. I believe that the chapters in our report demonstrate that.
The committee considered issues referred to it by the Home Secretary and matters which it decided to study. An example of the former—matters referred to it by the Home Secretary—is the study we undertook at the Home Secretary's request as to whether the practice of the Home Office of not giving details about individual projects or establishments could be relaxed. We took evidence from over 50 individuals and organisations and our conclusions and advice are set out in chapter 4. It was clear to us that in view of the real threat of violence to researchers and their families, we could not recommend a loosening of current policy.
Were it not for the overriding factor of the safety of those engaged in research, we should encourage researchers in the scientific community generally to be as open as possible about research and the reasons for it. For secrecy breeds fear and suspicion. The public are rightly concerned that the provisions and, indeed, the purposes of the Act are being carried out. Openness could defuse much of the worry among members of the public.
It is ironic and, I believe, very sad that the actions of extremists in committing violence result in many

1385
researchers being far more secretive than they would otherwise be. That violence produces a result opposite to that which I assume is intended and which I for one would welcome; namely, the greatest possible public knowledge of what is going on.
During the year the case to which reference has already been made as regards Professor Feldberg arose. We were much disturbed that unnecessary suffering was caused to four animals. We considered how best such cases could be avoided in future. The administrative procedures at the National Institute for Medical Research had failed. Our opinion was that that was the major reason for the difficulty which had arisen. It is essential for the future that establishments have proper and effective management structures in place and that those with responsibilities under the Act including, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said, the named day-to-day care person and the named veterinary surgeon have the necessary clout within an establishment to carry out their functions. That requires the full and active support of the holder of the certificate of designation who is ultimately responsible for compliance with the Act in an establishment. It may be that that is a matter for the inspectorate and the Home Office but it may be that in future the inspectorate must pay greater regard to management structures within the establishments than it has hitherto.
More generally, the question of ageing licensees, to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred, had to be considered. We made certain recommendations to the Home Secretary as to the maximum age of holders of project licences and the frequency of review of personal licences. I emphasise the difference between project and personal licences. I am glad to say that the Home Secretary accepted that advice.
We considered the use of animals in the safety testing of cosmetics and toiletries—a subject referred to in previous reports. Such tests are carried out for UK and overseas manufacturers. We held a special meeting and received evidence from those involved in testing and those who question the need for animal testing.
The use of the word "cosmetics" is emotive in that it commonly relates to beauty preparations. In the UK as in the EC the word "cosmetics", for the purposes we are discussing, includes beauty preparations but also encompasses toiletries such as soap, toothpaste, shampoo and heavy duty skin cleansers which are not normally thought of at all as cosmetics.
Advertising and labelling products as "cruelty free" or "not animal tested" arises from wide public anxiety. Although it does not fall directly within our remit, we thought it right to bring that aspect of labelling within our study.
We heard that it is difficult to say whether an ingredient has or has not at some time been tested on animals. Sometimes they have been tested for a different purpose, perhaps in the chemical or food industries or because any substance manufactured in quantities larger than one tonne per annum has to be tested for health and safety reasons to assess the occupational risk to factory workers. So it is not
1386
always easy to know on whose behalf a cruelty free claim is made. The producer or retailer may claim not to have tested either the finished product or the ingredients while the supplier or a contract house may still have carried out the necessary animal testing. We understand that the European Community may now be considering a ban on such descriptions on the basis that they can often be misleading.
We found that animal testing to enable exports to be made required review at EC and OECD level to iron out the potential conflict between requirements of the 1986 Act, which seeks to ensure that unnecessary animal testing is not carried out, and the regulations which apply to exports to certain markets which require more animal testing data than are necessary.
Therefore, the news that as a result of a British initiative to develop, validate and have accepted by international regulatory bodies, including those in the United States, a more humane test of toxicity than that hitherto adopted—the much criticised LD50 test—was most welcome. I understand that it will be incorporated in OECD guidelines to be published next year. The new test will not replace the need for LD50 testing in all circumstances. However, it is an important advance not only in scientific terms but as a reflection of the willingness of regulatory bodies to accept data obtained by more humane testing methods.
It became clear to us that issues raised by work in transgenics would feature largely in coming years. We therefore held a special meeting on the subject, at which we were assisted by a number of specialists, to familiarise ourselves with the subject. An account of that meeting is in the report which will be of help, I hope, to the interested reader in what is undoubtedly a complex subject.
One of the functions of the committee is to promote research relevant to our functions, particularly research into ways of reducing, refining or replacing the use of living animals in scientific research. The research sub-committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Andrew Huxley, undertakes that task. Projects range from refinements or replacements of lethal toxicity tests to refinement of vaccine production and serology. Research on refinement of animal husbandry has also been funded.
We were therefore concerned, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, mentioned, that the Government put a cash limit on the research budget for 1990–91. Forward planning is essential and is undermined by such action. Sir Andrew wrote to the Home Secretary to register our anxiety. Now the Government have increased funding for 1992–93 to £253,000. That is a clear sign that they recognise the importance of this research. The cost is in fact covered by fees collected by the Home Office for certificates and licences issued under the Act; so there is no burden on general funds.
I should mention here that we were concerned that the Government might fail to fund the cost to universities and others of implementing improvements to animal housing as specified in their published guidelines. However, our misgivings were misplaced. Some £70 million will be made available over a period for that purpose.

1387
In the present year we shall embark on a study of toxicity testing and consider whether cephalopods—squid, octopus, cuttlefish and nautilus—should be brought within the controls of the Act which presently apply to vertebrates.
Let me conclude by referring to the Home Office inspectorate from which the Home Secretary also derives much advice. It consists of medical doctors and veterinary surgeons. The inspectors advise on whether specific programmes of research should be licensed. They play a key role in assessing projects. We are greatly impressed by the depth and breadth of their expertise.
In the European Parliament there is soon to be a debate en a proposal for a directive on patenting life forms. I understand that our report was helpful to Members of the European Parliament from this country and from other member states who are concerned. I hope that it may also be of interest to your Lordships.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I join in the thanks tendered to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, as it now is, was his brainchild. The country owes a great debt to the noble Lord for the persistence in which he indulged—it is not the only matter in his long parliamentary career which he has pursued with persistence—to ensure that this important piece of legislation reached the statute book. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, also deserves our thanks for producing a report which even a layman can understand. There are many reports produced which make even those who are professionally concerned scratch their heads. This report is succinct and important.
I approach the matter as one whose family has been involved in medicine for many years. However, only our younger daughter, as a nursing sister, is professionally concerned. The nursing and medical profession generally administer these pharmaceutical products and therefore carry a great responsibility. The thorough testing which must take place is of enormous significance to the medical profession.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, referred to the animal rights organisations. This debate is not concerned with animal rights. But where my wife and I live in Surrey there is, within a few miles of our home, a large research laboratory. Several members of the staff and executives have been threatened and their cars vandalised by people who I believe have no real interest in animals. Many of us are dog lovers. As a child I was brought up with dogs. There is nothing I hate to see more than experiments on dogs or any other animals. I do not believe that anybody likes to see that. However, we must ask ourselves, particularly if we knew people with Alzheimer's disease, leukaemia or cystic fibrosis, what is the alternative. I believe the report answers a number of those questions.
The whole subject of animal experiments induces a great deal of publicity. I have visited a number of pharmaceutical companies and seen animals under experiment. I believe also that some people judge the whole idea of animal experiments by what happens in
1388
such countries as Korea, Japan, and Thailand, where one has seen pictures of the most ghastly things happening to animals. I believe I am right in saying that the Home Office inspectorate have the right to enter any laboratory 24 hours a day, seven days a week, without prior notice. They can go in at 5 o'clock on Christmas morning; if things are not as they should be, legal action can be taken.
I turn to Chapter 6, which deals with cosmetics. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, made a succinct point regarding the beautification of the female of the species. I suppose we all like to see our wives, fiancées or girlfriends looking nice. That is true. But there is surely a distinction between the various after-shaves, hair lotions, Chanel No. 5 and other such products, and the ointments which deal with such distressing skin complaints as psoriasis, scabies impetigo, and the need particularly for soap containing disinfectant and for shampoos. Those are different to what one might call beautification products.
I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister has any real definition of "cosmetics". I believe that to be at the root of the problem. I have never been against animal experiments. In many cases it is the only alternative. On the other hand, I believe that they should be monitored. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act ensures that that is the case. Chapter 6, paragraph 6.23, contains the important aspect of cosmetic testing becoming a market consideration. I do not believe any of us wants to see animal experiments carried out purely as a marketing exercise. Animals must be bred specifically for the purpose. However, I am not sure that all members of the general public are aware of the fact that it is illegal to take dogs, cats or guinea-pigs off the streets or from somebody's home and take or sell them to laboratories. Those things may happen; if they do, it is both distressing and disgraceful.
Chapter 6 seems to me to be the nub of the matter, particularly from the point of view of the general public. Undoubtedly there is a lot of misunderstanding regarding animal experiments. The pharmaceutical industry has always received a rather bad press in relation to organisations which make huge profits. We recently read of the Upjohn problem with Opren. However it would be a great pity for the whole pharmaceutical industry to be regarded in the same light as the one or two companies where serious mistakes have occurred. It contributes an enormous amount to our export industry. Treatment for conditions such as pneumonia, gall-bladder problems—the operation which I had—and so on is largely due to what the pharmaceutical industry does. In order to do that experiments must take place. I believe that the House and the country should be grateful both to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for producing this admirable report and to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for getting on the statute book legislation which makes an enormous amount of sense.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, on this matter I do not speak on behalf of the Labour Party, but purely personally. Your Lordships approach this splendid Report of the Animal Procedures Committee from several angles: the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, spoke authoritatively from the position of chairman of the Committee; my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby from the point of view of a great and long-standing campaigner for animal rights: the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, reminded us of the European dimension of this problem and the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, spoke from the point of view of the medical and nursing professions.
I speak only from the background of many years spent in Britain's universities, many of which have animal houses and are concerned in scientific procedures involving animals. As a professor of English literature of course I have only fleeting, fitful and tangential concern with such problems. But as a literary critic I can perhaps claim some sensitivity to the things that I read. In reading this report with great enjoyment I, and I believe anyone, become immediately aware of the vast variation in urgency, pressure and passion between one chapter and another.
The introduction and Chapter 2 on the working of the Act are written in that calm, dispassionate, measured tone normally considered appropriate for a report to a Secretary of State. One does not want to distress Secretaries of State unduly or to alarm them by what one says. Formal, unhurried prose is the courteous form of address. But when we come to Chapter 3 we find a marked shift in tone and that is significant. On the matter of,
"Research to reduce, refine or replace animal procedures",
we read in the report phrases like "continuing concern", "most dismayed", "expressed its disappointment". We find the correspondence between Sir Andrew Huxley and the Home Secretary reproduced in public and in full. Clearly, the Committee was deeply concerned, and righteously indignant on this issue. As one reads the chapter one can see why. The Government seem to have been strangely unable to comprehend the nature of scientific research programmes and how they must be funded. You simply cannot toss research scientists a bag of gold from time to time and expect them gratefully to get on with their work and win a Nobel prize or find a cure for cancer.
Scientific research programmes are not casual, they are consecutive. They are not lonely excursions into the unknown of the kind a philosopher or a musician may make; they are closely reticulated programmes linked with and dependent on other research programmes whose priorities and timings may make them successful or redundant in a matter of weeks if financial support is intermittent or interrupted. That is exactly what Chapter 3 records. Resources are allocated then withdrawn; projects are authorised then funds are clawed back. That is unfair, unprofessional and, above all, inefficient. It destroys more than it saves. The report states the point succinctly and courteously, but powerfully, when it says:
1390
"We are most discouraged by the apparent inability of the Home Office to make proper financial provision for this small research scheme and to guarantee those funds, even during a financial year".
I believe that we must seriously ask the Government to consider this: is the level of funding for this programme adequate to fulfil the ideals of reducing, refining and replacing of animal procedures to which we are all committed?
Perhaps I may remind the noble Viscount who is to answer that it now costs between £40,000 and £50,000 a year to fund one competent research worker, taking into account the salary and support for the actual work being done. That is £40,00 to £50,000 each. Will the Home Office grant for next year and the next three years be suitably increased to take account of that? We have noted—and he will doubtless remind us—that some work recommended by the Animal Procedures Committee is being funded by charities and by industry. We rejoice in that; it is the icing on the cake. However, I must remind the noble Viscount that it is the Government's responsibility to provide the cake and to make sure that it is of an appropriate size.
However, on one matter I must take issue with the report from the standpoint of the good management of British universities. On page 2 the report says:
"We are pleased to note that, following the anxiety which the Committee expressed during the course of the year, the proper supply of funds for the necessary upgrading of animal houses in universities now seems to be assured".
It "seems to be assured" says the report. Would that it were! I am reliably informed that the facts are quite otherwise. There is no reluctance in the universities to comply with any new legislation which affects them and to do so as soon as they can. But the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals said in 1990 that £75 million was needed to bring animal houses up to the standards demanded by the new legislation. At the same time the Universities Funding Council estimated that universities needed an extra £80 million a year for three years for general repairs. The ABRC calculated that £460 million was needed to bring equipment up to date. To pay for all of that the universities received an extra £9.9 million over the planned total allocation.
The Universities Funding Council was then forced to allocate £35 million from both its capital and recurrent budgets in order to meet the legal requirements for the rehabilitation of animal houses. That used up all the increase in capital (£9.8 million) plus £25 million which would otherwise have been used to finance other capital projects. The same kind of thing is true for the 1991 PES round and the allocations for 1992–93. The amount of money that will be earmarked for animal house refurbishment in 1992–93 depends on the Universities Funding Council, but it is clear that the cost of implementing legislation will once again fall on other projects. It is not simply a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. In this case Peter has been robbed, mugged and the muggers have departed, leaving him half dead. The proper supply of funds for the necessary upgrading of animal houses in universities is not by any means assured. It is not too much to say that the upgrading of animal

1391
accommodation can only be achieved at the cost of downgrading the accommodation of students and staff.
Perhaps I may ask Her Majesty's Government, as other noble Lords have done tonight, to spare more than a passing thought for those whose job it is to monitor and police the requirements of the Act—that is to say, the inspectorate. They have a highly responsible job of consultation with scientists before the issue of project licences. We have heard that just short of 650 of these were issued in 1990. The inspectors assess personal licences; they must monitor all that goes on and they must maintain a precarious balance on the tightrope of confidentiality since many people engaged in these procedures are at risk. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that some of them literally go in fear of their lives. Yet there are only about 20 inspectors and they have responsibility for 381 institutions as well as a whole host of other duties.
They are overstressed and overstretched. It should be an urgent priority to fund an increase in their numbers. The official MRC report into the Feldberg and Stean case, about which we have heard this evening, makes it clear that, if that project had been fully and properly assessed, the project licence would probably never have been issued in the first place. The Government should pay heed to the implications of that report and take immediate action to see to it that the inspectorate is enabled to do its job properly.
As Mr. Ron Davies, the honourable Member for Caerphilly, said:
"Animal experimentation is acceptable only in so far that it is a necessary evil".
I remind your Lordships of the words of Tom Paine, in Chapter 1 of Common Sense:
"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one".
We must hope that this Government, on animal experimentation, will not by their parsimony become intolerable.
8.30 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I should first like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for drawing attention to the work of the Animal Procedures Committee. The noble Lord has long been a resolute champion of the welfare of animals and I am delighted to see him making his points as robustly and effectively as ever. This year the noble Lord and I have discussed badgers and dangerous dogs; and we carry on.
The use of living animals in biomedical research continues to be a matter of considerable public interest. Animal research is often portrayed in sections of the press in a sensationalist and misleading way. This makes it all the more disappointing that for the second year running the press gave little if any coverage to the publication of the committee's annual report. It is a matter of regret that, when this important and complex issue is tackled in a rational, responsible and comprehensive manner, the results do not apparently merit being brought to the attention of the public. I am delighted that, today, we can in some way remedy that situation.
1392
I hope that all noble Lords with their different points of view can agree on one point in this debate. It is a point which is central to the argument. The use of animals in research has been responsible for many of the most remarkable medical advances this century: these include the treatment of diabetes, stomach ulcers and head injuries; the treatment of cancer; the vaccines for diphtheria and for polio; drugs to treat asthma and leukaemia; and life support systems for premature babies. None of those would have been possible without the use of animals in research. We still await reliable treatments for such conditions as AIDS and multiple sclerosis.
Many thousands of people—and perhaps some of those present in the Chamber—owe their lives and their health to medical advances involving the use of animals. Many of these advances involved scientists working in this country. It is vital that this lifesaving research should continue. Nor should we forget that the use of animals has led to advances in the treatment of animals as well—whether in developing veterinary products or appliances.
As my noble friend Lord Selkirk pointed out, the use of living animals in biomedical research continues to decline, a trend which I am sure everyone will welcome. The Government are committed to ensuring that work is carried out on animals only when it is absolutely essential and that it is carried out humanely. That is why we introduced new laws which are the toughest in Europe. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 introduced strict controls on the use of animals in research, including the need for both the researcher and the project he was undertaking to be separately licensed; stringent safeguards on pain and suffering; and general requirements to ensure the care and welfare of animals.
The 1986 Act has been in operation for almost five years. The Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, which the 1986 Act replaced, was operated in such a way as to prevent laboratory animals from being exposed to unnecessary or excessive suffering. The 1986 Act introduced new formal controls. At the heart of the new regulatory system is the project licence. It is through the project licence that the background, objectives and potential benefits to a proposed programme of research and the methodology to be employed must be set out. Applicants also have to show that they have given full consideration to the alternatives to using animals.
Project licences last for a maximum of five years. Many project licences will therefore expire shortly. In considering new applications, we shall, with our experience of operating the new Act, be in an even better position to give effect to the principles of the Act.
The debate this evening concerns the report of the Animal Procedures Committee and we were fortunate to have had the opportunity to hear the views of the chairman of the Animal Procedures Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. As the noble Lord said, the Animal Procedures Committee is an independent statutory body, and the purpose of the committee is to advise the Home Secretary on matters concerned with the Act and his functions under it. I know that the

1393
Home Secretary greatly values the advice which he receives from the committee. The committee has a wide remit. While the Home Secretary may refer matters to the committee for consideration, the committee is also quite free to select areas for study itself, and it does so. The annual report of the committee gives a good indication of the commitment with which it carries out its role.
Much of what I shall say was comprehensively expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, but I still think it important that I should cover some of the areas concerned, although no doubt not with the same expertise as he has. The report, however, does not reflect the extent to which its members carry out additional work on behalf of the committee. In particular I think it only right to pay special tribute to the work of the research sub-committee. The task of seeking out, selecting and evaluating research projects into ways of reducing, refining or replacing the use of living animals in biomedical research is a vital one. The Government are indeed grateful to the members of the sub-committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Andrew Huxley, for the efforts they devote to it.
The Animal Procedures Committee's research sub-committee is not of course the only organisation involved in research into alternatives to the use of animals. It is to the credit of industry that many firms which use animals in research are also funding research into alternatives. It is clearly right, however, that the Government themselves should fund research in this important area. Because of the constraints on public expenditure generally there have in the past been one or two problems in putting the budget of the sub-committee on a firm footing. I believe that we have now established the APC's research budget on a firm basis—a point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been able to allocate to it a budget of just over a quarter of a million pounds next financial year. That, together with contributions from other sources, should enable the sub-committee to plan its future programmes of work more effectively.
The committee's report for 1990 deals with a number of issues of particular public concern. One of these, which I think was brought up by every noble Lord who spoke this evening, was the case of Professor Feldberg at the National Institute for Medical Research, who was filmed conducting procedures on apparently under-anaesthetised animals. As soon as the evidence of animal suffering was brought to the attention of the Home Office, immediate action was taken to revoke the licences of both Professor Feldberg and his assistant.
The committee's response to this unfortunate case is a good illustration of the constructive way in which the committee seeks to deal with difficult issues. The committee was keen to learn the lessons of the Feldberg case. In the light of the report of the inquiry set up by the Medical Research Council, it made recommendations to improve the controls on ageing researchers.
1394
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary was pleased to be able to accept the committee's recommendations that personal licences should be regarded as having expired when a licensee formally retires; that they should be reviewed more frequently thereafter; and that no one over the age of 70 should hold a project licence. The committee will shortly be considering how these recommendations can best be implemented.
Some consider that the Feldberg case shows that the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is not effective. This ignores the finding of the MRC inquiry that there is nothing wrong with the structure of the Act. Clearly, there are lessons from the case which all involved, including the Home Office, can learn. There was a failure at institutional level to ensure that the controls contained in the Act were properly observed. As the committee's report makes clear, the Home Office required the Director of the National Institute for Medical Research, where Professor Feldberg was working, to implement a number of changes in the management of scientific procedures at his establishment.
The inspectorate regularly carries out unannounced visits to establishments. It is part of its job to look out for infringements of the Act, and it does so assiduously. It cannot be everywhere at the same time, but I can assure noble Lords that whenever infringements are found tough action is taken. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that project licences are most carefully scrutinised by the inspectorate. Many are discussed before they are formally submitted to the Home Office and refined in the light of the inspectorate's advice. The inspectorate is a body of highly qualified doctors and veterinary surgeons and its expertise is widely respected.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, also raised an area of continuing and understandable public concern. This relates to the use of non-human primates in scientific research. It is natural that we should feel an even closer affinity with those animals that are nearest to ourselves in the evolutionary scheme of things. Concern for the welfare of non-human primates relates not only to their use in scientific procedures but also to their housing and care. The 1986 Act of course gives special protection to non-human primates and requires special justification for their use in research.
The committee's comments on the housing and care of non-human primates is timely. The Home Office code of practice for the housing and care of laboratory animals sets out best practice for, among other things, the housing and care of non-human primates. The committee's report emphasises the desirability of providing environmental enrichment for non-human primates. The committee also draws attention to the desirability of housing monkeys in pairs and in larger groups to alleviate the effects of isolation.
The Home Office Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate actively encourages establishments to introduce these measures where appropriate if they have not already done so. The housing and care of non-human primates remains a matter of particular importance to the Home Office. The Home Office

1395
inspectorate carried out a special survey of large non-human primate holding facilities in 1988. It is intended that a further review of establishments using these larger primates should take place next year which will enable the Home Office to judge the progress made in improving such facilities since the 1988 review.
The committee's report also deals with a matter of considerable public concern, and that is the use of animals in the safety testing of cosmetics and toiletries. This subject was raised by my noble friend Lord Auckland. This is a matter on which there is considerable public misunderstanding. The committee is to be congratulated on setting out the issues involved in such a clear form.
There are a number of misconceptions about it: first, the scale. Testing of cosmetics amounts to less than one quarter of 1 per cent. of the total number of procedures carried out each year. Secondly, the testing is to establish safety not efficacy—in other words, to ensure, that it does not harm those who will use the product. Thirdly—and this is important—the term cosmetics does not mean simply beauty products. We use the same definition of cosmetics as our European partners. Cosmetics and toiletries include everyday items such as toothpastes, soaps and shampoos. The Animal Procedures Committee is right to point out the legal requirements on producers to ensure that their products are safe.
There is one important matter that I should like to mention. It has been mentioned by noble Lords this evening. There has been a longstanding tradition in this country of moderate and reasoned opposition to the use of animals in scientific research. The opinion of those who with the welfare of animals at heart take this view deserves to be listened to with respect.The
1396
1986 Act makes it a specific requirement that the interests of animal welfare should be adequately represented on the Animal Procedures Committee, and they are.
There are plenty of opportunities for those who oppose the use of animals in research to make their views known peacefully and within the law. That makes it all the more reprehensible that there should be people who resort to violence to force their opinions on others. Break-ins to laboratories, arson, destruction of property and violent attacks on individual scientists—all this is unacceptable in a democratic society. Those who indulge in it face the full force of the law if caught. In the eyes of the vast majority of people, they damage by their actions the cause which they purport to represent. It is of course incumbent upon everyone, including animal welfare groups, to ensure that they do not give support to the violent actions of extremists.
We have had an interesting and constructive debate this evening about issues which are of real public concern. We have been fortunate to have the experience of the noble Lords, Lord Nathan and Lord Houghton, and all the other noble Lords who have spoken this evening. The 1986 Act continues to operate effectively and to balance the legitimate needs of industry and science with those of laboratory animal welfare. The fact that industry, the scientific community and responsible animal welfare groups continue to support the Act is a testament to the soundness of the regulatory scheme, which was so fully discussed in this House and another place six years ago.
House adjourned at a quarter before nine o'clock.