Lords Sitting of 9 July 1992

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Lord Tebbit
The Right Honourable Norman Beresford Tebbit, CH, having been created Baron Tebbit, of Chingford in the London Borough of Waltham Forest, for life —Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Joseph and the Baroness Seccombe.

Lord Howell
The Right Honourable Denis Herbert Howell, having been created Baron Howell, of Aston Manor in the City of Birmingham, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Fisher of Rednal and the Lord Murray of Epping Forest.
Noble Lords Noble Lords—Took the Oath.

Net Book Agreement
3.30 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Viscount Montgomery of Alamein asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the Net Book Agreement is in the best interests of the consumer.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the operation of the Net Book Agreement is essentially a commercial matter between publishers and booksellers. The agreement falls within the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 and as such is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading and, if appropriate, the Restrictive Practices Court to consider.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is curious that the Government should be encouraging a restrictive practice of this nature to continue? Furthermore, is he aware that this morning the European Court appears to have ruled that the fixing of book prices is wholly illegal?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, in their manifesto the Government signalled their intention to tackle anti-competitive and restrictive practices and to introduce new legislation giving stronger powers to deal with cartels. However, as yet time has not been found for such a Bill. The agreement is essentially a commercial matter but I am aware of the decision that was handed down today by the court of first instance in Europe. I have seen in summary a report of its judgment, which is erroneous. It appears to indicate that the Net Book Agreement is illegal within the
1264
United Kingdom. In fact, all that it has indicated is that in so far as the Net Book Agreement affects trade between member states it contravenes Article 25.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if the Net Book Agreement were abolished it would be difficult for small booksellers to continue trading and that would not, therefore, be in the best interests of consumers, particularly in small towns and outlying areas?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I understand that this is the fourth or fifth time that we have rattled around this particular track dealing with the Net Book Agreement. As the noble Lord will be aware from previous discussions, there are sharply conflicting views about the effect on smaller booksellers outwith the major cities if the Net Book Agreement were to be abolished.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I declare a double interest as a writer and a reader of books. Is the Minister aware that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is right and that the current situation is the best possible situation for us as readers and writers? Is the Minister further aware that the absence of a Net Book Agreement in the United States is one of the reasons why that once great country is sinking into an intellectual desert?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am reassured that my prediction that there would be sharply conflicting views in this House has quickly come about.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the time has come to shift the burden of proof under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act? Does he further agree that any industry which seeks to maintain a price-fixing agreement—that is, in the end, what the Net Book Agreement is—should have the burden of proof placed upon it to show that an anti-competitive measure is not against the public interest?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have already pointed to the signalling of an intention in the manifesto. I am sure that the noble Lord recollects that when in 1989 the Government published their White Paper entitled "Home Markets" the indication was that the changes which might be introduced would bring about a reversal of the presumption along the lines mentioned by the noble Lord.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Net Book Agreement has the support of the Publishers Association and the great majority of booksellers in this country? Is he aware that the attack on it is entirely inspired by one large wholesaler of books which sees possible advantage to itself if the small booksellers disappear?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am aware of both the points which the noble Lord makes; namely, that there is support for the agreement but that one company takes an opposite view. As I have indicated previously, there are sharply conflicting views on the value to the reading public and in regard to the distribution to bookshops around the country if the

1265
agreement were to be abolished. It is not for government to resolve that matter but there may be an opportunity to look at what test must be applied in determining whether such an agreement is a restrictive practice.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that price riggers the world over invariably claim that their price rigging is in the public interest?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, that is so. However, if one looks to the experience of other countries, yet again one sees sharply conflicting views on the worth of an agreement. For example, France abolished such an agreement and then reintroduced it some three years later.
Earl Russell: My Lords, while not disagreeing with what my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham said about competition, I ask the Minister to consider that the consumer is not a single animal but an extremely multifarious animal. Will he further consider an area in which I declare an interest? The academic consumer is not always in the same position as other consumers. That is a small market and, in the case of students, inevitably to a degree it is a captive one. Will the Government consider as a separate question the effect of any abolition on academic publishing?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the Government's view is that it would be wrong, because this is essentially a commercial matter, to deal specifically with the Net Book Agreement. However, a more appropriate way to approach the matter may be along the lines indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Holme; that is, the test that should apply, where such restrictive practices are in place, is whether to have the presumption reversed.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I was rather puzzled by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. Academic standards in the United States of America far exceed those currently achieved in universities in this country. I believe that the first book published net was Alfred Marshall's Principles of Economics, but will the noble Lord tell the House what there is about books that makes it appropriate for them to be published net whereas, for example, classical records and tapes are not subject to the same constraints? Other than a suggestion of a conspiracy against the public, what enables them to be singled out in that way?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, there is such an agreement. I believe that the noble Lord will appreciate that in 1962 the Net Book Agreement was considered by the restrictive practices court and at that time considered that it was not against the public interest. At a later stage, in 1989, the Director General of Fair Trading carried out an extensive investigation into the book trade. He concluded that there was an insufficiently strong basis to justify making an application to the court to review its earlier decision. It is a matter for consideration by the courts and, as I have indicated previously, it is not for the Government to intervene in that one commercial area.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that price rigging is hardly a fair account of what happens under the Net Book Agreement? It is entirely a matter for the individual publisher as to whether or not he publishes a book net?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, indeed it is an agreement between both publishers and booksellers. Of course, publishers have a considerable leeway in determining whether or not to take advantage of what is provided for under the agreement.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, may I suggest to the Minister that what makes books unique is authors? That agreement is much in the interests of authors. A round robin survey would show that authors almost universally support the agreement.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am certainly aware that authors, in common with the majority of publishers, believe that the agreement should be maintained. As the noble Lord will gather from the exchanges during the course of our discussions, extremely strong views are held on both sides of the debate.

Air Traffic Control: Flight Delays
3.40 p.m.
Lord Desai Lord Desai asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take to avoid or reduce delays, and the inconvenience caused to passengers, in flights to and from the United Kingdom during the remaining peak periods of 1992.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the National Air Traffic Services is taking a number of measures to reduce delays this summer, including the opening of new routes, additional air traffic control services and greater flexibility in the management of air traffic.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, does he agree that the nub of the problem lies with ground control, which is currently inefficient and devoid of contact with other ground controls in other airports? Would it not be better to improve ground control both here and elsewhere?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is exactly what is happening.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one particularly common problem is that of poor industrial relations in certain other European countries? Is that not a good reason for pursuing our policy of harmonisation and integration of air traffic control systems rather than opting for a unified system, which some people propose?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. Harmonisation and integration is a far better method than trying to utilise one unified system. When one looks at the list of countries where industrial relations have led to air traffic delays one

1267
sees Italy, Bulgaria, France, Spain, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Sweden, Norway, Greece and various others.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister indicate whether he agrees with or dissents from the proposition made by the International Air Transport Association which predicted that the situation in Europe—not excluding this country—will be worse than in previous years? Does he not feel that the need for co-operation in that area needs to be maximised far more than is happening at the present time in order to eliminate as rapidly as possible the disparate and often conflicting systems that affect air traffic control in Europe?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is probably true to say that as far as we can forecast air traffic delays will be worse this summer. That is why we are pressing forward not only with the modernisation of our own system in this country, but also endeavouring to persuade other European countries to harmonise, integrate and update their systems.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend make sure that the French Government are aware of the considerable loss and dislocation which the failures of their air traffic control systems impose particularly on British airlines?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it would be wrong to single out one specific country. There are problems throughout Europe, not least in Yugoslavia.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that ground traffic control is rather lacking in France as well?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am told that recently there has been a dramatic improvement.

Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament
3.43 p.m
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will extend their policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament from surface ships to all remaining nuclear weapons under their control.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, for as long as nuclear weapons remain essential to our security the Government will maintain their policy of deploying adequate and effective nuclear forces.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that at one time it was thought that to provide all surface ships with nuclear weapons was essential to our security? His right honourable friend the Secretary of State is the first Defence Minister to carry out the important step of unilateral nuclear disarmament. I warmly congratulate him.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be pleased to hear that.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that on these Benches we have always maintained that so long as other countries possess nuclear weapons, so should we? Will he confirm the indication in yesterday's defence White Paper that the Government followed the advice given from these Benches and abandoned their proposals for a new surface-to-air nuclear missile system?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, reads the White Paper to which he referred, he will find that no such commitment has been made.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that it was suggested that the decision to withdraw the Royal Navy's nuclear depth charges and free-fall bombs from Royal Navy planes derives not only from an awareness of a change in the national situation, but also from suspicions and anxieties in regard to the safety of those weapons? Can the noble Viscount confirm or deny those rumours?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I cannot do either. I have no knowledge of such a proposal.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that I am proposing to send his right honourable friend, Malcolm Rifkind, a CND badge as a mark of my appreciation for the action he has taken? Will the Minister commend the policy to Her Majesty's Opposition?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Government are not unilateralist. The unilateralists argued, when NATO was faced with a strong, cohesive and ideological Warsaw Pact, that we should give up our nuclear weapons. The Government's policy has always been to maintain the minimum deterrent required for our security needs. With the demise of the Warsaw Pact we have reduced our sub-strategic stockpile by more than 50 per cent., but nuclear forces will remain essential for our security.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is it not correct to remember that although we all abhor these terrible weapons they have been forced upon us? At all times we should remember the great speech of Ernest Bevin when he created the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in the interests of freedom and safety, and in an endeavour to guarantee that freedom and safety to all those who may be threatened.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments.

Nuclear Weapons: Policy
3.46 p.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are proposing to increase Britain's strategic and sub-strategic nuclear capability.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Government remain committed to retain the minimum nuclear capability necessary for credible and effective deterrence.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the defence White Paper plainly indicates that in the mid-1990s the Government are planning to have an overall nuclear fire power system well in excess of anything previously possessed? Is he aware also of the warnings in the White Paper in regard to the dangers of nuclear proliferation? How ale those two points to be reconciled? What events in the world have caused a considerable increase in our planned nuclear fire power?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is well aware that technical advances in anti-ballistic missile systems require us substantially to update the Polaris system through its replacement by Trident. If the noble Lord reads into the figures an increase in nuclear capacity, that increase is to fulfil that requirement.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend remind those who seek to disarm this country that it was only the strength and resolution of this country a few years ago that produced the free Europe we see today?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, my noble friend is correct.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that those of us who took part in the proceedings a few years ago, do not believe in yesterday? Is it not the case that today no technological increase has been made in ABM systems? Against whose ABM system is our increased technology directed? Is it directed at the Soviet Union our fellow members of NATO? Why do we need vastly increased expenditure in that regard when there is no effective enemy against whom to direct such capacity?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Trident system will need to be in operation for 30 years. We must plan ahead in these matters.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that nuclear proliferation in the long term is almost completely unavoidable? We must therefore be prepared to defend ourselves against possible attack from any direction.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, my noble friend is totally correct in his observations.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in relation to the independence of the nuclear weapons we possess, how far is it possible for Britain to target and re-target them without the assistance of United States technology and, more importantly, its satellites?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, that question falls into two parts. First, it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to comment on targeting. Secondly, the status of Trident is that of a treaty which is lodged with the United Nations. I am sure that this House would not like to give any impression that we call into question the integrity of the United States Government in carrying out treaty obligations.
Lord Wedgwood: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that our nuclear deterrent should be credible, comprehensive and cohesive and that the current plans are therefore vital?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, my noble friend is totally correct. That is the policy being pursued by Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Rea: My Lords, in answer to his noble friend the Minister implied that he agreed that nuclear proliferation is inevitable. In that case can the Minister say why the Government support the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend was referring to the fact that with the break-up of the Soviet Union large quantities of arms could well fall into the hands of what may in future be far from stable regimes.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether his answer to me implies that Britain would never use its nuclear weapons without the United States being in favour of their use?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the use of nuclear weapons is a matter for determination by Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there is a hint in the defence White Paper that Trident might be used in future in a sub-strategic rather than a strategic role? Can he say what implication that has for the tactical air-to-surface missile? Will the noble Viscount let the House know when the Government are going to carry out the pledge given by the former Secretary of State for Defence to publish an unclassified version of the nuclear weapons' safety report?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, as yet I cannot give an answer to the second part of the noble Lord's question. I shall see what information I can gather on the matter. Will the noble Lord be good enough to repeat the first part of the question?
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Viscount may recall that the first part of my question was about the sub-strategic role of Trident. Hitherto, we have been told that Trident is a strategic nuclear deterrent. My understanding from the defence White Paper is that the Government now envisage the possibility of Trident being used in a sub-strategic role. What effect would that have on the tactical air-to-surface missile?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the whole matter of our sub-strategic nuclear requirement is at present under consideration. I do not believe that it would be proper for me to make any observations until the results of the investigations are known.

Business of the House: Debates, 15th July
3.52 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Williams of Elvel set down for 15th July shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Lord Judd set down for the same day to two hours. —(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Procedure Committee Report
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be convenient for your Lordships if I say a word about how the proceedings on the Procedure Committee report might be conducted. After the Motion that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee has been agreed to, the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, should perhaps rise and briefly introduce the report. I suggest that immediately after he has spoken the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Williams of Elvel should be taken. Those noble Lords wishing to make general points about the Procedure Committee's report should perhaps speak after the amendments have been disposed of on a Motion that the report, as amended, be reported to the House and before the report, as amended, is agreed to. I hope that that is a convenient suggestion.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure of the House, with the amendments tabled thereto, be considered this day in Committee of the Whole House.—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Peterhead Harbours Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
3.54 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee upon the first report.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Ampthill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MURTON OF LINDISFARNE in the Chair.]
Following is the report referred to:
COMMITTEE WORK OF THE HOUSE
1. The report of the Committee on the Committee Work of the House was made on 10th February 1992 and debated on 3rd June 1992. The Committee has considered those aspects of the report which are its responsibility. The report's recommendations appear in italics.
Liaison Committee
We see no role for Lords' committees in duplicating the work of select committees in the Commons, and we believe there would he advantage in greater coordination of committee work between the two Houses, whether informally at official level or by occasional discussions between the Commons' Liaison Committee and a Lords' Steering Committee.
We see the need for a continuing oversight of the committee structure, for greater flexibility in that structure and for decisions about priorities to be taken by a committee of the House. We accordingly recommend the appointment of a Steering Committee.
The Committee should allocate resources between select committees; monitor the select committee work of the House; consider requests for ad hoc committees and report to the House with recommendations; ensure effective coordination between committees in the two Houses; and consider the availability of Lords to serve on committees.
2. The Committee accepts the case for a committee to co-ordinate the House's committee work. It should not be the task of such a committee to monitor the work of the various House committees. But it should continue the process of review initiated by the Committee on the Committee Work of the House, and should make recommendations about how the available resources should be distributed within a basic structure of committee activity. It should not interfere in matters which should properly be left to the committees themselves. The name "Steering Committeee" would therefore give a misleading impression of the committee's function. The Committee recommends that the committee should be called the "Liaison Committee".
3. Its terms of reference should be as follows:
"to allocate resources between select committees; to review the select committee work of the House; to consider requests for ad hoc committees and report to the House with recommendations; to ensure effective coordination between the the two Houses; and to consider the availability of Lords to serve on committees."
4. The Committee invites the Committee of Selection to nominate a committee of eight Lords, with the three Leaders and the Convenor of the crossbenchers or their representatives as members. The other four members of the committee should be backbenchers. The Leader should act as Chairman. The Chairman of Committees and the Chairmen of the main sessional and ad hoc committees should be entitled to attend the meetings of the committee and to receive its papers.
Public Bill Committees
We do not recommend an experiment in the comprehensive structure of policy committees put

1273
forward by the Practice and Procedure Committee in 1977. Nonetheless, we recognise that the House faces an ever increasing workload. Much could be achieved by greater self-restraint, the need for which has become apparent, but the time has come for the House to consider a limited amount of legislation off the floor to improve the quality of legislation and save some time on the floor.
It is too early to give a definitive view on the success or otherwise of the Public Bill Committee on the Charities Bill. We recommend that one or two suitable bills should be referred to such committees each session.
5. The Government response to the report of the Committee on the Committee Work of the House agreed that it was desirable to consider a limited number of bills off the floor of the House, provided that suitable bills could be found and that the committees were composed of a balanced selection of peers. The Committee endorses the experimental use of public bill committees when suitable bills are available. The decision on which bills are chosen should remain a matter for the usual channels.
Special Standing Committees
We recommend the experimental use of special standing committee procedure—whereby committees off the floor would be able to take a limited amount of evidence on a bill from interested parties over a specified period before considering it clause by clause. Such committees would initially consider only bills introduced in the Lords, largely devoid of party-political controversy.
This procedure would be well suited to the proposals put forward by the Lord Chancellor to facilitate the introduction of certain legal and technical bills, for example certain bills proposed by the two Law Commissions or those concerning company law, which might not otherwise find a place in the legislative programme.
6. The Committee endorses the proposal for an experiment with special standing committees. Such committees would take written and oral evidence within a period of 28 days after second reading. The committees would be free to organise their own programme within that limit. When the period was completed, the committee would become a public bill committee and would consider the bill clause by clause.
7. The Committee of Selection is invited to ensure that the Government is given a majority over the other political parties, but with the crossbenchers holding the balance.
8. In the Government response to the report, it was suggested that two or three bills might be considered in this way over the next two sessions, with the Committee assessing the results of the experiment after that time. The Committee considers that this would make a very worthwhile experiment.
Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee
We recommend, on an experimental basis, the appointment of a Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee to give closer and more systematic scrutiny to the delegated powers sought in bills. This would be well suited to the revising function of the House, and we believe it could have great potential value.
9. The Committee endorses the establishment of a Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee on an experimental basis. The Committee should consider whether the delegation of powers proposed in a bill is appropriate; and if the delegation is appropriate, whether it should be subject to affirmative resolution, negative resolution, or not be subject to parliamentary proceedings. It would then report, and the House would of course be free to accept or reject its recommendations. The proposed terms of reference of the Committee are as follows:
"to report whether the provisions of any bill inappropriately delegate legislative power; or whether they subject the exercise of legislative power to an inappropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny."
However, the first task of the Committee should be to take evidence with a view to establishing criteria for helping it judge the appropriateness of delegated powers and the degree of parliamentary scrutiny. The Committee should then report to the House before its terms of reference are confirmed. The Committee should not begin to report on legislation until its terms of reference are confirmed in this way.
10. If the proposed terms of reference are confirmed, the Committee should consider bills in the week following their introduction, and should normally seek only a written reply from the Government. This should allow the reports to be available before the committee stage. If for whatever reason the report of the Committee is not ready for the committee stage, the House will be under no obligation to delay proceedings. The Committee should not itself draft amendments. The composition of the Committee is a matter for the Committee of Selection.
11. The experiment should be assessed at the end of this session.
Government Responses
The Committee welcomes the Government's agreement to respond in writing to all reports of the European Communities Committee and to do so within two months of publication. Government responses to the reports of other committees should be made within six months of publication.
12. The Committee welcomes the Government's undertaking to respond to reports of the European Communities Committee, if possible within two months of their publication, and in general to respond to the report of other committees within six months of publication.
Debates on committee reports
We make the following detailed recommendations:-

(i) Debates on major reports should not be held on days when the House meets in the morning.

(ii) Two Wednesdays should be allocated to debates on committee reports at the later stages in a session.

(iii) The usual channels should take greater account of committee reports when selecting subjects for their own debates.

13. The Committee sympathises with the concern of the Committee on the Committee Work of the House that business managers sometimes give insufficient

1275
priority to debates on select committee reports. The rules above should normally be followed, but there will inevitably be circumstances in which it will be in the interests of all to pursue a flexible approach. The Committee agrees with the suggestion that debates on select committee reports could be time limited in certain circumstances. Good committee reports do not always require long debates, and indeed committees should exercise restraint when deciding whether reports require a debate.
14. The Committee supports the linking of debates on committee reports with other debates when appropriate. If such debates are time-limited, the mover of the second motion should be allocated 15 minutes in a debate where the mover has 20 minutes, and at least 10 minutes in debates where the mover has 15 minutes.
Rotation Rule
We recommend that the rotation rule for the European Communities Committee and the Science and Technology Committee be reduced from five sessions to three; and that the rule should be strictly applied.
15. The Committee recommends that the rotation rule should be reduced to four years. This seems to provide the best balance between allowing members to settle in and a proper circulation of members. The rule should be applied strictly. It should therefore apply to all Lords, whether full members or co-opted members, and Lords who are not members should not receive committee papers on a regular basis. Lords will still be free to return to committees and sub-committees after an absence of one session, and to move immediately to another committee or sub-committee. There should be no change to the convention that the rotation rule is waived for Chairmen of sub-committees for up to three years.
Size of Sub-committees
We recommend that the membership of sub-committees should not exceed 12 in number; if members of committees do not attend with some regularity, they should not be re-appointed.
16. There is a danger that large sub-committees can take up a disproportionate amount of the available resources. The Committee endorses a maximum of 12 as the norm for sub-committees, but recognises that this may have to be extended in exceptional circumstances. In particular, there is a case for allowing an extension in the case of members co-opted for a single enquiry. To ensure that the maximum is applied in practice, Lords who are not members of the sub-committee should not receive the papers on a regular basis. Reasonably regular attendance should be regarded as a prerequisite for membership for both full and co-opted members of sub-committees.

EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DIVISIONS
17. The Committee considered a suggestion from the Administration and Works Sub-Committee of the Offices Committee that the time allowed for divisions might have to be extended once Lords occupied the new offices at 7 Millbank. It was decided to defer consideration of the matter until the Autumn.
REFERENCES TO MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
18. In the Committee's 2nd report, 1991–92, the use of the phrases "Right Honourable" and "Honourable" was discouraged. However, the use of the phrases "my Right Honourable Friend" and "Honourable Friend" is a useful form of shorthand when referring to a ministerial or party colleague in the House of Commons, and is to be welcomed.
The Chairman of Committees: I beg to move that the First Report from the Select Committee be now considered.
The Committee will be aware that the report is the latest stage in a long line of deliberation on the House's committee work. It is now well over a year since the House established the Select Committee on the Committee Work of the House under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. The committee's detailed consideration of evidence led to its report last February, which was debated by the House last month. The debate gave an opportunity to the House to consider issues in depth, and the Procedure Committee was able to deliberate with a thorough summary of the debate before it. The Committee will wish to record once again its gratitude to my noble friend and his committee for their work. In particular, I am sure that the Committee would not wish this debate to pass without a tribute to Lord Kearton, who died last week. Not only was Lord Kearton a distinguished member of the Jellicoe Committee, but none of those who have served on the European Communities Committee or the Science and Technology Committee will forget the verve, intelligence and wit he brought to numerous committees as member and as chairman. He will be sorely missed, but warmly remembered.
The Procedure Committee report was restricted to those recommendations of the Jellicoe Committee which fell within its remit. Other recommendations will be considered by the proposed Liaison Committee, by the sub-committee of the Offices Committee and by the Committee of Selection. The Procedure Committee did not therefore consider the recommendations concerning the number of subcommittees of the European Communities Committee and the Science and Technology Committee. Once the Liaison Committee has deliberated, it will report to the House with recommendations concerning the future structure of the committee system in this House. The Committee will be aware that the Committee of Selection recommended that last Session's membership of the two main sessional committees should be extended until 2nd November this year and that this was approved by the House. The possible extension of that date is on the agenda of the Committee of Selection next week, and it may well be that, now that the length of the Summer Recess is known, it would be appropriate to extend the date beyond 2nd November.
The Committee will by now be familiar with the issues raised by the noble Earl and his Committee, and I do not propose to go over the ground again in detail. It will be clear from the report that the Procedure Committee endorsed the great majority of the

1277
recommendations within its remit. The committee decided to stress that the Liaison Committee should not interfere in the running of the various committees, by changing its name and by recommending that it should "review", not "monitor", committee work. The committee also decided to recommend a larger Back Bench representation on the Liaison Committee. In general, however, the committee was happy to follow the strong consensus in the debate that some form of committee should be established to keep the House's committee structure under review.
Over the past few years, the House has experimented in the use of Public Bill Committees on a number of occasions, and the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure are now well known. But the committee was happy to endorse further experimentation if suitable Bills are available. In fact, it is probable that over the next two Sessions, most of the Public Bill Committee activity off the Floor will be linked to the use of special Standing Committees, again on an experimental basis. The Committee will have an opportunity to discuss the use of special Standing Committees without Public Bill Committees when the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, moves his second amendment. In any event, the Procedure Committee looked forward to the use of this procedure, which should allow some of the strengths of Select Committee consideration to be brought to bear on the House's consideration of legislation, with a potential saving of time on the Floor of the House as well.
The final experiment recommended by the Procedure Committee is the establishment of a delegated powers scrutiny committee. This proposal received a warm welcome in the debate. The Procedure Committee recommended that the scrutiny committee should be set up very much on the lines outlined by the noble Earl's committee, although we do suggest that the committee should begin by taking evidence with a view to establishing the criteria to help it judge the appropriateness of delegated powers. If the committee is successful, it should bring an important new dimension to the scrutiny role of this House and take some of the discussions on these matters off the Floor of the House. Another advantage of the committee as laid out in the Jellicoe report is that it will not cause any delay to the legislative programme.
The remainder of the Procedure Committee report deals with government responses, debates on committee reports, the rotation rule and the size of sub-committees. The committee will be discussing some of these issues in the context of the amendments. The aim of the Procedure Committee in these paragraphs was to balance the needs of the committees with the needs of the House as a whole, and we followed in general the lead provided by the debate last month. I commend the Motion to the Committee.
Moved, That the first report from the Select Committee be now considered.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
4 p.m.
Lord Shepherd Lord Shepherd moved Amendment No. 1:
Paragraph 3, line 2, after ("to") insert ("advise the House on the resources required for select committee work and to").
The noble Lord said: At the outset, perhaps I may echo the tribute that the Chairman of Committees paid to the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, whose death this week we all very much regret. In every respect, he was a noble man and he was a very faithful and diligent servant of this House.
When we had the debate on the report of the Jellicoe Committee, some strong criticisms were made of, in the main, the detail of the report. However, there was broad and warm support for the general thrust of the report and for the development of new committee structures in this House. It seems to me that we have come a long way since that debate. I should like to pay a particular tribute to the Government for their written response. I thought that it bore the hallmark—if I may use that word—of the noble Lord, the Leader of the House. It was conciliatory and understanding about the general spirit of the debate. The Procedure Committee has also taken particular note of what was said in the debate. Apart from one or two matters of detail, I hope that the House will give its warm support to the report.
I should like first to say a few words about paragraph 2. I think that the words that the noble Lord referred to will ensure the integrity and the independence of the committees, about which there was some doubt—perhaps mistakenly—in the Jellicoe Report. Paragraph 4 deals with the enlargement of the Liaison Committee, with the number of Back Benchers increasing from two to four. I hope that, when the Select Committee considers who those four should be, it will ensure that they represent the broad church of this House. They should feel free to put forward their own views within the Liaison Committee—perhaps to balance the special interests of the usual channels. They are much maligned, but there is always suspicion that their interests sometimes come through rather prominently.
I particularly support the recommendation that the noble Lord the Leader of the House should become the chairman of the committee. I assume that the Liaison Committee will report to the House and that notice will be given about the proposed meetings so that, if they wish to make representations to the committee, perhaps in terms of subjects that are suitable for ad hoc inquiries, Members will have had notice and can make their submissions at the right time.
During our consideration of the Jellicoe Report, the main anxiety was the apparent acceptance of the view that, in order to fund the new committees, it would be necessary to restrict the budget of the European Communities Committee. It was suggested in the report that the committees should be reduced in size and that they should be fewer in number. There was a general feeling that sacrifices were to be made there in order that the new enterprise could take place. From my own experience, I would say that the resources of the present committee are fully stretched. It is inconceivable that the present workload can be

1279
carried out in its present form and with its present thoroughness with any reduction in the scale of resources or Members' contributions.
It is difficult to see what developments will take place in the future. We hear a great deal about subsidiarity, to which the Government attach great importance. It may well be that Parliament—the two Houses—will need to have a watching brief over the way in which subsidiarity is applied, not only in this country but throughout the Community. The role of this committee is not to oversee the United Kingdom; it has been established in an effort to oversee the development in, and the acceptance by, other countries of the regulations and enactments of the Community. It therefore has a wide responsibility. My personal view is that there can be no diminution in its workload or reduction in its resources.
Paragraph 2 of the First Report of the Procedure Committee states:
"should make recommendations about how the available resources should be distributed within a basic structure of committee activity".
However, when one looks at the terms of reference, one sees that there is no mention of resources in the case of information to be provided to the House. At some stage, the committee will have to come to the House for approval for its recommendations and, unless one has the information about what resources are required for the committees to be able to perform their duties and can compare that with the resources that have been made available, it will be difficult to make a judgment about whether one should proceed further in other committees until more resources have been made available.
I feel strongly that the resources of the European Communities Committee should be retained. I hope that at some stage the noble Lord the Leader of the House can give us some indication of his thinking in this respect, because I believe that this is still a great anxiety in the committees and throughout the House. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before the Leader of the House responds, perhaps I may support my noble friend's concerns, which were echoed in the debate on the Jellicoe Report and found resonance in the Procedure Committee. Although I emphasise that this is not a party matter but a matter for the House, the difficulty is that a number of my noble friends are worried that there may be a diminution of resources for the Select Committee work of the House or, as my noble friend Lord Shepherd said, that extra Select Committee work in the House may be undertaken at the expense of other committee work. It is in that spirit that my noble friend moved his amendment. We look forward to the response of the Leader of the House.
Lord Wakeham: It may be helpful if I say a word or two at this stage. I certainly recognise the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in moving the amendment. Both in my speech in the debate on the report of the Jellicoe Committee and in the Government's response, we have taken pains to emphasise that the reforms which the Procedure Committee is recommending will not be frustrated for lack of resources. As I see it, it will be one of the prime
1280
functions of the Liaison Committee to determine what resources might be required to enable the wishes of the House to be met. This may well involve an increase in the current level of resources allocated to committee work in the House. Indeed it is my expectation that the budget for committee work will need to increase as a result of the Jellicoe reforms, but I hope not too alarmingly or too quickly.
As I said in my speech in the debate on the Jellicoe Report, the main limiting factor to the expansion of committee work in the House will not be resources in terms of money or staff but the availability of Members of your Lordships' House willing to serve on committees. This is a matter which the Liaison Committee will need to consider most carefully. While it would clearly be right for the Liaison Committee to bear in mind the financial and other resource implications of new demands for committee activity, it is therefore certainly not the case that the committee will be able to use the non-availability of Clerks or other resources as a reason for denying the House its wishes. I am therefore quite happy to accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.
The Chairman of Committees: As the Lord Privy Seal has said, there is no great objection to this proposal. I am not entirely convinced of the necessity of the amendment but I have no objection to its substance.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I very much support the ideas put forward by my noble friends Lord Shepherd and Lord Williams of Elvel. I speak particularly of the European Communities Committee. The work of the European Communities Committee will inevitably increase as the months and years pass. We have experience already of an almost unending cascade of proposals of one kind or another or of draft regulations emanating from the Commission and from the Council which require some urgent review and some urgent examination before the Government themselves may be advised by Parliament as to what action may be recommended to them.
It is not always safe, particularly under current circumstances, that an undue burden should be placed on the Government to arrive at decisions unaided in these matters. Most Ministers of the Crown have considerable departmental responsibilities which occupy most of their time. They must place heavy reliance on their civil servants to be advised as to what action they might think fit to take. Indeed it is common knowledge—I speak, I think, within the recollection of most of us—that Ministers on ministerial Councils such as ECOFIN—I can name many more—are very often completely unaware of the decisions that they are required to make until they are on the aeroplane on the way to the Council meeting and are provided with the papers. Many of them have not had an adequate examination of the papers before they are invited to make decisions. Indeed most of them—if my information is correct: I have no reason to assume otherwise—are made by COREPER in collaboration with the Commission itself.

1281
I make no complaint about that, but the role of Parliament, and in particular of this House, in making its views known after due examination of the facts and in making its own views known to the Government is of crucial importance to the successful functioning of the United Kingdom within the European Community and, in the case of this House, to the fulfilment of its traditional role of revising and very carefully examining legislation that comes before it.
I am glad that the noble Lord the Leader of the House appeared to give some support to the idea that the committee's resources might even be increased in years to come. I most certainly welcome that. There is of course always the necessity for conserving public expenditure and reducing it to all proper limits. But in order to give an example perhaps I may say this. If a Select Committee of this House or even of another place cares to examine the preliminary draft budget of the Community for the year 1993, it could find economies there in wholly unnecessary and extravagant expenditure which if taken up by the Government at Community level would result in far greater savings to the Exchequer than any increased costs by reason of any extra expenditure on the activities of the European Communities Committee.
Therefore I hope that the Government will take note of this point. The fact that the new Steering Committee will contain a number of Back Benchers —possibly an increased number—will enable the Steering Committee to keep its finger on the pulse and will enable it to inform the House. I sincerely hope that the Committee will accept the amendment put forward by my noble friend.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may make a brief intervention to support the important suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. The noble Lord suggested that some system might be devised by which a list of proposals to set up Select Committees could be published and made open to comment by noble Lords before the decision was taken as to which committees were set up. In the past all this has been wrapped in the esoteric mists of—
Lord Renton: The usual channels.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I thank my noble friend very much. I need say no more.
Lord Flowers: Perhaps I may—
Lord Shepherd: I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House—
Lord Flowers: Perhaps I may briefly thank the Procedure Committee for going so far towards meeting the criticisms I have of some of the details of the otherwise excellent Jellicoe Report. What now remains is something which in general I am happy to support. So far as concerns the amendment, however, perhaps I may remind the Committee that I was not in favour of a Steering Committee. That proposal has now been changed and we are to have a Liaison Committee with somewhat weaker powers. I am not
1282
very much in favour of that but I certainly do not intend to oppose it. But if we have it, it is essential that it should look at the total resources required for committee work. Someone has to do that. If there is to be a Liaison Committee, surely that must do it. Therefore I shall support the amendment.
Lord Shepherd: I apologise to the noble Lord. Not only do we have to keep our eyes open for the usual channels but we have also to look for the Chairman at the Table.
I should like to say a word of thanks to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for the way in which he has responded to the amendment. It will lift a considerable cloud of uncertainty. I accept all that he has said in the spirit in which he said it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Shepherd Lord Shepherd moved Amendment No. 2:
Paragraph 6, line 4, after first ("would") insert ("usually") and leave out ("and would") and insert ("to").
The noble Lord said: I warmly supported the recommendations of the Jellicoe Committee for setting up a special Standing Committee if only, in the first instance, in an experimental form. It had very much the indications that we had when we considered the 1977 report on practice and procedure. At that time, this Chamber was not very happy about it. However, now, with the passing of time, we have changed our minds. I think that 28 days is quite satisfactory. However, I presume that the setting up of the committees and the invitations for evidence could be arranged prior to the Second Reading; in other words, we could get the maximum use of the 28 days between Second Reading and the Committee stage.
My anxiety in regard to the report relates to the inflexibility. Here we have the recommendation that a Standing Committee, having taken evidence, should inflexibly become a Public Bill Committee. It could be that in the taking of evidence it becomes clear that the Bill is not quite what it was thought to be. Therefore, there may then be a need for the Bill to be taken on the Floor of the House. As drafted, the report has that lack of flexibility, which I should like to see improved.
Moreover, the Government may well introduce a Bill which is of such importance that it would automatically be for consideration on the Floor of the House. However, it may be a Bill of such a nature whereby evidence might be of advantage to the House in Committee. Therefore, as now drafted, without that flexibility, we can do neither of those two things. I believe that there are advantages in having some flexibility in the matter. I hope that my proposal will be considered. I beg to move.
Lord Wakeham: I fully understand the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that during this experimental phase the way in which a special Standing Committee might operate should be left with some degree of flexibility. I am grateful to him for what he said about my response to the previous amendment. This time I shall try a different response, but I hope that the noble Lord will also think that it is helpful. Nevertheless, it is not the same response.
It appears to me that the noble Lord's amendment is not really necessary. I can certainly give Members of

1283
the Committee an assurance that, if it appeared after the evidence-taking process had been completed that a Bill which had been committed to a special Standing Committee would be dealt with more appropriately in a Committee of the Whole House rather than upstairs in a Public Bill Committee, the Government would certainly negotiate through the usual channels as to the best way to proceed. In such circumstances—which I have to say I do not actually envisage occurring—the Government would no doubt put down a Motion discharging the Order of Commitment of the Bill to a special Standing Committee and recommitting the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House.
If noble Lords opposite feel that a Bill is inappropriate for the Public Bill procedure I have no doubt that similar arrangements would be made. In general, I believe that such issues are best left to the usual channels rather than to the discretion of the special Standing Committee itself. I hope that what I have said will reassure the noble Lord. I recognise the fact that we need flexibility and I give him those assurances. On that basis, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am bound to say that I am startled by the response just given by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. It seems to me that the report of the Procedure Committee says the opposite of what he has just said. It states quite clearly that, when the Bill is completed, the Committee will become a Public Bill Committee and consider the Bill clause by clause. The noble Lord has now said something quite different.
I suppose it was inevitable that the bulk of the consideration in the Chamber of the Jellicoe Report would have been about the Select Committee procedures, because so many noble Lords give distinguished service on those committees. But, personally, I feel much more strongly about the need to improve the consideration of public legislation by this House on the Floor of the House. For that reason, when the debate took place, I emphasised my support for the special Standing Committee procedure and for a delegated powers scrutiny committee. It seemed to me that both of those innovations would improve the possibility of the House as a whole considering legislation in Committee and on Report in an intelligent and well-informed way, without unnecessary delay and without in any way deliberately slowing down the process of legislation.
When I read the Procedure Committee's report it seemed to me that the suggestion that a special Standing Committee would in due course become a Public Bill Committee was merely a mistake in drafting, because the two issues are separate. When we are considering Public Bill Committees—yes, by all means we must take account of the success of the Charities Bill—we should continue to seek Bills which are not controversial and yet which may be complex enough to go into Public Bill Committees.
But that is not the purpose in any way of the special Standing Committees. As I understand them, the special Standing Committees are intended to ensure that the House, through a special committee, has an
1284
opportunity to invite witnesses and to give consideration before going into the formal and sometimes adversarial proceedings of Committee, Report and Third Reading. I cannot for the life of me see how the two are connected. Moreover, I cannot for the life of me see how my noble friend Lord Shepherd is wrong to suggest that the connection should, at the very least, be weakened. I should have thought that it should be taken away altogether.
I do not know what my noble friend intends to do. I know that he will pay great attention to the assurances sincerely given by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. However, I do not think that the noble Lord was adequately reflecting what the report of the Procedure Committee actually says. I support the amendment.
Lord Renton: I should have thought that we could quite well try to get the best of both worlds on this matter. There are some Bills which would need to go to a special Standing Committee so that evidence can be taken. But surely we need not be narrow minded and assume that all such Bills should then be considered further by the special Standing Committee. Of course, some of them should continue to be considered by that committee, but there are other Bills of such wide interest and public importance that they should, as my noble friend the Leader of the House said, be brought to the Floor of the House.
Of course, we are now approving and amending a report of a Select Committee. If I may say so, it is a very good report and, in passing, I should like to congratulate the Chairman of Committees on having presided for the first time over the Procedure Committee with such excellent results. But surely the Rules of the House will eventually have to be amended in order to comply with what we decide today should be the ultimate terms of that Select Committee. When the Rules of the House are amended, could we not achieve the flexibility mentioned by my noble friend the Leader of the House and make it possible, as I said, for us to have the best of both worlds?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The objection of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is not readily understood against the assurance given by my noble friend the Leader of the House. It is an assurance as to the implementation of a report. Surely that is good enough. Be it so, if later it be embodied in the Rules of the House. We are the masters of our own procedure. Surely an assurance from my noble friend the Leader of the House is totally satisfactory.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway: the House is master of its procedures. I listened with care and interest to the Leader of the House. I understand the point he makes. My only anxiety is whether the usual channels are a sufficient mechanism for picking up opinions in all quarters of the House. If we were to adopt the proposals of the Leader of the House, we might need to improve the procedures for input into the usual channels from the Cross Benches.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I support the report's recommendations as they stand. I am strongly in favour of using Standing Committees to deal with complex matters which are not controversial in a party sense but which involve a great deal of intricate detail which is more suitable to discussion rather than debate. It is discussion we want where a Bill affects different people differently. We get that in a Standing Committee but not on the Floor of the House. When a Committee stage is on the Floor of the House the attendance is often no better than in a Standing Committee. Also we are yards and yards apart and often inaudible to one another when we are trying to solve an intricate problem. It is better done in a Standing Committee.
The proposal is a novelty in two senses. In my time there have been only two Standing Committees dealing with Bills. I served on one of them. I was greatly impressed by the zealous attendance, application to the task in hand and willingness to reach a settlement on difficult matters. The one thing we did not have, which is mentioned in the report, was the opportunity to consider evidence from interested parties—in writing or orally—before we embarked upon deciding, as a Public Bill Committee, what shape the Bill should take.
I wish the other place had done that years and years ago. Standing Committees in another place are deprived of the opportunity of going deeper into the Bill. They are fully exposed to the mischief of lobbies. When a Standing Committee starts in the other place there are a great many lobbies. Representations are made. The public accommodation is crowded. There are queues outside. Everyone is trying to get in to listen to what the Standing Committee is doing. But it is evidence, not pressure, that we want. There is far too much pressure. Here we have an opportunity to listen to evidence.
I am in favour of having a time limit on that procedure. This place is a self-indulgent Chamber. There is no doubt about that. We have no constituents to drive us but, by God, the demon of our congenital make-up drives us on. I am as big a culprit as anyone in the House. It is a good idea to have some discipline on the hearing of evidence, and 28 days is long enough. After all, as my noble friend said, the Bill has already been through this place on Second Reading. Taking evidence will enable us to get a little closer to some of the difficulties of the Bill. I am all in favour of that.
If the Standing Committee gets into difficulties and wants to hear a great deal more evidence, it has only to come back to this place to ask for it and it will obtain it. I do not like the word "usually" because there is no "usually" about it. Each case can be looked at on its merits. However we want unrestricted time to operate as a Public Bill Committee. We do not want too much time but, on the other hand, we do not want to be tied down.
I commend the report in that respect. I ask the Committee to bear in mind as a matter of pride that we went into the Charities Bill Committee with the product of four years' study of the complexities of charity law. We produced a Bill that not only passed
1286
through this place with little difficulty in the end but one which when it went to the other place passed through without debate. Has that ever been heard of —a Charities Bill which took four years to gestate but which went through the other place without debate? The other place knew very well that it could not make a better job of it than we had. We did that in Standing Committee in less than three weeks. I should like to see more Bills go to Standing Committee. There is great pleasure to be obtained from tackling the different problems contained in Bills in an atmosphere of discussion and application. That is the most rewarding part of the work in this place, and I support the Procedure Committee's recommendations. It has done a jolly good job. When this issue has been back to it and it has reconsidered it and put forward its final recommendations, we should accept what it says.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I apologise for speaking again, but we are all on the same side in regard to the substantive issues. We are all in favour of Special Standing Committees. We are all in favour of Public Bill Committees on certain occasions; and yet I believe that we are all in favour of major legislation coming through this place being taken on the Floor of the House. Our difficulty is that the wording of the report is unambiguous. It says that it would become a Public Bill Committee. The assurances given by the Leader of the House are in direct contradiction to what the report says. That is the difficulty. It will have to be resolved somehow—either by the Leader of the House or by the House.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: What the Leader of the House has said is entirely reasonable. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. The Leader of the House has given us every undertaking necessary. There must be general agreement before a Bill goes through the proposed procedure in any event. If there is widespread opposition to the procedure being used, the Bill will not go to the Special Standing Committee. In short, we have received every undertaking we could reasonably ask for.
The Chairman of Committees: Perhaps I may first thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his kind remarks about the report. There is a possibility that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may have misunderstood what a Special Standing Committee is. It is not a Select Committee. It is a hybrid of a Select Committee and a Public Bill Committee. The Leader of the House has dealt with the matter on the basis upon which the recommendation was made by the Jellicoe Committee and discussed by the Procedure Committee. It is therefore possible that the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord McIntosh, have somewhat moved the goalposts. In the light of what the Leader of the House has said, and bearing in mind that this is an experiment, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will feel inclined to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Shepherd: I am in some difficulty. I accept the assurances given by the Leader of the House. I also take the view that the contribution of the noble Lord,

1287
Lord Renton, was helpful because in the end the report is a report. It must be translated into the Rules of the House. There are others of my noble friends who feel strongly. In the light of the assurances, and taking into account the flexibility that has been shown over recent weeks, especially by the Leader of the House—there has been a good deal of activity in the various Corridors—if we were to leave the recommendation as it is something good might be achieved through taking that course. If we still have anxieties when the Rules come to the House, that might be the moment to test the will of the House. That is me going back to the days when I sat on the Front Bench opposite doing the same job as the Leader of the House: trying to find a way through a difficulty.
It is also clear that when I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, it is entirely up to the Committee to disagree. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Shepherd Lord Shepherd moved Amendment No. 3:
Paragraph 12, line 3, at end insert ("Debates should not normally take place before the Government response is published, unless the committee which made the report wishes otherwise.").
The noble Lord said: The Jellicoe Committee took on board the anxieties that had been expressed about how departments had responded to reports and correspondence. I remember making a rather severe speech in the House 18 months ago. I have been assured in every quarter that since then there has been a most welcome and marked improvement in the way in which departments respond to reports and correspondence. We also have the assurance of the noble Lord the Leader of the House through the government response.
The purpose of my amendment is to suggest that debates on reports of our committees should at best be taken after a reply has been received from the Government. Most of our experience where we have had a debate with no response is that it has not been a good debate. However, when there has been a response, we have had a good debate which has been useful to all sides of the House.
Therefore, I suggest that usually the debate should not take place until a reply has been received from the Government. That would be helpful and would still permit, if matters were urgent, the committee to proceed without a reply. This is a small technical amendment and I do not believe that it raises any controversy. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wonder about this. It is easier for the Back Benches to debate a matter before the Government have made their response. Speaking for myself, I have found on more than one occasion that it is easier to have an objective debate before one knows the Government's response. So, with the greatest respect, as one member of the Back Benches I oppose the amendment.
Lord Renton: I support my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. It seems to me that once a government report is published, the Government's position is likely to be maintained. They are reluctant to change their minds.
Lord Flowers: All that I intended to say has been said. The requirements of the European committees, for example, may be one matter; the requirements of the Science and Technology Committee are perhaps another. It is very much our view that when we have produced a report, we should present it to the House, have it debated and see whether it has substantial support. If it has, that will naturally influence the Government whenever they come to their formal response.
It could be argued that in those circumstances the Government's immediate response to the debate is rather wishy-washy because they have not yet thought about it very much. But at least we have started the procedure of getting them to consider their response. Thus, we believe that the balance of advantage lies in debate as early as possible. For that reason I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Wakeham: I am on the side of flexibility. I therefore commend the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to the Committee. I am sure that it would be generally for the convenience of the House not to debate Select Committee reports until the Government's response is available in writing, unless, for whatever reason, the committee considers otherwise. Then the debate could precede the response. It seems to me that we have the best of both worlds: I suggest to the Committee that we should grab it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 4:
Leave out paragraph 15 and insert:
("15. The Committee recommends that the rotation rule should be reduced to four sessions. This seems to provide the best balance between allowing members to settle in and a proper circulation of members. The rule applies only to membership of a particular committee or sub-committee. Thus Lords rotated off a committee or sub-committee may move immediately to another committee or sub-committee. They may also return to the same committee or sub-committee after an absence of one session. However, within these limits, the rule should be applied strictly. It should apply to all Lords, including those who have switched between being co-opted members and full members. Lords who are not members should not receive committee papers on a regular basis. The only exception to the rule that no Lord should serve on any one committee or sub-committee for more than four sessions should be that chairmen of sub-committees should still be allowed exemption from the rotation rule for up to three sessions.")
The noble Lord said: The origin of this rather lengthy amendment is paragraph 15 of the Procedure Committee's report. When my noble friends and I met to discuss the paragraph, it did not seem to any of us easily comprehensible. I was therefore asked what I thought it meant and others of my noble friends gave their version. As a result, I took advice on an appropriate amendment to make paragraph 15 comprehensible to everyone without changing its substance. I hope very much that the amendment I put before the Committee achieves that task.
I emphasise again that the amendment does not attempt to change any of the conclusions of the Procedure Committee. As a member of that committee I feel that it would be improper to try to

1289
move any change of substance on the Floor of the House. This is purely a drafting proposal to make matters more comprehensible. I hope that the Committee will feel able to accept the amendment.
Lord Shepherd Lord Shepherd moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 5:
Line 1, leave out ("be reduced to four") and insert ("remain at five").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 5 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 6. I apologise for detaining the Committee but the vexed question of rotation is an important issue. The Jellicoe Committee recommended a three-year period. I believe that all those who have had any experience of the committees came to the conclusion that three years was too short a time. Some people, like myself, would have stood by the present level of five years, but if there is a consensus on four years, then I would quite happily agree to it.
However, I say to the noble Lord the Leader of the House that the rotation rule needs to have regard to the effect on representation, particularly in subcommittees. We need representation on them from the political parties, the Cross-Benches and the broad church of the House. If the rotation period is too short, it is possible that we may not be able to achieve that degree of cover.
Will four years prove satisfactory? I have a feeling—and advice has been given to me in a number of quarters—that four years will create difficulty in some committees to some parties or to the independents. At the moment, it is not clear how the proposal will work from one committee to another. I believe that the rotation rule must have regard to how proper representation can be achieved on committees.
If the Committee reaches a consensus on four years, I ask the Leader of the House whether a study can be undertaken by the Liaison Committee on how it will apply to all committees of your Lordships' House. By that I mean also sub-committees. If there are difficulties or problems with representation, then, as we said earlier in regard to the report, whether or not there is the means, it must still be implemented. If there are difficulties, then perhaps a liaison committee could find a way of extending the period for some members beyond the rotation period, if only to provide proper representation in the committee.
My last point arises from the rotation problem and its effect upon the European Communities Committee. The Leader of the House will know that when we came back after the election to the debate on the Jellicoe Report, it was decided that the European Communities Committee should have its life extended until about the beginning of November. If the Liaison Committee is set up, it has to consider the matter and submit a report to the Chamber. That report then has to be considered and committees have to be appointed and installed with a new workload. Therefore it seems to me unlikely that these committees will be operating much before the middle of November at best. They may not have reached their maximum efficiency until December.
I am advocating that the European Communities
1290
Select Committee should continue in its present form, as it was appointed in the previous Session and as it was extended until November, until the end of December. This country, through the Government, is the president of the Community. It is a period of great interest for those in Parliament and the people of our country. It would seem strange to have committees in a degree of limbo, unable to get to grips with what is being proposed by the Commission or with what may be emanating from the Council of Ministers.
Ministers have treated us extraordinarily well. They have recognised the worth of reports that have been produced. Ministers have undertaken not to proceed to a Council meeting unless the proposal of the Commission that is to be considered that day has been cleared, or a report has been provided. These committees need to be operating fully and efficiently during this time. I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House to consider the extension—I believe the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees was hinting at that, although I do not think he intended to go as far as I would wish—until the end of the year. The new committees, when they are restructured by the Liaison Committee, could start on 1st January. I believe that to be the right date in the circumstances. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees: It might be for the convenience of the Committee to regard Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 as though they were grouped.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I hope I may say a few brief words in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on rotation. I do not wish to take further the discussion on party representation, but I wish to consider the pragmatic approach, particularly in connection with the European Communities Select Committee. It has proved sometimes to be somewhat difficult to man some of the sub-committees, particularly when a requirement arises to form an ad hoc committee. Usually the ad hoc committee has to deal with a matter of a fairly serious and non-routine nature. It then becomes difficult to find people to sit on the sub-committee as they may be otherwise committed.
As regards the other committees, it has been my personal experience that it takes a year or so to get into the work of a committee. It has also been my experience that some of the more important matters are of a recurring nature. It would be prudent therefore to ensure some continuity in the case of a matter that may return to a sub-committee by virtue of a further direction or draft from the Commission. That may occur in the fourth or fifth year after the matter was first discussed. I believe that there is a good deal of merit in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I wish to follow the comments of my noble friend Lord Shepherd and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I agree with what I would call the four-year compromise. Indeed, that is stated in my amendment. Nevertheless, there is the problem of how that compromise is to be implemented. What are the practicalities? If there is a guillotine at a certain

1291
point and all new committees are suddenly placed on a four-year rotation as opposed to a five-year rotation period, I believe that my party may be at a certain disadvantage as regards representation. That is the only party point I wish to make. If, on the other hand, there is to be a pragmatic way of phasing the measure in, I do not think we would have any serious worries.
Lord Wakeham: I shall try to deal with Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that his amendment would clarify the situation. It is an extremely long amendment. Years of experience have taught me to treat with some suspicion a long and complicated amendment which is supposed to clarify the situation. However, I agree with the noble Lord in that I believe the amendment clarifies the situation. It does not alter the sense of the report of the Procedure Committee but it clarifies the matter of how the rotation rule will work in practice. I am sure that the Committee will consider it a sensible and helpful amendment. I commend it to the Chamber.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has explained that Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 maintain the status quo as regards the operation of the rotation rule. The Committee will recall that the Jellicoe Committee recommended that the rotation rule should be reduced from five Sessions to three. In the debate on the Jellicoe Committee report the consensus became clear—several Members of the Committee have remarked on it—that a reduction in the rotation rule to four years was appropriate. I believe the thrust of the Jellicoe Committee's argument still holds good. The committee thought that a reduction in the rotation rule would bring new blood into the committees and sub-committees and would enable the work of the committees to become better integrated with that of the Chamber as a whole.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, makes clear that the rotation rule is in itself not a rigorous rule. It does not preclude a Member who is rotated off one committee or sub-committee from joining another committee or sub-committee. Moreover, after one Session in purdah, a member is free to rejoin a committee or sub-committee of his or her choice should a vacancy become available. In the circumstances I wonder whether the Committee would be wise to accept the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.
I understand the concern being expressed by some about how the introduction of a new rotation rule, and indeed the implementation of the Jellicoe reforms themselves, might affect the existing work and membership of the Science and Technology Committee and the European Communities Committee. In respect of the latter, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, there is an obvious sensitivity as regards interrupting the committee's work during the British presidency of the Community.
The questions of how the new rotation rule should be introduced, and when the new committee structure should be implemented, are interlinked. In appointing new committees —I believe that it cannot now happen at the beginning of November, as at one time we
1292
thought, but will have to be deferred, perhaps until the end of November—the Committee of Selection will wish to preserve continuity amid change. I have no doubt that the importance of the need to avoid dislocation of the work of the Select Committees of this Chamber should be at the forefront—indeed it will be at the forefront—of the deliberations of the Committee of Selection. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that this is a matter that the Liaison Committee may well wish to consider to ensure that it is working satisfactorily, is a good one. I certainly agree with that suggestion.
That is how I would proceed. I believe there is a concern, which the noble Lord highlighted and brought to our attention in his amendments, but I think we can deal with the matter without changing the report in the way he suggests.
5 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: Perhaps I may briefly speak again to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 and, of course, the consequential Amendment No. 6. Amendment No. 4 provides a redraft of existing paragraph 15 to explain a little more clearly the detailed working of the rotation rule. The important point to bear in mind is that the rule relates only to a particular sub-committee. The clock starts as soon as a noble Lord joins a sub-committee or committee but membership of any other committee has no bearing on how it works. Thus a member of European Sub-Committee A, who has served for the requisite number of sessions, can immediately move to Sub-Committee B; or if the noble Lord is a diehard supporter of Sub-Committee A the Select Committee would be free to invite him back on Sub-Committee A after one session's absence, if he so wished. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, lays this out in rather greater detail than the original draft and I am perfectly happy to accept it.
As to Amendment No. 5, some of the details of the rotation rule are difficult to understand and the Committee, I think, will agree that the rule, as contained in the report is quite a generous one. It would allow a noble Lord to serve on the different sub-committees of the European Communities Committee for life, without interruption, if so invited. He might serve on the same sub-committee for eight years out of nine. In view of that I thought the modest change suggested by the Procedure Committee was reasonable. The Jellicoe Committee, having received various representations on the subject, supported a figure of three years.
Having assessed the debate, the Procedure Committee concluded that four years, strictly applied, provided the right balance. I still believe that a reasonable turnover of Lords is in the best interest of the committees and of the House as a whole, and I therefore urge that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, should be rejected.
Lord Shepherd: It may be suggested that I should withdraw the amendment rather than invite its rejection. I said at the beginning that we have come a long way: I believe that we have now reached a point

1293
of consensus. It would be wrong therefore to react to the challenge of the Chairman of Committees. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 5, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 4 agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): The Question is, That I do report the First Report from the Procedure Committee to the House with amendments.
Lord Renton: I do not wish to take up too much of your Lordships' time but I should be grateful for an assurance from my noble friend the Leader of the House that there will not be delay in the appointment of the Scrutiny Committee for examining delegated powers. I simply remind your Lordships that the Jellicoe Committee, all who spoke in the debate on the matter, and members of the Procedure Committee are all in favour of the appointment of the Scrutiny Committee. It really is most necessary because of the greatly increased insertion of those powers in Bills in recent years. I hope that we shall have that confirmed.
Lord Thurlow: I should like to say a brief word in relation to the delegated powers scrutiny committee. First, may I express warm appreciation of the very positive attitude taken by the Leader of the House and also by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Originally, there were certain natural reservations on the part of departments. Your Lordships will recall that I visited Australia on behalf of your Lordships to see how a scrutiny committee worked. It took four years for the Government to be persuaded to withdraw their reservations; so I think we owe a debt to the Government for their positive attitude.
As regards the proposal that initially evidence should be taken to establish the criteria which may guide the committee, it will be necessary to work very much on a pragmatic basis. However, it can do nothing but assist the committee to be given evidence on criteria. I hope and believe that any criteria, any formulation, will be fixed in very general terms.
I should like to say a brief word on the appointment of a legal adviser. In the Australian experience, the calibre and the extremely hard work of the legal adviser are regarded on all sides as having played a key part in the influence of its scrutiny committee. I hope very much that every possible effort will be made to find someone with both the qualifications and the commitment—a commitment which will have to be exercised often against a considerable time deadline. I hope it will be possible to find the right kind of person and that your Lordships will not expect too much from the Scrutiny Committee in its early days. There are vast numbers of regulations every year. It would be very much better to have scrutiny in depth of some of the more difficult cases rather than shallow scrutiny over a very wide field.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Regarding paragraph 4 of the committee's report, I should like to echo what was
1294
said by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in moving his first amendment. He talked of a special committee of eight Lords and the necessity of having four Back Benchers of the widest possible representation of your Lordships. Those four people, broadly representing all parties, I imagine, would have to take account of the views of what is on an average sitting day some 270 to 280 Members. That is going to be a fairly responsible task for those four people. We should perhaps invite the Committee of Selection to bear that in mind.
Perhaps the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees can advise me on a further point. I quote from line 5 of paragraph 16:
"Lords who are not members of the sub-committee should not receive the papers on a regular basis."
Most of your Lordships are very responsible people and are not usually very happy collecting paper for paper's sake. Enough of it comes in the ordinary course of events. It seemed perhaps a little unnecessary for the Procedure Committee to draw the attention of noble Lords to this collection of papers. At the same time it may dissuade some noble Lords, who may have a particular interest in, and perhaps a special contribution to make to, the work being done to keep abreast of the developments which are going on in a particular committee, even though he or she may not be a member.
Earl Russell: I too welcome paragraph 9 and the delegated powers scrutiny committee. The Procedure Committee has handled the matter extremely well. It has incorporated the reservations suggested by the Government on 3rd June, which were sensible ones. It has dealt with the problem that we discussed on 3rd June as to whether we should attempt to reach a consensus before setting up the committee or set up the committee and then reach for a consensus. The Procedure Committee's way of squaring the circle on the matter has been very practical: I admire it.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. I hope that the consensus that is looked for will be expressed in general terms. This is an area in which one needs to be able to have a degree of growth in response to cases as they come up. It is an area in which no two cases are quite on all fours with each other. I hope that the consensus which we shall look for and to which I hope to contribute on general principles will allow evolution as we go along in response to cases as they arise.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We want the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on the delegated powers scrutiny committee as well. At least some of us do. However, I do not think it would be proper to let this moment pass without thanking all the members of the Procedure Committee and in particular the noble Lords the Chairman of Committees and the Leader of the House for the way in which they reacted to the report of the Jellicoe Committee.
It seems to me that we have combined protection of resources for the Select Committees of the House—not an open-ended protection; I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord the Leader about that—with an expansion of committee work. We have taken a

1295
step, perhaps only a very small one, toward the improvement of the ability of the Chamber to consider legislation on the Floor of the House. For that we must thank all those who have taken part in the deliberations.
The Chairman of Committees: I am deeply grateful to the whole Committee for the excellent way in which these discussions have been conducted. I am particularly grateful, as noble Lords would expect, and I am sure that I speak also on behalf of the noble Lord the Leader of the House, for the kind words which have been said about the work of the Procedure Committee and of the contribution which the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has made.
We have had a useful discussion. I hope that all noble Lords are as content as they sound with the conclusions reached. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the somewhat abrupt word which I used in connection with his Amendment No. 5. I hope that he will accept that apology from me.
The Committee of Selection meets on Monday next. We shall certainly give consideration to all the points that have been raised which are specifically for that committee. I repeat my thanks to the Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed: First Report from the Procedure Committee reported with amendments.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move that the First Report from the Procedure Committee, as amended, be agreed to.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Finance Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Systematic Biology Research: Select Committee Report
5.14 p.m.
Lord Dainton Lord Dainton rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Systematic Biology Research (1st Report, 1991–92, H.L. Paper 22) and of the contribution of this research to the preservation of biological diversity and to medicine.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there was a moment, when the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was moving his Amendment No. 3 to the proposals of the committee of Lord Jellicoe, when I thought that I might be the last chairman of a Select Committee to introduce a debate before the Government had made their response to the report itself. To that extent I should, as it were, have been the last surviving member of a species about to become extinct. That leads me naturally to the subject of the report, which I want to present to you now.
I suppose that it would not be surprising if there were many like myself in your Lordships' Horse for whom the words "systematic biology" had little significance. Yet many of us can recollect those few
1296
school and college contemporaries who liked nothing better than to collect and mount wild flowers or insects (especially it seemed to me beetles, butterflies and moths) and then proceed to name them according to a binomial system indicating their genus and species. A little later we may have learned how enterprising British mariners, colonial administrators, explorers and others who were curious about natural history gathered living plants and animals and the fossilised remains of extinct species from places near and far from this country, and then lodged the specimens in zoos, botanic gardens or museums, which were sometimes private but more often public. So were created some of the finest and largest collections in the world in places like Kew, Edinburgh and the Natural History Museum at South Kensington.
The intellectual and practical impact of this work has been enormous. The lively imaginations of eminent Victorians such as Darwin, Wallace and Mendel, who attempted to establish relationships involving parentage, form, function and habitat of members of the plant and animal kingdoms, led to the notions of evolution, natural selection and genetic inheritance. Those ideas transformed the way in which humans see themselves in the world and have constituted a major and lasting intellectual and cultural revolution.
Moreover, by providing a basis for the sciences of plant and animal breeding, genetics has transformed agriculture throughout the world and with it raised the standards of living of billions of human beings. It has also enabled the identification of species which carry plant and animal (including human) disease and thereby made possible the control of epidemics as well as the development of disease-resistant strains, or of other remedies to pests.
In the past 40 years there have been two further giant steps forward, in both of which British scientists have played major roles far in excess of what would be expected from such a numerically small population. The first step relates to the identification that advances in molecular biology have provided of the nature and ordering of the chemical components in genetic material, which are later expressed in the form and function of the adult animal or plant. That too is a field pregnant with beneficial possibilities, including the creation of new industries, such as biotechnology, based on genetically engineered organisms in medicine and agriculture. It has even affected, through DNA profiling, our socio-legal system.
There are literally tens of millions of living distinct species, each of which can be uniquely placed in an unambiguous system of biological classification. Given enough time and effort, each individual species and its properties could ultimately be related to a particular kind of genetic material. That mass of information invites the creation of a universal computerised catalogue of living and extinct organisms which could be interrogated by anyone who understands the system. Again—this is my second point—Britain's record in computer software development is significant and could be built upon were that procedure to be followed.
Systematic biology is a crucial part of biology which is poised now for major development through interaction with molecular biology and computer science. The present is a time of great scientific opportunity and systematic biology research, which already has some practical applications, will undoubtedly lead to many more. I must also explain that it is just the time in the world's history when that information is desperately needed.
The facts are that only a small proportion of the world's organisms have been identified. The larger, unidentified residue undoubtedly contains a vast amount of valuable genetic material which humankind will need to draw upon in the future. As the present Governor of Hong Kong eloquently told us in his Natural Environment Research Council annual lecture in 1990, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, the world's existing biodiversity must be recorded and preserved. That is required just when the economic activities of the burgeoning human population constitute the greatest threat to its existence. The Prime Minister's participation with many other heads of state in the Rio de Janeiro Conference last month gives even greater emphasis to that point. I therefore hope that I have convinced your Lordships that research in systematic biology is not only intellectually exciting but is urgently needed. The opportunity for more rapid advance by bringing the classificatory, the molecular biological and the information technological techniques simultaneously to bear has never been greater. Furthermore, Britain's vast specimen collections themselves constitute a very important asset in that enterprise.
The sub-committee whose report we are debating today was set up because the main Select Committee on Science and Technology became aware of some signs that Britain had not played, and is not playing, the part that she ought to play in this great international enterprise which will assuredly bring great benefits to our country and to the rest of the world. Much anecdotal testimony to that effect was brought to our notice. However, we wanted harder evidence. We therefore conducted a detailed quantitative survey of the performers of research in this field. We had a magnificent response from which many conclusions could be drawn. I have time only to highlight a few.
First, we found that in the 10 years of the 1980s the amount of money spent on systematic biological research had diminished during that period, even though government spending on basic research generally had increased in real terms by 28 per cent. Secondly, Britain was not producing researchers in the number and quality she needed so that, to take but one example, the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew has had to recruit staff from overseas. Thirdly, in that 10 year period the proportion of time which on average is devoted to teaching undergraduates systematic biology has halved. Fourthly, the age distribution of the present staff of the universities, compared with 10 years ago, shows that little, if any, new blood has entered the academic systematic biology community. That does not augur well for either intellectual vigour
1298
in research or stimulating teaching. Fifthly, and finally, the great collections which are so vital to progress, many of which are in this country, have not been maintained and exploited to the extent that the times require.
The causes of those and related phenomena are varied. I cannot list them all. Some are structural. Thus, because there are many funding bodies in the field, including several research councils and government departments, it seems to be no one's business to make a regular appraisal of a subject which can so easily fall between the cracks of so many organisations. Moreover, the Department of National Heritage (formerly the Office of Arts and Libraries) has by its own admission no capability for assessing the need or the capacity of its sole institutional pensioner in the field, the Natural History Museum, for work in that field because the main business of the Department of National Heritage lies elsewhere in funding national museums, mainly in the arts and humanities, libraries and galleries. Other quasi-structural causes simply reflect the way in which universities are allocated money from the public purse and then distribute internally their own core funds to activities, taking every care to reflect the way in which those activities can earn external funds from grant and contract-awarding bodies. Systematic biology research is at risk because it is intrinsically a relatively rather cheap subject and does not need much external funding. Therefore, it tends to be accorded a rather low priority with universities in securing support from a university's core funding.
Other causes are what I might call perceptual. Thus, systematic biological research which, as I have explained, ought to exist in a symbiotic relationship with the more glamourous branches of biology such as molecular biology, is in fact in competition for funds with subjects such as behavioural and molecular biology. It loses out because it is rather patronisingly perceived as "comparatively unoriginal". To that extent the biologists' own peer review systems are culpable in not taking a longer and wiser view.
When all is said and done, one thing is certain. Matters cannot be allowed to continue as they are. That way lies disaster and Britain will earn the contempt of those in other nations who know of the contribution that the United Kingdom could make to the resolution of a major world problem of how sustainable world development is to be achieved without irreversible damage to the environment. That is particularly the case when those countries also know that we are not making the contribution which we could make.
In the view of the committee, great progress could be made to remedy the situation at very low cost. We make recommendations in three main areas. First, for research, we recommend the injection of an extra £1 million a year for systematic biology research over a period of five years. It is heartening to see that the Natural Environment Research Council has already proposed important fields of study in which that money could be spent were it to become available. That information is now published in the Krebs Report.
Secondly, for the maintenance of the collections at our great systematics institutions like Kew and the Natural History Museum, we recommend that their core funding should be maintained at current levels in real terms. To assist those collections with research potential outside the grant-in-aided institutions, of which there are quite a number, the Department of National Heritage (the old Office of Arts and Libraries) should set up a rolling programme of £0.5 million a year to which applications for grants might be made. Those of us who visited the United States saw a comparable scheme operating very successfully in that country.
Thirdly, to preserve the subject at the universities and to guarantee an adequate supply of trained British systematists, we recommend that the advisory board for the research councils assesses the demand for qualified systematists and funds MSc courses and quota studentships on those courses accordingly and any other measures which it considers appropriate.
In association with those principal recommendations, we make a number of other suggestions which we hope will be pursued. We thought that to make the best use of our collections and of the expertise currently available, a new forum should be established by the major systematics institutions, whether or not grant-in-aided, to generate some national curatorial policy through discussions on rationalisation of holdings, staff appointments and areas of specialisation. We thought that the National Heritage Department should have access to scientific advice so as better to appraise the funding needs of the Natural History Museum as one of the world's leading institutions in the field of systematics research.
We thought that the Overseas Development Administration, which is a major customer for systematics, could do more to fund United Kingdom research projects. We were very concerned—I repeat, very concerned—that the World Bank's Global Environment Facility, which we visited, to which our Government have contributed hugely and which could be a source of some research funding, may not take appropriate scientific advice before making disbursements for biodiversity projects. Your Lordships will have noticed that in addition to the £40 million already contributed by the United Kingdom to the World Bank for that purpose the Prime Minister's speech at Rio implied a willingness to add a further £60 million to an enlarged facility. In your Lordships' House on 23rd June (col. 432 of Hansard) the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker—said that the new money (I underline her explicit reference to new money) would be about £100 million. Whichever is the Government's intention, those are large sums. It is clear that the Government regard the global environment facility as the major instrument in this field. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that another look will be taken at the bank's arrangements for the facility, especially as regards its programme for its scientific content.
As a general theme, we thought that systematics had been so marginalised by the research councils as to warrant the Advisory Board for the Research Councils (now part of the new Office of Public Service
1300
and Science) becoming more pro-active in its defence. We hope that it will be a feature of the new office that this baton, and others like it, will in future be picked up.
I am sure that the other members of the committee will take up some of those themes in greater detail and I also look forward to hearing the views of other Members of the House. After all, if Select Committees fail to inform the House and to stimulate comment and feedback from the House as a whole, they are not doing their job properly.
In summary, therefore, I simply say that in the 1980s Britain's effort in systematic biological research slipped almost unnoticed into a position where it was not pursuing that subject to the extent that it could; and certainly not sufficiently to get the most benefit either for this country or towards meeting the international need for conserving global biodiversity. That is a need which many of us now regard as so stark. But this is a situation which can be rescued reasonably quickly and at low cost. I hope that your Lordships will give the sub-committee's recommendations your warm support.
I shall end on a more personal note. Our report was published on 28th January this year. It has attracted favourable comment and not just in this country. In mid-May I gave an invited lecture to the International Symposium and World Congress on the Preservation and Conservation of Natural History Collections which was held in Madrid. I was struck by the fact that the delegates not only accepted the analysis and conclusions, which I have put before the House in shortened form and which I had just presented to them, but also by the way in which they looked to the United Kingdom to resume its leadership role in research and systematic biology.
Since then there has been the Rio de Janeiro meeting at which, on 12th June, the Prime Minister announced the Darwin Initiative. He amplified that in another place on 15th June. I must tell your Lordships that in my view our recommendations constitute necessary practical steps which are not expensive—indeed, quite the contrary—towards realising the aims of that initiative. Therefore, I hope that they will be implemented without delay.
I wish to thank publicly the members of the sub-committee, its able clerk Dr. Rhodri Walters, the specialist advisers Professor Chaloner and Professor Claridge, and all those who gave evidence. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Systematic Biology Research (1st Report, 1991–92, H.L. Paper 22) and of the contribution of this research to the preservation of biological diversity and to medicine.—(Lord Dainton.)
5.35 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I am a chartered biologist. During the course of my professional career I have practised taxonomy. I have described and named new species of animals and I have even received the accolade of colleagues in having taxa—your Lordships will have to become used to hearing such

1301
technical terms—named after me. One was a small blood-sucking mite and the other was a subgenus of fleas. I have also served as a trustee of the Natural History Museum and as a council member of the Natural Environment Research Council and I am a life member of the Linnaean Society.
The purpose of that apologia is to explain why I was extremely pleased to be co-opted as a member of the sub-committee which was so dexterously and incisively chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, whose introductory speech has so ably set the scene. Following his invitation I intend to pick up three points from the Select Committee's report. The first is the key issue of biodiversity research; the second the importance of curation; and the third a short comment on sources of funding.
I shall first deal with biodiversity. The strength of concern for the conservation of biological species was amply demonstrated by the evidence which was received by the sub-committee. So too was the urgency and immensity of the research task needed merely to discover, identify and catalogue the global biodiversity resource. That is laid out in paragraphs 3.2 to 3.5. Table 2.1 of the report illustrates the extent of achievements during the two-and-a-half centuries since Linnaeus. It also emphasises, as did the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, the hugeness of the task yet to be done. So far some 1.4 million organisms have been identified and named. However, there are reasonable grounds for believing that at least eight times as many more species remain undescribed by the systematist.
Throughout the period during and succeeding this inquiry national and international concern for biodiversity conservation and for the systematics research needed to progress the global inventory has been heightened by the cycle of preparations leading to the United Nations Conservation on Environment and Development at Rio. I have been told that 155 nations signed the convention on biological diversity. I understand that it will come into force 90 days after deposit of the ratification instrument of the 30th contracting party. I ask my noble friend to comment on the progress of ratification by the United Kingdom and on the progress towards the coming into force of the biodiversity convention.
That convention contains some striking points. Article 6 requires that:
"Each contracting party shall… develop national strategies, plans or programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity".
Other articles develop that theme, especially Article 7. It requires that:
"Each contracting party shall… identify components of biological diversity important for its conservation and sustainable use".
Those are listed. Article 20 requires that:
"Each contracting party shall undertake to provide… financial support and incentives in respect of those national activities which are intended to achieve the objectives of the Convention".
In the mood of Article 20, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, the Prime Minister on 12th June simultaneously announced that £100 million will be available in British aid for environmental measures through the Global
1302
Environment Facility and his Darwin Initiative for the survival of species. I too have seen some elaboration on the Darwin Initiative not only by the Prime Minister but also by the Secretary of State for the Environment in a speech which he made at the Natural History Museum on 24th June, when he said:
"The purpose of the Darwin Initiative is to support the implementation of the Biodiversity Convention by deploying the strengths of the United Kingdom".
He continued in that vein.
He mentioned the highly developed legislative and regulatory framework driven by powerful institutions such as nature conservancy bodies. He mentioned a long tradition in exploration and identification of natural species and habitats in many parts of the world. He said:
"The Darwin Initiative will build on these strengths … It will seek to clarify the goals of further scientific, economic and legal research … It will assist in the further development of inventories of the most important species, habitats and ecosystems".
He added:
"In the near future we will be putting together a small action team".
I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell us something about that action team.
The evidence received by the Select Committee shows that this country is well equipped, as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, emphasised, to carry forward that initiative in terms of historic collections of worldwide origin and international importance, trained and dedicated performers and appropriate institutions for systematic biological research. It seems to me, as it did to the noble Lord, that the commitments made at Rio sharpen the thrust of our Select Committee's conclusions. Implicit in the Prime Minister's initiative is an acknowledgment that this nation has an obligation to safeguard our inherited systematic collections and to make use of our human and material resources on behalf of the global community.
So far I have spoken about international conventions and overseas issues. However, we must recognise that there is an enormous need for research into the systematics of our own national fauna and flora within the Kingdom. We may know all the species of birds, butterflies or dragonflies—conspicuous animals—that are likely to be found within our shores, but for smaller organisms—for beetles, let alone free-living nematodes or bacteria—there are undoubtedly many to be discovered, named and classified. That work is important if we are to fulfil our obligations towards the conservation of species and habitats under existing national and EC law, let alone the agreements signed at Rio. We still need vigorously to research and understand the scope of the national biodiversity resource, even as we take on the new and wider responsibilities that arise from the Biodiversity Convention. I look to my noble friend on the Front Bench for assurance that funds will be forthcoming to support those tasks.
I said that I would speak briefly about curation. The evidence presented to the Select Committee is at chapter 6 of the report. The sub-committee's views on

1303
the importance of curation are clear and are laid out in paragraphs 6.49 to 6.42, and the corresponding recommendations are at paragraphs 9.18 to 9.24.
I am sympathetic to the new strategy at the Natural History Museum which is summarised in the opening paragraph of the museum's Annual Report for Science 1991 which states:
"The management and maintenance of collections should be undertaken by dedicated teams of staff".
The curatorial sections set up in each science department at that museum emphasise the significance of the task as a professional discipline in its own right.
Curation-based skills are needed in all museums and are a vital part of professional training for a museum-oriented career. Trained curators can move across disciplines and thus bring a breadth of insight to their jobs and enlarge the scope of their own career opportunities. A curator's broad-based expertise can guide and lead a department in a large museum.
Our recommendation at paragraph 9.23 is important. A good curator must understand the systematics of the organism he curates in order to preserve in his specimens the characters important in each taxonomic group. For that a curator needs time in his job to conduct taxonomic research.
The role of the curator will be vital if the United Kingdom is to meet the expectations raised by the announcement of the Darwin Initiative. On the Select Committee's visit to the Natural History Museum our attention was drawn to the backlog of curatorial tasks in that one museum as touched on in paragraphs 6.8 and 6.9. We saw many trays of entomological specimens in urgent need of repinning. We were made aware of a large accumulated stock of unincorporated collections; for example, about 0.25 million flowering plant specimens.
The committee was concerned also about the state of curation in other non-grant-in-aid museums in the country. That is reflected in our recommendation at paragraph 9.21 which calls for a rolling biological collections fund of £0.5 million per year.
In order to back up the Darwin Initiative museums must be encouraged to publish registers and to prepare checklists and keys to identification. A major national thrust is called for, and curators will play a vital role.
I turn now to funding. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, mentioned the principal recommendations of the Select Committee. I believe that we shall need to look further for more funds. The committee was adamant that there is no viable alternative to government core funding of systematic biology research, as we say at paragraph 5.47. Other options examined by the committee included the EC, research councils and the ODA, all of which have a subsidiary role to play. I wish to touch on one further source which was not seriously examined by the Select Committee; that is, private or commercial funding. I am indebted to Mr. Nigel Winser for some of the more imaginative slants in what follows.
The systematic nomenclature of organisms is governed by sets of rules which differ between animals, plants and micro-organisms. Those rules include standards of a grammatical nature covering
1304
such matters as the latinisation of vernacular and personal names and gender terminations, but it has never been sought to regulate the sources of names.
Linnaean binomials may be descriptive or geographical. Some have been deliberate nonsense. As I have already mentioned, many are named after people. Systematists have named many new taxa after persons, including their superiors or collaborators, the heroes and heroines of fact and mythology, mothers, wives or girlfriends, and I remember an embarrassing case of a student of mine who used the name of an ex-girlfriend. To do that has been intended as an honour. In the 19th century when private patronage was not unusual, neither party—the patron or the systematist—was abashed to commemorate a patron's identity in a new taxonomic name.
It seems natural to extend that tradition in modern times to commercial or personal sponsorship. Mr. Winser's proposals involve a formalised clearing-house whereby systematists and sponsors may be put in touch with one another and a scale of values may be drawn up in which a beautiful bird or an orchid may rate highest, while a less appealing organism can be named for a pittance. I understand that the Systematics Association has not responded with enthusiasm. However, I see no moral problem and I hope that the Treasury will encourage such a scheme by confirming that sponsorship of that nature will be tax-deductible.
I conclude. During the course of the subcommittee's inquiry, a symposium mounted by the Linnaean Society carried out a parallel appraisal of taxonomic research in the 1990s which was published in 1991. In his foreword Professor Claridge drew attention to the paradox that at a time when it is widely agreed that much more taxonomic research is urgently needed, research and training are at a low level and funding is inadequate.
In May of this year, as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, mentioned, the Natural Environment Research Council published the report of the Krebs Committee entitled The New Taxonomy which produced 13 recommendations for new research areas. Also in May the ODA published details of aid related to the environment—aid for biodiversity conservation and forestry.
With those reports I hope that the Select Committee's conclusion will bring about a revitalisation in this field of fundamental biological study. The research must be targeted and co-ordinated. In paragraphs 6.45 and 6.55 the sub-committee called for a new body—a "forum" the noble Lord called it—with its own terms of reference and an independent chairman to draw on the systematic expertise which is dispersed among our national institutes.
I hope that my noble friend will endorse that recommendation which will enable us to plan research to support a national biodiversity strategy and will also tie in with the additional thrust that I expect to arise from the Prime Minister's Darwin Initiative.
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the noble Earl is always a hard act to follow. On this occasion I do not know what to say about his suggested options for names. Perhaps we should approach Lloyd's; those names may find it a better proposition than the one they recently enjoyed.
Before I turn to the subject of the debate I should like to add my thanks to the chairman of the committee for his hard work and the fact that he managed to remain courteous throughout. I should like also to thank Dr. Walters. We were absolutely inundated with evidence. His ability to classify what came in immediately marked him as a potential taxonomist. We are grateful to him for the work that he did.
There seems to be general agreement on the importance of systematic biology or taxonomy. Even at the end of this long investigation there still appears to be some doubt in regard to which name one should use. There are fine distinctions but for the purposes of the debate we can perhaps agree that the terms are interchangeable.
Questions arise in regard to the financial priority that the subject should enjoy and how new generations of students can be persuaded to enter the profession. Some witnesses were invited to try to explain why taxonomy had become unfashionable. Professor Prance, the director of Kew, giving evidence on 14th May, suggested that students had been lured away by more glamorous molecular work, which has also attracted more funding.
It is possible that systematists have been so absorbed in their own scene that they have ignored what may be called the politics of their science. But the alarm bells are sounding and the world of biological sciences is at last focusing on the health of this, its most basic tool. As others have said, systematic biology underpins the whole of our efforts to protect the biodiversity of the planet.
The Natural Environment Research Council recently published a report called The New Taxonomy. It clearly illustrates the essential role of taxonomy and proves the dependence of the biological sciences on a continuing and improving database. The report begins with a quotation from S.J. Gould's Wonderful Life, a part of which reads as follows,
"taxonomy is a fundamental and dynamic science, dedicated to exploring the causes of relationships and similarities among organisms. Classifications are theories about the basis of natural order, not dull catalogues compiled only to avoid chaos".
It is difficult to understand why students are not attracted in greater numbers to that fascinating study. Indeed, Professor Prance appeared confident that, given a more positive approach by the universities, backed by adequate funding, enough students would be forthcoming.
As others have said, the United Kingdom is a world leader in taxonomy. It is one of the residual benefits of the Old Empire that we have collections of millions of species from all over the world—as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, mentioned. Many are unique; all are valuable. But with that inheritance we inherit also a responsibility to maintain the collections and, when
1306
required, to make them available to other countries, especially those of the Commonwealth. The ABRC recognised that in a recent report when it stated,
"it is a fact that many countries cannot pursue the taxonomy of their indigenous flora and fauna to completion because much material collected from there is housed in British institutes".
That proves that we must continue to make our collections available.
Our report describes the enormous tasks undertaken by the curators—the noble Earl described in greater detail the work that they do—and the difficulties they presently face due to lack of funding and for want of a computerised database. As the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, said, the sums involved are minute in comparison with the budgets of some of the large science projects. Yet the work that they could do would be invaluable
The cost of not funding this vital work could be disastrous. The collections are essential to the work of identifying and classifying the many species as yet undiscovered. The loss of certain species is part of evolution and normally it happens at a rate which allows other species to adapt. The interference of mankind brings change at a rate to which ecological systems cannot adjust. It is vital that we study and identify as many species as possible before it is too late. If that work is not done the loss of social and economic benefits could be enormous.
At Volume II, page 43 of our report it will be seen that the Overseas Development Agency gave evidence in which it stated that the ODA aimed to support sustainable economic and social development and reduce poverty and suffering in underdeveloped countries. Maintenance of biodiversity is described as a "key ingredient" in its programme. Since taxonomy in turn is a key ingredient in the maintenance of biodiversity, I find it surprising that the ODA is not involved in some support of the core funding, as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, said. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether or not there has been any change in the policy of the ODA towards core funding. It undertakes funding of specific projects but that will not help if our whole system of taxonomy collapses.
I should like to give a few examples of why it is important to pursue the subject scientifically. Professor Prance of Kew tells of the Brazil nut tree which is fertilised by the orchid bee. The bee relies for its mating ritual on a specific orchid. To extinguish the orchid would be to extinguish the bee and therefore the Brazil nut. But the story does not end there. The nut itself relies on the attentions of the agouti, a small mammal the sole possessor of teeth strong enough to gnaw the Brazil nut shell. The creature buries supplies of the Brazil nut and so the continuation of the tree is assured. Any break in that chain could have disastrous economic results.
In committee Professor Prance told us of a species of tree in Mauritius now few in number because it relied for propagation on its seeds passing through the gizzard of the dodo. We do not doubt that the dodo is dead; we use its demise to emphasise our view that something has passed beyond recall. When the last of the unfortunate trees has disappeared I wonder

1307
whether there will be yet another echo from that last fatal gunshot. Who knows how many consequences of our present carelessness may yet emerge? Without a precautionary scientific approach we could, at worst, blunder into ecological disasters with far-reaching consequences for all; on a different scale we could lose plants with potential for curing many of our modern ills. For example, in a briefing which I am sure other Members of the House have read the Linnaean Society draws attention to an interesting example of the discovery in an Australian tree of an alkaloid—castanospermine—with strong anti-HIV activity.
The systematic botanists were asked to name a close relative of this tree. It turned out to be a tree from South America which also contains castanospermine—I hope that I have pronounced that correctly —and in greater amounts. That could not have been accomplished without a specialist knowledge of systematic biology.
There was a pop song in the charts a few years ago with the refrain,
"Don't it always seem to go
You don't know what you've got till its gone".
It would be tragic to allow that to apply to our present rich diversity of plants and animals. We may not know quite what we have got, but we know enough to see the danger of losing it. It would be folly to allow the potential to be lost for want of a change of emphasis now. I hope that the Government will take the recommendations in our report very seriously, especially those about the need for a change of emphasis in funding.
6 p.m.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, I rise as a reverent layman in the subject who has listened enthralled to the expertise of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. However, I was most fortunate to serve in a very humble capacity in connection with the first penicillin plant. I was well aware that this medical miracle owed its existence to the recognition by Fleming of the tiny speck of mould which he observed killing off the bacteria on a culture plate.
I begin by adding my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, for his expertise in chairmanship of the committee. The noble Lord combined a mastery of the subject with a very deft touch with witnesses and the Members of the committee. He was successful in extracting the maximum of evidence with the minimum of pain. If he ever feels like taking up another profession he would do well to consider dentistry.
As we have heard, systematic biology has given rise to some of the world's greatest discoveries. But these great discoveries never seem to be all gain; they usually have a spectrum of difficulty attached to them as well. Evolution was largely brought about by the study of systematic biology. We have heard of the effects of Darwin and his predecessor Lamarck. They sent shock waves not only through biology, but through theology, philosophy and politics. Indeed, from the work of Lamarck and Darwin one can trace
1308
their effects through to Hegel and his successor, Karl Marx. In fact, the foundation of the Soviet Union was to some extent due to systematic biology.
We have also heard of the genetics resulting from systematic biology. As the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, pointed out, crop yields have been massively increased. Billions of people eat today because of the results of the systematists. But it is not all gain. The increase in the crops has given rise to billions of extra people in the world. We now face danger from the population bomb and the great danger to the global environment by pollution from a greatly overpopulated world. They are problems which we have to face and we cannot face without continuing our work in systematic biology.
Biodiversity is now accepted as an urgent property by all governments. The recording and preservation of the gene pool is a universal target. However, that will be impossible without a great stimulus to the present work on systematic biology. Otherwise it will be like trying to sail a ship around the world simply using a medieval map which shows large areas as terra incognita.
The decline of systematic biology in this country has been a source of the greatest regret. We were so prominent in this field. It is just dreadful to see it lacking. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has spelled out the causes of the decline and suggested some very practical remedies. I shall not detain the House by repeating what he said. I simply say that I agree completely with his analysis and suggested remedies.
There are a couple of points which have been brought to my attention in the past week which may help a little. The university appraisal system could give an extra kick to systematic biology. Your Lordships will be aware that it is the normal system in universities to have a biennial appraisal of the teaching staff. That appraisal is of the greatest importance to the staff and other individuals concerned because it has a great effect on their future prospects. If the biology faculties of the universities made it clear that in future years they would pay extra attention to the quality of teaching of systematics by their staffs, I am sure that that would have a considerable effect on changing the problem which we have as regards the perspective of the subject.
Another possible source of useful pressure is from the professional bodies which are the ultimate users of the results of this work. I am thinking of bodies such as the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians and their colleagues in the veterinary profession. These bodies keep a close eye on the work of the universities in all aspects of biology. There is of course the University Audit, which is based on Birmingham. It safeguards the standards of the work of the universities and not the content, and that is perfectly right. On the other hand, the professional bodies are very concerned with the professional capability of the people who will be coming into membership in future years. They certainly have the right and duty to keep an eye on the content as well as the level of the work of the biology faculties in the universities. If the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Surgeons and similar

1309
bodies take note of the concern which is being expressed by your Lordships today, I believe that it is highly likely that their opinions will rub off on the universities and will have a considerable effect.
I now turn to the Natural History Museum about which so much concern has been expressed. The attitude of the Office of Arts and Libraries came as something of a shock. I was put in mind of the story of Professor Lindemann visiting Oxford. In a conversation the wife of the warden of one of the colleges said to Professor Lindemann, "My husband tells me that anyone with a First in Mods and Greats (Classics) can pick up science in a fortnight". To that Professor Lindemann replied, "What a pity that your husband never had a fortnight to spare".
There is still something of that condescending attitude to be found in too many parts of the Government's administration. Therefore, I was encouraged to note a statement in another place when the Parliamentary Secretary of the Office of Public Service and Science said on behalf of the Government:
"the system by which we operate in Britain … is that decisions about scientific priorities are made by scientists".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/6/92; col. 542.]
That is a wonderful principle which I strongly support. However, I wonder whether it has always been applied in the Office of Arts and Libraries and whether in future it will be applied in the Department of National Heritage. Let us hope that it will. The Government will have our strongest support if they make sure that it is.
I trust that the report that we are debating, together with your Lordships' deliberations, will persuade Her Majesty's Government to accept the recommendations that have been made and to implement our proposals. Rarely are the Government given the opportunity to make such a major contribution to science at so little cost. I hope and trust that I shall be present for the rest of the debate but because we started rather later than we had anticipated it may be necessary for me to leave before its conclusion. I hope not, but if that is the case, I hope that I shall be forgiven.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, as the first participant in this debate who is not a member of the committee, at the outset I should like to express my deep appreciation—and I am sure your Lordships' appreciation in general—for the meticulous work that has been carried out by the committee and for the obvious way in which it set about trying to determine all the necessary facts before reaching the conclusions that are set out so admirably—indeed, so admirably that I hope that the Government will have no difficulty whatever in accepting them.
The precision and firmness of the report are unusual. They are unusual because the subject is unusual. Systematic biology, which is taxonomy—whatever anybody else may call it—or biodiversity, has, I am afraid, become a Cinderella among the biological sciences. I was interested to read in the report that the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, referred to thermo-dynamics as being something of the same
1310
kind. In the medical world, topographical anatomy comes into the same category as systematic biology, with the view taken, "It is a bore, leave it alone, and get on with the interesting stuff".
I was interested in paragraph 7.13, which is headed "What went wrong?". Reference is made to the fact that biologists themselves have deserted the subject. There is a reference to fashion, and fashion certainly plays an enormous part in what goes on in science. After Crick and Watson did their work on DNA, molecular biology swallowed almost everything else. It did not take very long.
Perhaps I may suggest another reason why subjects suddenly become Cinderellas. It is because they become too difficult. Hypotheses are not fully tested and as soon as a new fashion comes in people move on, leaving unsolved many questions that have been properly formulated. The history of biology is absolutely littered with unanswered questions. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Adrian, who was a member of the committee, is not in his place because we recently discussed the matter with reference to his father's work in neurology. Any number of the questions which the noble Lord's famous father had investigated were there to be picked up and pursued but there were not the people to follow them up.
The arguments about the loss of status of systematic biology seem to me to deserve a similar explanation. There is a major philosophical basis to taxonomy, starting with Aristotle. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, referred to Linnaeus. Linnaeus had his arguments with Buffon. I am afraid that modern teachers of biology and zoology do not read the old literature. I have been told that PhD students are sometimes advised not to waste their time reading any scientific paper that is more than five years old. But that would mean that some of the works which I had to read—and which I read with pleasure—on systematic biology are not now read at all. I remember a few names of some of this country's recent systematic philosophers—Robson and Crow. One of the committee's witnesses was Professor Cain. I wonder how many departments outside his own read his work. There was also Lancelot Hogben, one of the most stimulating zoologists of all time, even though it was a little perilous to deal with him as a colleague. I am sure that most of these works are not read today. The reason that they are not read is that the teachers have not read them. They are not read by the students; they are simply part of the archives of zoology.
Taxonomy was described in paragraph 2.12 as a "mundane activity" which did not constitute an "intellectual challenge". It was not researched because it was not experimental. Any branch of biology can become mundane, even molecular biology. When a subject becomes dominated by technique, it ceases to have the intellectual force that makes the young student really interested and stimulated. There is more intellectual challenge in true taxonomy than in a great deal of the fieldwork zoology which I now read. There is more intellectual challenge in the philosophy of taxonomy than in, let us say, the application of radio-immuno assay techniques of which technicians now have to be masters, even though the two people

1311
who introduced the subject were awarded Nobel Prizes—I am referring to Martin and Synge. Five years after they had been awarded Nobel Prizes for their paper chromatographic work technicians had to be proficient in all that they had done.
There is a reference to the use of modern methods, and of course molecular biology has been singled out. Early this century serum relationships were shown to be a valuable study in taxonomy by Professor Nuttall, who was the first Professor of Biology at Cambridge and the founder of the Moltino Institute. After his famous book, published in 1904, I do not recall many papers until I did a piece of work on this subject in about 1930. Later I published a book in which I used all manner of physiological and behavioural data to add to the morphological knowledge there was about the taxonomy and relationships of monkeys, apes and man.
The Zoological Society of London was asked to provide evidence. Its evidence is included in Volume III. It relates entirely to the work that is done in the two laboratories which I was partly instrumental in setting up and refers only to molecular biology. From its foundation in the early part of the 19th century the Zoological Society realised that taxonomy was all important to the language of biology. In 1864 the society played a major part in launching a publication called the Zoological Record which was a listing of all new scientific papers dealing with every one of the branches of zoology. In paragraph 3.23 there is reference to the fact that the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew had to abandon one or two of its ambitious projects in listing. I am proud to say that the Zoological Society—it had a little help from the Royal Society for one period in the latter part of the 19th century—then took on the job by itself and is still responsible for the International Zoological Record. We do not pay the costs of its publication—we had to enter into a partnership with an American organisation called Biosis—but we edit it. The recorders and the people using new techniques of information technology work in York where I believe they are helped by the Natural History Museum, which has a section in York, and the British Museum. The Zoological Society also publishes the international list of new genera. That was also started in the 19th century but it was given a new lease of life in 1913 when all new genera were listed. The first volume of the new series came out in 1939. Volume 8 will appear this year.
Finally, I once again congratulate the committee on having done such an excellent job and I speak—even though most of my work has been in experimental biology—as a systematist. Systematic biology research is a strict science. It was a science before it became invested with a political flavour through the Rio conference. It did not need that conference to turn it into a science. Very little money is called for to help to maintain our position in the field of systematic biology. The sum of around £1 million is spoken about. Systematic biology will come into its own when people who are in biological departments realise that from the point of view of the philosophy of science it
1312
can be a much more challenging and stimulating subject than the routine application of new experimental techniques.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, first, I must thank my noble friend Lord Dainton for chairing the sub-committee which produced the report we are debating today. It was extremely stimulating to work with him. Like other noble Lords, I thank him again for introducing the debate in the precise fashion that is so peculiarly his own. I first met my noble friend in a wartime laboratory in Montreal. He was walking down a corridor carrying a test tube, the contents of which he invited me to sniff. I have never smelled a brew so foul, and ever since I have had the greatest respect for my noble friend.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, read out the quotation from Stephen Gould of Harvard with which the report entitled The New Taxonomy, just published by the National Environment Research Council, begins. It admirably encapsulates the conflicting attitudes that have arisen since the introduction of molecular concepts into biology some decades ago. Those attitudes were fully discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, in a characteristic and fascinating speech, which, in spite of my name, I am certainly not competent to follow.
The NERC report largely substantiates our own report to your Lordships, to part of which it is a welcome response. In particular, it agrees that a small additional sum of about £1 million a year for five years should be devoted to systematic biology research, and it gives a useful breakdown showing in some detail how that money might be spent, something we were hardly equipped to do.
The NERC is understandably silent about the source of the proposed addition. Much as I would personally congratulate the Government if they felt moved to provide it, I am bound to say that the problem arises from a growing imbalance within the allocation for existing biology, spread almost without control among four of the research councils. It should therefore be possible to find the increase by tilting the balance in favour of systematic biology, not least in order to facilitate the vigorous introduction of molecular methods into taxonomy itself. I shall be very disappointed if the ABRC is not asked by government to bring that about.
The combination of molecular biology with information technology now required by systematists is a powerful tool for understanding how species interact, both spatially and over time. It is an essential adjunct to ecology and to many other branches of science, and to the biological technologies.
Both reports speak of the applications of systematic biology, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to several of them. I shall draw attention only to the use of living organisms to test for water quality. Instead of chemical sampling, the water industry nowadays provides a continuous biological record of quality by identifying fresh water invertebrates. A crude indication of how sensitive biological indicators

1313
can be is provided by the fact that variations of sea water temperature of less than one degree can change the dominant fish population of the English Channel from herring to pilchard to mackerel and back again, a matter of some interest to those concerned with global warming as well as those in the fishing industry.
The new taxonomy is likely to attract a new breed of biologist, and there is no doubt that any extra money can be well spent. But it is only as good as the classical taxonomy on which it is based. There is not much point in being able to say, "This is a hair of a dog" unless you know what a dog is. Similarly, there is not much point in genetically sequencing a micro-organism unless its identity is already known.
What matters, therefore, is that the research councils should give their additional grants—as I hope they will—only to individuals and institutions where there will be guaranteed collaboration between molecular and classical taxonomists. That will help to produce a better-balanced cohort of taxonomists for the future. I do not think that either report makes that point sufficiently clearly.
As my noble friend Lord Dainton explained, the output of the new taxonomy is a database of organisms, on which can be hung all their other properties: their chemistry, their pharmaceutical properties, their importance for agriculture, forestry, conservation, and so on. Let me emphasise: the purpose of taxonomy is not to amuse taxonomists in their wakeful hours, or even to be a tool primarily for biologists; it is for everyone who wants to use, or avoid using, or even to eliminate, organisms for the benefit of mankind and the environment.
Therefore, the database has to be designed for the common man, or, at any rate, for the common technologist. It has to be used all over the world. The mycologist and former Principal of the University of Edinburgh, Sir John Burnett, who was kind enough to write to me, finds the development of such databases a "nightmare"—to use his word. They must be international and user-oriented, but must rely on a basic contribution from taxonomists, most of whom have little interest in applications. Industry may be expected to pay for the use of such a database, but who is to pay for its development? According to Sir John, neither research councils nor government departments acknowledge any responsibility. It seems to me to be a matter that requires further thought.
There are some differences between the two reports —that is, the NERC report and ours. The chief one is about how taxonomy should be taught in future. The NERC report would have it done by intensive vacation courses at the major curatorial institutions, with students visiting for short periods. We would prefer it done in universities as an integral part of the undergraduate course, helped by joint appointments with the institutions if necessary. To propose otherwise seems to give quite the wrong message to the student about priorities in biology. Apart from that, the degree of unanimity between the two reports is very considerable. It gives me encouragement that there is at last a will to take action on the part of those most directly responsible.
1314
The great collections of the Natural History Museum, Kew and elsewhere are also in need of some additional resources, or at the very least stable core funding in real terms—although a greater problem seemed to us to be the lack of access to adequate scientific advice of those responsible in government for grant-aiding those collections, and the lack of access of the institutions themselves, except for the Natural History Museum, to the research councils for research grants. We recommended accordingly. We should not forget that those great collections are part of our national heritage, garnered from all over the world, from which much has been and can still be learnt about the world. We have a responsibility to the world for maintaining, researching and developing them properly.
Nevertheless, as we heard from the noble Earl, both collections represent a tiny fraction of the species available in nature. Plants and fungi of potentially immense commercial value, about which we know practically nothing because they have neither been collected nor identified and studied, are being lost every day. Many of them are to be found in the developing countries, and ODA tries to do something to train its personnel. The time must soon come, surely, when those countries should be responsible for their own collections. If so, a much bigger training effort will be necessary, and a much increased international commitment to their funding. The matter is becoming urgent, as Rio made clear.
I should like to conclude with what I perceive to be a serious policy issue. The matter has already been mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Dainton and Lord Zuckerman. In our report, we explore and attempt to explain how the lack of balance in the funding of biology, of which I also have spoken, has come about and has resulted in a serious neglect of systematic biology—the research itself, the curation of the collections and its position at the universities—to the extent that taxonomists have themselves, as the joke goes, become an endangered species. The same has happened in other countries; it is not a peculiarly British failing. It has come about because other aspects of biology, fast moving and interdisciplinary, have become more glamorous and have driven out taxonomy, not by deliberate policy decision so much as by myriad research grant adjudications—death by a thousand cuts—all based perfectly fairly on our cherished system of peer review.
I know of no better system than peer review for taking decisions about individual research grant applications. But it is notoriously inadequate for judging the relative merits of work in different disciplines—say, physics and chemistry. In the recent history of systematic biology we now have evidence that the peer review system cannot judge adequately even between the various subdivisions of a single subject. Systematic biology is not the first such subdivision to have suffered in that way. With hindsight, I now see more clearly, than once I did, how the rapid development immediately after the war of my own subject of nuclear physics—glamorous then because of its importance to atomic energy—led to less than adequate treatment of other branches of the

1315
subject, such as solid state physics, developments of which, ironically enough, were absolutely necessary to the furtherance of the nuclear power programme. Let no one think that science, any more than Wimbledon, is unaffected by fashion. I suspect that other branches of science, intrinsically important, are also suffering today for seeming unglamorous. The present tight funding of basic research makes that all the more likely, because it brings out atavistic tendencies in those who conduct peer reviews.
If you allow the seamless robe of science to wear thin in places, the fabric is more likely to get torn. Somehow we have to learn how to take better care of the fabric as a whole. If, as I hope, the Select Committee on Science and Technology decides later this year to undertake a study of the criteria for the funding of basic research, not least in the context of the new Office of Public Service and Science under the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the integrity of the seamless robe is likely to come under close scrutiny, and some of the matters raised in the report that we are debating today will arise again in a wider context.
6.38 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I consider myself very fortunate to have been a lay member of the committee. I am certainly not someone who is able to bring a great deal of expertise to the subject. In fact, I was especially lucky to be part of a subset which visited America. Those noble Lords who have read the Chairman's Appendix 5 will recognise that, if I was 50 per cent. of the Committee, then the other 50 per cent. did all the work. That will seen in the very full report of the visit to Washington.
I must admit that I joined the committee with some caution as to the Government's attitude towards systematics and national collections. I have been involved for over a year in protracted discussions with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as to what should happen to the National Fruit Collection at Brogdale. That was on the site of an experimental horticultural farm which, for good reasons, has been declared no longer required. The proposal, which seemed to me to be manifestly absurd for a perennial crop, was that it should be moved eight miles down the road to Wye College. There seemed to be a better way of arranging matters. Of course, if one is going to move a collection of apples down the road one will have to run the collection in parallel for at least eight years before it can be established that one has lost or saved part of the gene bank.
Our proposal was to form a trust, buy the land and run the National Fruit Collection, which was still to be funded by the Ministry, for it. That was thought to be an excellent idea. We saved the taxpayer £350,000. When I said, "Well, let's split the difference. You can endow our charity with your part", the answer, I am afraid, was the answer one always receives from the Treasury. Hence my jaundiced feeling about the Government's attitude to collections and, by extension, to systematics.
Like all who joined the committee—the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to this—we were
1316
inundated with evidence from taxonomists and interested parties drawing attention to a narrow range of preoccupations. The first, which struck me most forcefully as a layman, was the feeling of mild persecution by the scientific fraternity itself—a feeling that there was a lack of recognition by scientists of the underpinning role that taxonomy affords, always has afforded and, as the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, said, always will afford. There was of course anxiety about the lack of funding, and one might say, "They would say that, wouldn't they?" But again, when one reads the report, one sees that the sums of money which have been asked for are not dramatic. They are certainly not dramatic in the face of the Biodiversity Convention in Rio. I thought that on balance the case was a fair one.
A third aspect which came out time and again was the lack of co-ordination of systematics; in other words, there was work going on around the world referring to national and international collections but there is not yet the technology available to enable that work of identification and classification to be undertaken in a way which would be desirable.
Against the anxiety that taxonomy was something of a Cinderella science, there was the paradox, which again has been referred to, that biological diversity has become a global issue; so we have more and more people worrying about the loss of biological diversity, and fewer and fewer people able to identify what is being lost. If one wanted to sum up the lack of recognition and how it is perceived I would quote Professor Bridgewater, director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service whose evidence is in the second volume. He said:
"Good systematics is a blend of science, art and technique which does not sit well with the leading edge science of the late 20th century".
In other words, as with so much in this world, a slight element of snobbery creeps in. Yet we all recognise, and the report demonstrates time and time again, that every aspect of biological science has, in one form or another, to depend upon systematics. The noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, pointed out the successes in crop production which derive from genetics and taxonomy. One could reverse the argument and point out that there are unacceptable losses of crops in store. Some FAO figures that I have seen recently put that loss at 20 per cent. once the crops are harvested and in store. I suspect that much of that is because of an inability to identify adequately the pest or to know how to control it once identified.
If one takes, by extension, the loss in the field, which, clearly, is much higher, then one realises to what extent that branch of industrial effort depends upon taxonomy to enable it to deliver what will be required. Then, co-ordination is lacking: there is a mismatch of resources available in taxonomy and resources required. As the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, pointed out, so much of the biological diversity is in the tropical world—Latin America, South America and the Sub-Sahara—and yet, of course, much of the effort tends to he in North America and Europe. There was an article in the March 1992 edition of Nature by Mr. Gaston of the Natural History Museum and Professor May of Oxford which points out that 80 per

1317
cent. of practising ecological researchers—I take a wider remit here than just taxonomy—are based in North America and Europe, and probably 4 per cent. only in Latin America and the Sub-Sahara. While it is true that much work is being done in Europe—for example, on tropical groups—the effort is woefully inadequate. I read of a calculation made by Dr. Prance, the Director of Kew, which shows that at the current rate it will take 350 years to complete the flora neotropica and 950 years to complete the inventory of fungi for the same region.
The unfashionable areas of taxonomy—invertebrates, fungi and soil micro-organisms—are where the greatest gaps in our knowledge exist. If any impact is to be made on the appalling problem of trying to come to grips with so much diversity there is a need to develop global information systems to underpin taxonomic research.
All credit must be given to British scientists for providing just such leadership. For example, I could point out the Species Plantarum project currently being developed in a globally collaborative way at Kew, or the evidence we received from CAB International which told us of an initiative to form an international biosystematics network. I felt that that evidence took us quite a long way towards determining how modern technology might be developed to allow relatively unskilled taxonomists in the developing world, without scholarly credentials, to make what could be important contributions in the very area of the world where there is that mismatch between resources and effort required. I do not know whether one could coin the word "parataxonomist", but I think that demonstrates that what is required is people with a rudimentary knowledge but an ability to be able to enter data into what would probably be sophisticated databases with basic equipment. So much of the work is identification, which is a time-consuming and sometimes difficult art, as those of us who went to America saw, for example, in the Department of Agriculture's laboratories.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, who pointed out that there is a danger that funding for those databases could fall between stools. The universities and the research councils recognise that such databases and access to them could have an enormous impact on resolving the great number-crunching game; and yet no one appears to be prepared to look at the funding. Funding is an issue which should be put at the top of the list of priorities.
I welcome the committee's emphasis on putting more effort into undergraduate time devoted to systematics. As there appear to be a number of people who will be taking part in the debate who are better qualified to speak for universities than I am, I make a plea that the impact could be made also in the secondary school system through the national curriculum. The subject used to be called natural history. I suspect that it is often now called ecology. I do not mind what it is called, but I believe that those of your Lordships who confess to having an interest in observing wildlife will admit that that was engendered at an early age, probably by an excellent natural
1318
history tutor, or ecology tutor depending upon one's age, and surely that is something that we should be delighted to see encouraged in the curriculum. If it requires a little adjustment to the national curriculum content, I for one would support it.
I should like to be totally parochial for a moment —"parochial" in the most literal sense. I think we all accept that Linnaeus must be described as the father of taxonomy. Perhaps I may put in a thoroughly prejudiced claim that Gilbert White, who wrote Natural History of Selborne, was the father of ecology. I quote him as an example of someone who has inspired generation after generation of children or adults to take an interest in what is going on around and observe for themselves and not just take the word of some laboratory analysis. In other words, he would not have understood what the word "ecology" meant, but he certainly was an ecologist. He demonstrated the interdependence of one species and another in precisely the way illustrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol.
As Chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, I, together with my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, who is Chairman of English Nature, have a small responsibility for the collation of much information which is collected by amateurs in this country. Without the enormous amount of work done by amateurs in a wide range of disciplines, there would be little chance that we could plan conservation policies sensibly.
We recognise that, even in this country, where there is a tradition of more than 200 years of amateur observation, there are enormous gaps in knowledge of micro-organisms, fungi and nematodes. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook referred to this. If we are to plug these gaps, as surely we must, if only to fulfil our obligations under the Biodiversity Convention, we must increase at all levels an interest in systematics, starting at school and continuing in higher education and throughout the rest of our lives. Only then will we resolve the paradox that the funding and practice of taxonomy has been declining in the face of global concern about the loss of biological diversity.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Porter of Luddenham: My Lords, two years ago, as President of the Royal Society. I received more than 800 letters from all over the world; somewhat orchestrated perhaps, but all expressing concern that the great collections of the Natural History Museum and the research associated with them were in danger of neglect or even extinction through lack of support.
I was therefore relieved when I learnt that your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology had undertaken the task of examining not only the problems of the Natural History Museum but the whole question of systematic biology research in the United Kingdom. We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, for the work that he has done so effectively as chairman of that committee and for his lucid presentation to us today of its report.
The subject of systematic biology has caused little excitement in most academic circles since the great days of the last century and the Darwinian

1319
revolutions. Indeed, earlier this century the physicist, Lord Rutherford, pronounced his well-known opinion of the subject as stamp collecting. It was associated more with nature study than with a rigorous academic discipline; nor did it seem to have any important applications. As the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, said, it was a Cinderella.
Then came the great scientific revolution for which the second half of the 20th century will be best remembered, in which biology, allied to chemistry and physics, created the new science of molecular biology. Strangely enough, this made matters worse for the old systematic biologists. The subject became even less fashionable and had great difficulty in attracting young scientists or money from the more fashionable new science. The new biologists did not, in general, need systematics. One of them told me that for his work a diversity of species was not necessary—one was enough so long as it was E. coli.
Even more recently the world has come to realise that man's accelerating intrusion on nature every day causes species to become extinct, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, emphasised. The course of evolution is no longer the fair, if bloody, game described by Darwin. It is now a game for which homo sapiens makes the rules.
We are no longer pawns in that game, we are the players. The future of evolution is now in our hands. With the possible exception, for the time being, of some microbial parasites it is within our power to eliminate almost any living species from the face of the earth. It is also in our power to cause other species, including ourselves, to proliferate.
Man has appointed himself manager of the earth. We must take the job seriously because our property is fast disappearing, and without better management we may lose most of it altogether. The first need of a good manager is to know what he has to manage. He needs an inventory of the property of which he becomes the husbandman. That, of course, is the purpose of those who collect and classify the species.
There is a more immediate, practical purpose. These are early days in the history of genetic engineering and we know little about the multifarious genes available to us today which may not be available much longer. We would be wise to preserve the gene pool until we know what treasures it contains. It is, of course, an international responsibility but, as always, that means that it is principally a task for the more responsible nations—the developed nations; those who can do something about it. Furthermore, as has already been said, Britain is in a special position because of the collections which came to us as a result of our colonial history.
The matter is urgent and therefore the Select Committee's principal recommendations, given in paragraphs 9.7 and 9.15 of the report, are that the ABRC, or perhaps now the Office of Science and Technology—and in view of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, that gives us a little hope that changes might be more facile—whoever is responsible, should establish a special fund for systematic biology research of, as we have heard, £1 million a year for five years. The recommendations are also that the
1320
systematics collections outside grant-aided institutions should be allotted a further £0.5 million per year by the new Department of National Heritage.
Recommendations for increased funding are not novel, nor are they always popular with Ministers. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, suggested, the ABRC does not need to have new money to advise that £1 million of the £928 million that is available this year to the research councils should be allocated to this important branch of research.
All areas of research have their lobbies, and the battles fought between them when they are starved of funds—as today they all believe they are—are fierce indeed. The problem of choosing between them has no rational solution. The scientists make a poor job of it and politicians usually do even worse. On this battleground of the giants (many of them with strong political or industrial support) a few curators, cataloguers and researchers of biological specimens have little chance of getting near the pot of gold. And why should they? What argument can they put forward, compared to the other sciences, which justifies making them a special case at the present time? There are in my view quite compelling arguments for systematic biology over its big spending predators such as astronomy and particle physics. I shall present just one argument.
The stars and the fundamental particles will still be with us, little changed, thousands of years hence, but most of the biological species will not. According to a recent report of the Natural Environment Research Council as many as a half of the world's animal and plant species are likely to be extinct in another 60 years. I know of no preferential case for other areas of science which carries as much force as that, whatever might be the relative long-term importance of those sciences. On the matter of intellectual merit, it is not obvious to me that the documentation and study of the stars—stamp collecting if you like—has any more intellectual content than the documentation and study of biodiversity and evolution.
Members of Select Committees have sometimes been accused of lobbying which presumably means supporting their own interest, friends or profession. I am not a systematic biologist (I am not systematic at anything) and nor were most other Members of the Select Committee with the notable exception, as we heard, of the noble Earl who has generously lent his name to a humble flea. Indeed, many Members of the committee have strong interests in other branches of science and are fully aware of their competing needs. Therefore, their recommendations for systematic biology cannot be regarded as special pleading.
I hope that Ministers and all who are responsible for the funding of scientific research in the United Kingdom will agree with the committee that the need for adequate funding for systematic biology is a special and urgent matter. We must seek out and learn about our neighbours on this planet before half of them live with us no longer.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, for me, as a physician, it was a fascinating experience to serve on the sub-committee, so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and so splendidly served by our specialist advisers, by Dr. Walters and by our other staff. I have no hesitation in supporting the points so lucidly and cogently argued by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, in his opening speech. I wish warmly to support his conclusions and recommendations. I hope I may simply complement some of his comments, drawing upon our report.
As we made clear, systematic biology is not only of central importance to evolutionary theory; it also provides an essential framework for most other branches of applied biological science and produces major consequential benefits to mankind, both in human and in economic terms. The quality of our collections in the United Kingdom and the expertise of the many scientists who work in this field in this country—despite the fact that their average age, as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, pointed out, is becoming unacceptably high—stand comparison with any in the world.
The very nature of systematic biology is such that it is unlikely to attract substantial funding from private sources; hence the public purse must bear the brunt of expenditure. As core funding of major institutions has declined, the quality of research has inevitably suffered. Sadly, too, as several noble Lords have mentioned, the criteria of originality, reasonably applied by the research councils in awarding grants, has meant that applications seeking support for traditional systematic research have usually gone unfunded. The loss of expertise and the decline in research funding for this topic have placed systematic biology at increasing risk. In the view of our sub-committee the position reflects poorly upon the traditional peer review mechanism which works so well in many fields and which is generally used for the funding of science today.
I can only therefore support warmly the proposals set out by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, to the effect that the Advisory Board for the Research Councils or the Office of Science and Technology should be invited to establish a special fund, as he recommended, for the support of systematic biology research and that the Department of National Heritage should establish a rolling programme of expenditure to assist systematic collections outside the grant aided institutions. We certainly need a new forum representing systematic institutions in order to rationalise holdings and expertise. As the noble Lord indicated, we also need specially designated and funded MSc courses in our universities for the training of young scientists in this discipline.
It follows in my view that no important collections should be left without regular attention from a research scientific officer who is contracted to attend to them. While highly trained technical staff of good quality can and do play a major role in their conservation, such collections also provide a rich resource for continuing research. Hence it is crucial in my opinion that those appointed as curators should
1322
have the scientific expertise and the ability to develop research programmes through the use of the material which they conserve.
Another point of fundamental importance referred to by several noble Lords is that both teaching and research in systematic biology have contracted in many British universities to such an extent that the subject could be in serious danger of extinction as a sustainable discipline. It is true that in the past some courses in taxonomy proved to be dull and uninspiring, being described by some student recipients as little more than prosaic stamp collecting, the Rutherford obiter dicta mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Porter. These courses often required the massive acquisition, and subsequent regurgitation for examination purposes, of large chunks of at times indigestible facts. However, this is no longer so as developments in molecular biology and information technology have added genuine excitement to the discipline and can now supplement rather than supplant traditional taxonomic teaching. However, to use an important medical analogy, alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, investigation of structure and function at the molecular level can lead the investigator seriously astray if the first step of classification based upon gross anatomy is inaccurate.
These points have been stressed again and again in our report but have also been highlighted—this has been pointed out—in the report of the committee of the Natural Environment Research Council entitled Evolution and Biodiversity—the New Taxonomy. I refer to the Krebs Committee. That report calls for a special initiative in taxonomy, first because molecular biology has opened new horizons and, secondly, because there is a greater urgency than ever for the documentation of world biodiversity in the face of the high rate of extinction of species, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and others. Thirdly, as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, said at the outset of this debate, this country has a global responsibility which it cannot demit in view of the quality and extent of its national, university and local collections in museums, herbaria and botanical gardens which are among the greatest in the world.
It came as a great surprise to me to learn that, as set out in Table 2.1 of our report, current evidence suggests that all 4,000 mammalian species in the world have been known and described along with 90 per cent. of fish, 99 per cent. of birds and probably some 81 per cent. of flowering plants and ferns. However, there is evidence to suggest—it was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook—that only about 10 per cent. of bacteria and other pathogenic organisms have yet been recognised and classified. The specification of microbes causing disease, including bacteria, viruses, protozoa and fungi, is a fundamental requirement of medical practice and of veterinary pathology. The accurate identification of disease organisms is essential in drug resistance work as the price of getting it wrong in this field can be fatality or serious disability.
I had the privilege about 18 months ago of visiting the Public Health Laboratory Service reference laboratory at Colindale. I saw there the splendid work that is being done on the classification and

1323
identification of many pathogenic organisms. Similar work in this country is going on in the virological field. But these are reference laboratories and although they carry out some research they are dependent for the basic research involved in the identification of new species of viruses, bacteria and parasites upon university departments of microbiology, virology and parasitology in which much of the basic work is being done. Similarly, if toxic biological material, of whatever source, is accidentally ingested by human subjects, rapid identification of the causal agent and of any antidote, if known, is essential for appropriate treatment. Yet again, the correct identification of plants, animals and insects, and increasingly of fungi, often used as the source of drugs, can be a life or death matter. In the medical journal, the Lancet, last week there was a report of a carefully designed controlled trial of treatment using ancient Chinese herbal remedies for the treatment of eczema—a trial which clearly demonstrated very substantial benefit.
The Chinese herbal remedies were presented to the individuals in an appallingly foul concoction and the placebo in the control group had to be similarly foul to avoid any scientific bias. Nevertheless, there was a very substantial benefit. Of course the question now being asked is: what is the active ingredient, or what are the active ingredients? As the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, pointed out, Kew told us how the predictive use of systematics enabled them to track down a suitable source of the hydroxyalkalide castanospermine, currently showing potential value as a treatment for AIDS. The source in question was a South American tree of the genus Alexa.
I could refer to many other matters of fundamental importance in the field of systematic biology to the practice of medicine. The noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, referred to the interest of the Royal Colleges in this field. Not unnaturally, as so many drugs now used in the practice of medicine are of herbal origin and many others come from a variety of biological sources, the pharmaceutical industry is interested in this particular field. But, as happens so often in British research, the pharmaceutical industry is absolutely brilliant at the exploitation of the discovery of a species which is likely to have an important biological or medical effect, but the actual classification, the taxonomic research upon which the discovery of such organisms depends, is in my view fundamentally related to the core funding to which many have referred during the debate. And of course we have seen in the biological field the enormous developments resulting from biotechnology, the production of huge quantities of single-cell proteins by bacteria and the genetic engineering of human insulin, using E. coli. Even more recently and still in the experimental stage, we have seen the prospective use of harmless viruses to which gene transcripts can be spliced in order to carry the missing protein products responsible for certain inherited diseases into human cells. All these depend upon taxonomic research and identification of the appropriate organisms which can be used in this way.
Posterity would not, I am sure, forgive us if we neglect this important subject which, as I hope I have been able to show, is not just concerned with scientific
1324
curiosity and extension of the span of human knowledge, although that alone would justify a rescue programme. The topic is one which is vital to the future of mankind. I therefore support warmly the conclusions and recommendations of the report so lucidly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton.
In concluding, I offer my apologies to the noble Lord and to the Minister for the fact that because this debate started so much later than had been expected, regrettably I may have to leave before the end because of a long standing prior engagement.
7.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and to his committee for their report on systematic biology and for the opportunity to debate the issues that it raises. The importance, breadth and timeliness of this subject have been underlined by other noble Lords with considerable authority. I am not a scientist but I have experience of the practical application of the knowledge that arises from systematic biology, of the benefits that can result from studying the nature, function, behaviour and attributes of organisms and in particular of its potential for providing simple, cost-effective solutions to complex and expensive problems.
To illustrate what can be achieved I shall briefly describe two very successful applications—one in the United Kingdom and one in West Africa—and also one potential application recently identified in the United States of America. The British example involves the controlled reintroduction of constructed wetlands for the treatment of industrial, infrastructural and domestic waste waters. In most developed countries irrigating wastes on to nearby land ceased early this century in favour of engineered solutions such as the activated sludge process. These techniques, however, are no longer completely effective: nor are they popular. Their ability to cope with current waste requirements, some of which are laid down legal standards, is variable. Where they fail, as they often do, significant pollution results to the rivers and coasts which receive their inadequately treated effluents.
As an alternative means of effective and sensitive waste water treatment, the attention now being paid to wetland systems, and most especially reed-beds, represents a backwards leap in terms of technology. It has been made possible in this stringent age, however, because of a forwards leap in understanding the organisms involved. The exact nature, function and inter-relationship of the aerobic bacteria around the root zones, the anaerobic bacteria in the surrounding sediment and the reeds themselves represent a biological matrix which can break down and stabilise organic wastes, nutrients and a variety of chemical compounds. This process can also render many toxic metals and toxic chemicals less harmful. Furthermore, the reeds themselves can take up a proportion of the waste, including metals, and aquatic plants are being used to extract and recover precious metals from waste waters.
To those unfamiliar with traditional wetlands treatments, reed-beds may appear to he limited in

1325
their capacity and application. This is not necessarily the case. ICI's Chemical and Polymers Division at Billingham was using the nearby River Tees to an unacceptable level to dispose of poorly treated phenolic wastes. In order to tackle the substantial damage being done to the river, ICI established just five hectares of reed-beds—and this despite ICI's huge commitment to state-of-the-art technology. Other important established applications include the domestic waste of rural communities, the treatment of landfill leachates, the run-off from intensive livestock operations on farms and the run-off from road surfaces.
This application of systematic biology research offers not only a solution to a water pollution problem but also, through the provision of managed wetland habitats, a separate and very real contribution to the conservation and enhancement of local flora and fauna. Bio-diversity in many parts of the world is severely threatened by the loss of wetland habitats. This happy coincidence can be deliberately incorporated into the design and management of reed-beds because—and I stress this—maximum conservation, habitat creation and landscaping can be achieved without compromising treatment potential.
The reintroduction of reed-beds illustrates how in an environmentally sensitive world advances in the knowledge that is prompted by systematic biology can enable a cheap, reliable and robust solution to be applied with complete confidence to an awkward problem.
The second example also involves water but is otherwise in complete contrast. Many of Africa's most pressing human and environmental problems revolve around water. It is a vital resource for sustaining populations and their agriculture but it is also associated with some well-known and widespread diseases.
In Cameroon in West Africa the irrigation system that followed the construction of a large dam tempted a wave of new settlers from drier and more crowded areas. It also led to significant increases in mosquitoes and amphibious snails and in the incidence of malaria, bilharzia and other water-related vector-borne diseases. At the same time the dam and subsequent irrigation upset the traditional fish farming on which many communities rely.
A lot of international aid, advanced technology and money might have been thrown at this problem. However, an inspired application of the knowledge that arises from systematic biology research has provided an extraordinarily successful solution. A combined fish culture and water management project was devised. Its objective was to prove that the inter-relationship and the behavioural attributes of fish, vegetation and insects could be exploited to reduce dramatically the malaria and bilharzia while simultaneously providing food and jobs for the local population. That was achieved: Fish farming was introduced to the water systems; the habitat and vegetation management required for fish culture reduced the breeding conditions for mosquitoes; those fish that feed off mosquito larvae and snails were
1326
deliberately selected; and, as anticipated, the project was popular at a community level as it combined an effective control of a health hazard with jobs and food for the local villagers.
As with the reed-bed programme, the application of specialised knowledge has enabled a simple solution; it has been cheap to implement and cheap to run. The benefits have been diverse and the local commitment impressive. One further important parallel is that its potential application elsewhere is considerable.
The third example, over which I shall be extremely brief, concerns nuclear waste. In the USA a government scientist studying the behaviour of the Jimson plant, which is one of their indigenous weeds, has recently discovered that among its unsavoury habits is the ability to digest plutonium. The plutonium is taken up in a protein compound and carried in the plant's cells without ill effect to itself. The potential of that knowledge, according to the US energy department, is that the plants can then be ground down into a paste, enabling nuclear waste to be stored more compactly and more easily and therefore at a fraction of the present cost.
I do not want to dwell on the detail. Further research is needed before the Jimson's case is proven. But the principle behind the discovery deserves emphasis. As with water pollution and water-related diseases, there is a problem of substantial proportions where the fundamental investigation, analysis and knowledge of organisms have thrown up the possibility of a simple solution.
Maintaining systematic biology research is an investment that can ultimately save money, quite apart from the life-saving and environmental benefits that will also accrue. The two proven applications that I have described relate to problems which might otherwise cost millions of pounds in the absence of sufficient scientific knowledge. Furthermore, where costs are huge, many countries cannot meet them unaided. So directly or indirectly it is the developed nations such as ourselves which have to carry much of the bill.
But the two solutions to which I referred can cost just thousands for their implementation and hundreds in their operation. If one multiplies the saving by the number of sites to which the same solutions would apply and takes into account that the much reduced costs can often be met without recourse to national or international funds, then suddenly systematic biology research is a very wise and prudent investment for any government to make.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I was flattered to be asked by my noble friend Lord Dainton to take part in this debate. I was not a member of the sub-committee which conducted this inquiry and I am not a scientist. Indeed, as a layman I am somewhat nervous in such very distinguished scientific company. But I have had a lifelong interest in natural history and more recently I have been much concerned with conservation and the environment, not least as chairman of Wildlife Link.

1327
By chance, not long ago I visited the Natural History Museum at the invitation of the director, Dr. Chalmers, and saw something of the work of the museum in the field under discussion. I have read the report and a good deal of the evidence. I find the report clear, lucid and wholly persuasive. We must be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and his colleagues. The report reflects what seems to be a striking unanimity in the views of large numbers of witnesses from this country and elsewhere. I support its recommendations, which seem to me modest and sensible.
The picture is clear. Everyone agrees that systematic research is fundamental to biological science. Professor Bradshaw put it with admirable clarity when he said:
"The utility of systematic research arises simply from the fact that work on living organisms cannot proceed without knowledge of what they are and to what group they belong. So it is imperative that the relevant knowledge and expertise are always available and up to date and the collections on which this knowledge is based are available and well cared for. Biology without these is unthinkable".
However, the report shows clearly that this indispensable subject has been allowed to decline at our universities, to the point at which far too few qualified people are coming forward. The Natural History Museum and Kew have therefore to recruit research staff from America and elsewhere. The universities and perhaps the Natural Environment Research Council are, I believe, much to blame for that state of affairs. It seems to me that they have allowed the vagaries of fashion to extinguish a vital discipline. That is wrong. For example, CAB International points out that with small exceptions:
"formal systematic training in botany and mycology has virtually disappeared from United Kingdom universities … United Kingdom teaching of insect biosystematics is generally inadequate".
It further points out that teaching:
"is at the mercy of the shifting whims of successive heads of university departments".
The Natural History Museum says that:
"There are few, if any, genuinely exciting courses in systematic biology in universities or polytechnics in the United Kingdom".
Dr. Colin Patterson says that systematics has declined almost to the point of extinction in United Kingdom universities because of competing biological disciplines. It seems obvious that steps must be taken urgently to restore the subject to its rightful place in our education system. Nowadays, with DNA studies, molecular biological tools, computers and information technology, it is evidently by no means a dry as dust subject.
Apart from its essential underpinning of all biology, as the evidence makes clear, systematics has many and varied practical applications—for example, in the assessment of water quality, as Professor Anderson of Imperial College pointed out; in identifying remaining bird fragments after collision with aircraft to understand which bird species constitute the principal hazard to aircraft, as the British Ornithologist's Union told the sub-committee; or even (so I read) in forensic entomology by determining the time of death of a corpse by accurately identifying and ageing the maggots in it.
1328
We are fortunate in possessing in this country as part of the legacy of the Empire unique reference collections—above all, those at the Natural History Museum and Kew. Those are perhaps the finest in the world and of enormous importance internationally. We have a clear duty to look after them properly. But, mainly because the Government have cut down funding in real terms—by 8 per cent. over the past 10 years in the case of the Natural History Museum—we do not look after them adequately. Professor Cain says:
"I have been asked abroad embarrassing questions about what the British think they are doing to their national collections".
The British Ornithologists' Union says that the bird collection at the Natural History Museum is:
"already seriously deteriorating … many specimens arc brittle or impregnated with damaging grease and have detached heads, wings, legs and even labels … the incorporation of new bird material is minimal".
That state of affairs clearly ought to be remedied.
The Natural History Museum was described by one witness as the largest and most representative collection of zoological specimens in the world. It also has a unique library. Cuts in government funding led to some research departments being placed on a care and maintenance basis, which in turn led to a worldwide outcry against what Professor Dr. Werner Greuter of the Berlin Botanic Garden described as almost catastrophic cuts in staff and funds. The scientific staff at the museum has declined by one-third since the mid 1960s. Professor Bryan Clarke points out that:
"The collections are being curated but capacity for expanding them and studying them is severely limited".
The museum has clearly not given in to despair. It has made a valiant and praiseworthy effort to concentrate and develop its scientific work, which is of real practical importance. One example in which the museum is involved is the study of marine diversity. It is working with 17 other European organisations and studying fish, their parasites and the organisms found in the deposits on the sea beds. Much of that work is being carried out in deep sea areas which are very poorly known. It is relevant to the sustainable management of fisheries and in relation to policies on the dumping of waste materials into the seas.
When I visited the museum I was shown the very interesting "Worldmap" computer program for identifying priority areas for biodiversity conservation. That is work which has immediate relevance to the agreement reached at Rio on biodiversity. The museum has also initiated the European Museum Network and functions as its secretariat. It is studying the mineral status of African soils in wildlife management and establishing biosystematic collaboration to defeat insect-borne tropical diseases because, as it points out, targeted eradication programmes have minimal impact on local biodiversity but depend on taxonomic accuracy.
It seems to me that the Natural History Museum and Kew—two world class institutions—must from now on be adequately funded to enable them to do properly the nationally and internationally important scientific work which they are uniquely equipped to do. Kew has said that it has at present 75 per cent. of

1329
its needs. It should have the other 25 per cent. The Natural History Museum needs a firm platform of core funding which must keep pace with inflation—a steady base rather than, as hitherto, steady attrition. I understand that in its corporate plan the museum has made a supplementary bid for running costs of £2.2 million over the next two years. It seems to me essential that it should receive that and thereafter be able to rely on being kept properly supplied with the basic funds on a steady, reliable basis while encouraged to continue, as now, to raise money itself from other sources as it has been doing with marked success.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I participate in this debate with some diffidence. I am not a biologist, nor even a scientist. My only claim is that I am a member of the Natural Environment Research Council, which has spent a good deal of time in recent months discussing systematic biology and taxonomic research. I shall have some practical comments on our conclusions in a moment.
As a layman I find it curious, not to say paradoxical, that although we all believe in biodiversity we allow our research capability to decline. We all sign up to the Rio convention. We believe—do we not?—in the,
"ethical imperative of stewardship",
and in having,
"a moral duty to look after our planet and hand it on in good order".
I use phrases from the White Paper, This Common Inheritance. On the other hand, the underpinning research for all that, that it is fundamental to rational planning for biological conservation—to use a phrase of Professor Robert May—has been allowed to collapse. Chapter 7 of the admirable and, more importantly, timely report that we are discussing is entitled just that: Collapse of Systematic Research at the Universities. Those are blunt words.
We see, for example, from the histograms in the report how few people in the higher education institutes sector teach systematic biology. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, referred to that. The most striking factor was the decline in numbers in the under-35 age group. If the figures are to be believed, in 1990 there were less than 20 people in that age group in the whole of the UK. Without good teaching how can we expect good research because there will not be the people to do it?
I cannot begin to match the eloquence or real knowledge of the distinguished scientists who have already spoken. I had written down some rather naive remarks, but I shall move on since the hour is getting late.
The principal recommendation of the report is that the ABRC should set aside £5 million over five years for taxonomy research. Reference has been made to that by numerous speakers. That was in January. In May the NERC announced its intention to mount an initiative from within its own baseline funding to help reinvigorate taxonomic research and training in the UK. The scope of the initiative and the funding
1330
available were agreed at the council's meeting this morning. That initiative by NERC addresses one of the critical areas of deficiency identified in the Select Committee report—the recruitment of younger, talented people into taxonomic research. That area was also highlighted in the other report to which much reference has been made today; namely, the report of the committee set up by NERC under Professor John Krebs. It recommended inter alia roughly the same level of funding. Its objectives have been referred to today; that is, to identify new scientific opportunities in taxonomy. As has already been said, it complements the Select Committee's report. I do not need to go more into that because much has been said already about the relationship of that report to the Select Committee report.
However, I wish to say a few words about the NERC initiative. It comprises packages of measures aimed at stimulating undergraduate teaching, postgraduate training and research, both through the appointment of research fellows and through research grants. An Announcement of Opportunity will be published in September 1992 inviting bids from higher education institutions for three of those packages, each for five years' duration.
The essence of the package will be two NERC fellowships in taxonomy which we intend to be viewed as prestigious appointments with the hack-up that goes with them: two research grants and a small contribution—an important point—to enable postgraduate students to attend short technical courses; for example, at the Natural History Museum or the European course in Amsterdam. That is a positive contribution.
NERC support for that initiative will total about £2.2 million in total over the five-year period. That is a little under half the figure that was recommended in the Select Committee report. However, there are some important strings attached to the offer. They are important because apart from anything else they are novel. Provision of the support will be dependent on the HEIs providing evidence of their commitment to teaching taxonomy at undergraduate and postgraduate levels and of their partnership with the great taxonomic collections which are relevant to their teaching and research. I believe that those provisos are novel. They go beyond the normal research grant-giving system. They call for a commitment to teaching. That I believe is a highly relevant consideration.
That is what we in NERC propose to do. I should emphasise that that is additional to the £2 million a year that we already spend in this field. It goes a long way towards the committee's target of £5 million over five years. One must hope that others will follow that lead. It is only a first step in addressing one of the most critical problems and it is necessarily money taken from other baseline funding which is already tight. We had a fairly agonising discussion this morning about where we would find the money. Needless to say, some recommended that it be taken from one pocket and others suggested that it should be from another. But we will find the money. However, it indicates that we in NERC take the issue seriously. One hopes too that

1331
the Government will react in a similar vein. Reference has been made by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, that this could be a useful objective of the Darwin Initiative announced recently by the Prime Minister at Rio.
The injection of funds by NERC is aimed specifically at stimulating the environmental applications of taxonomic research. We hope that it will lead to a number of high quality young taxonomists working in this area who will be able to win future support through the usual competitive routes and who, by example, will also bring more high quality postgraduates to view taxonomy as an exciting research topic.
It is clearly not a total answer to the Select Committee's report and should not be seen as such. However, it provides a possible model for those concerned with other aspects of taxonomic research to consider. It should also help to enhance the links between the collections and the HEIs. We recognise the importance of the support of the collections. There has been much reference to that support today.
7.39 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I must declare an interest. I am a trustee of the Natural History Museum, as I believe other speakers in the debate have been in the past. Perhaps I should also declare an interest as Master of Birkbeck College at which we undertake some work in systematics.
I very much welcome the Select Committee report. I believe that it focuses on an important area of scientific research. We have had a useful and interesting debate on the topic, with contributors who have very much more expertise in the area than I do. Above all, the debate has been marked by support for the Select Committee's recommendations and by the unanimity of support for improved funding for research in systematic biology.
As the Select Committee rightly states, research in this field must be supported largely by public funds. It is fundamental research which, although it has many spin-offs for other branches of science, is unlikely to attract a great deal of private-sector support. I say that in spite of the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, about sponsorship of named species. I like the idea but I suspect that it will not produce the kind of sums that are needed.
Research in this area has been hit by a failure to provide adequate resources in three main areas. First, the research councils have insufficient funds to support many alpha-rated proposals in what are currently more fashionable specialisms than systematic biology. In the circumstances it is hardly surprising that those carrying out research in this area have difficulty in obtaining research council funds. However, I was delighted to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said about the intentions of the NERC.
Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has explained so clearly, individual university departments of biology are no exception with regard to the diminishing funds available to universities to support research. It is increasingly necessary for the heads of institutions to tell their staff that they must go outside
1332
the institution to acquire funds to pay for their research facilities and for their research staff. Facilities for research in systematics are now considerably more expensive.
I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, was fair in criticising the universities for failing to support the work. Clearly fashions change and this particular area of work has become less glamorous. However, it is difficult for universities to provide adequate facilities for even the most fashionable areas of research, let alone for areas such as systematic biology.
Thirdly, the major collections at our national institutions have suffered from declining funding in real terms. That has undoubtedly affected the curation work of the museums as well as damaging their research output. The Government's agreement to accept the Select Committee's recommendations would go a long way towards rescuing this important field of research from what otherwise appears bound to be a continuing decline leaving systematists on the brink of extinction. In present circumstances it is unlikely to attract many talented young scientists because research conditions are too limited to provide the necessary encouragement. My noble friend Lady Nicol regretted that students no longer find the work attractive, but it is clear why they do not.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, said, the committee's recommendations are modest. The sums involved are tiny in public expenditure terms and therefore I hope that we shall have a positive reply from the Minister. If the scientists concerned receive another rebuff that would be most galling.
As my colleagues who are systematists have reminded me, there is for an interested taxonomist a sense of déjà vu about the report. Its principal recommendations are similar to those made in the late 1970s by a review group on taxonomy acting for the ABRC. They were published as long ago as 1979. Both reports recommend that financial support for major institutions should be maintained; that taxonomic research should be specifically supported by the science budget; and that postgraduate training should be expanded. I am afraid to say that the necessity for the present report stems largely from the failure to implement the recommendations of the earlier report. How many more reports must be written before we see some action to preserve this work?
I turn briefly to the reason why systematics is important. I have heard it said that the work is now largely unnecessary because so much of it has been done and most species have been described and defined. The Select Committee has rightly refuted that view. We are nowhere near encompassing the diversity of tropical plant and insect life. For example, every year some 20,000 newly-recognised species of insect are described in some 8,000 scientific publications. Secondly, the expanding science of molecular biology is generating many new insights into the diversity and relationships of plants and animals. Thirdly, every generation needs trained systematists for the simple task of putting the available information to good use.
Systematics provides a necessary framework for various areas of applied biology. That includes

1333
important fields outside the academic world; for example, in medicine and veterinary science. The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, talked eloquently about the importance of the work in areas such as the identification of pathogens, parasites, carriers and so forth. It is also of great value in the area of pharmaceuticals. Drugs were once entirely derived from plants and, although many are now synthetic, the plants of the world are still a vast reservoir for complex compounds with useful biomedical properties.
As regards agriculture, the identification of fungal, weed and insect pests is most important. The work is also important in fisheries because the exact effects of fishing and over-fishing can be assessed only if local fish populations can be identified and monitored. The effects of industrial pollution of land, rivers and sea can be understood only by comparing the diversity and types of animals of polluted and unpolluted areas. As regards fossil fuels, important work is done by systematists in geology and biology. Concentrations of fossil fuels are located not by lucky-dip drilling but by a proper and systematic analysis of sedimentary basins. A major component of that analysis is the precise identification of fossils within drill cores in order to match geographically separate drill cores with each other and with surface exposures. In all those activities those involved must use the work of biologists trained in the identification of organisms.
Systematists are also important in the preservation of the environment. There is now a growing concern about the conservation of biodiversity. A number of speakers have referred to that. I was glad that the Prime Minister signed the Convention on Biodiversity at the recent Rio conference. However, some of us would like to know a little more about how much the Government are prepared to do to demonstrate their commitment to the convention, in particular through projects which would be valuable to the developing countries.
It is essential that third world countries have an up-to-date inventory of their own biodiversity and biological natural resources. For example, the reversal of desertification in North Africa depends on understanding the vegetation. The destruction of tropical rainforests is happening on a piecemeal and somewhat anarchic basis. We should be a little naive to think that it could be stopped altogether. However, it is possible that it could be directed, with some areas given priority for conservation while others are either harvested on a renewable basis or destroyed. Systematists have already shown that tropical rainforests are not all equal in content. Some are very old and have rich fauna and others more recent in origin have less extensive flora and fauna. Clearly we need more work in that area.
Developing countries must be given both help and support. The Government should perhaps look at the possibility of sponsoring biodiversity courses in the UK with ODA funds. I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether that is being considered. The Government may also consider promoting a
1334
European Community systematic biology programme. There is a case for providing consultancies for UK staff to travel abroad to give courses and run workshops in developing countries to help to build up local expertise and infrastructure.
No doubt in her reply the Minister will refer to the Government's commitment to the Darwin Initiative. I know that the Natural History Museum, Kew and Edinburgh are willing to support it. However, so far no financial commitment has been mentioned. Without that, it is difficult to see how the initiative differs much from the status quo. Assessment of biological diversity of, for example, rainforests could only be undertaken by teams of biologists trained in the study of the range of rainforest plants and animals. Such teams do not exist at present; they would have to be created and funded. When the Minister replies, perhaps she will be able to say something about the level of funding which the Government will make available to that initiative.
More generally on the question of resources, the NERC report on the new taxonomy has, like the Select Committee, calculated that about £1 million per annum is now needed for taxonomic research and training over the next five years. As the Select Committee made clear—and a number of noble Lords have referred to this—we must get more new blood into the discipline. When staff have retired they have not been replaced and the age structure of people in that sphere is now badly skewed. Training courses and research opportunities proposed by the NERC will help, but again the funding must be available. There are many other competing claims, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said.
More is also needed to improve the core funding of the major collections. At the Natural History Museum there has been an 8 per cent. decline in government grant-in-aid over the past 10 years. In smaller museums around the country the position is even worse. We cannot allow the irreplaceable collections in our national museums to deteriorate further. They really must be properly maintained. To fail to do that and to allow those collections of global importance to deteriorate would, in my view, be highly irresponsible.
Academics in higher education institutions and the museums have been struggling to keep that important work going. I congratulate the Select Committee on drawing those problems to our attention. I hope that on this occasion we shall receive a positive response from the Minister and the report will not suffer the same fate as the earlier report in the 1970s on the same subject.
7.53 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, although daunted by the task of replying to the debate—it is not a subject with which I am familiar or in which I have any expertise —I wish to say what a privilege it has been to listen to a most interesting discussion.
I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, for initiating the debate. I am grateful to him and to the other members of the Select Committee who contributed to the production of the report. The work

1335
of the Select Committee is widely valued and the committee is to be congratulated on producing a comprehensive report on an important subject.
My noble friends Lord Lindsay and Lord Selborne and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, introduced themselves as lay people. I hope that those with greater expertise in these matters, who have listened to the debate, will agree with me that they made a good job of fooling us that they are lay people. They made impressive speeches.
The Government welcome the contribution that the committee makes to the consideration of scientific and technological issues, and look forward to a continuing and constructive dialogue with the committee. The report considers the subject of systematic biology in depth and makes a number of recommendations. The Government are considering those recommendations most carefully and plan to make a written response later in the year.
I listened to the debate with interest. I am sure that the departments which have an interest in systematic biology—and there are several—will read Hansard carefully. A number of important points have been made; I intend to cover some of those later. I should first like to touch upon some of the initiatives that have happened since the publication of the report earlier this year. Most will be known to your Lordships since they have already been discussed and debated in recent weeks in this House. However, I beg your Lordships' indulgence in bringing them together under the umbrella of today's Motion since I feel they have a bearing on our consideration of the report today.
Most importantly, from a global perspective we have had the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development. Although, to some, the outcome of the conference may not have met early expectations, your Lordships will know of, and have welcomed, the various positive initiatives that impinge on the subject we are debating today. The Convention on Biological Diversity, signed by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, provides a framework for international co-operation to protect the world's species and their habitats. It paves the way for the conservation and sustainable development of natural resources worldwide and facilitates the sharing of the benefits of valuable biological resources through partnerships forged between north and south.
We are following up the biodiversity convention through the Darwin Initiative for the Survival of the Species which the Prime Minister also announced in his speech at Rio. The Darwin Initiative reflects the United Kingdom's position as a world leader in conservation and in the sustainable use of the world's resources of biodiversity and natural habitat. It will place at the disposal of other countries the skills and experience of our leading institutions.
A number of noble Lords asked about funding. The precise funding requirements for the initiative have yet to be finalised but I assure the House that that valuable initiative will not be allowed to founder for lack of resources.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister also announced at Rio the substantial commitment of new
1336
funds which this Government will be contributing to the 2 billion to 3 billion-dollar replenishment of the Global Environment Facility. The Government have made that commitment of up to £100 million because of the value they place on the projects which the facility undertakes for the benefit of the global environment and they look to other countries to join in making financial commitments. At the same time we shall want to be sure that the money is spent wisely on projects of good scientific value. We shall therefore be pushing for proper assessment and evaluation of projects funded by the Global Environment Facility, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton.
The environmental and ethical reasons for seeking to conserve biological diversity are compelling. But there are also some economic considerations, particularly in relation to the exploitation of useful genes for agricultural and industrial purposes. To ensure that genetic diversity is available for future development—so that, for example, we can respond to future challenges and changes in climate, pests and diseases—the Government fund a number of arboreta, botanic gardens and plant gene banks. In recognition of the role which ex-situ conservation of plant genetic resources can play within the wider field of biodiversity conservation, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, working with the Scottish Office agriculture and fisheries department, recently concluded a review of the subject and is in the process of implementing its recommendations. Those can be expected to result in better co-ordination, better value for money and better utilisation of the United Kingdom's important collections.
Another significant event—as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol—has been the publication of a review by the Natural Environment Research Council, under a committee chaired by Professor John Krebs. That review—Evolution and Biodiversity: The New Taxonomy—complements the report we are debating today. It concentrates on the new scientific opportunities in the field of taxonomy and its related disciplines, and demonstrates the positive commitment that NERC is making to taxonomy. The report coincided with the launching of a new initiative by the NERC aimed at taxonomic research and training in the United Kingdom. Under that initiative, higher education institutions will be offered the opportunity to bid for five-year packages of funding which the council intends should act as a pump priming, encouraging the higher education institutions to commit a greater share of their own resources to taxonomy. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who is a member of the NERC, for the further details of the initiative that he supplied today. I understand that there was a meeting today.
Those are just some of the ways in which this Government and their institutions are giving positive support to systematic biology. Together they present a more prosperous and productive future for systematic biology in the United Kingdom than is presented in the report we are debating today. That does not mean that the problems which the report identifies do not exist: there are undoubtedly areas

1337
where matters could be improved. But in many areas of science, the picture changes continually, priorities change, and it is important to look forward to new opportunities and new goals.
A number of points were raised during the debate, some of which I shall respond to; otherwise I shall write to noble Lords. On the matter of the recommendations concerning funding raised in the first instance by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, I am afraid that I am not in a position to respond with details today. I hope that he and others will understand that they must await a written response. However, I can assure your Lordships that the Government will be considering the recommendations concerning funding most carefully to see whether further money can be added to the substantial sums already spent each year on systematic biology. Your Lordships will know that resources are finite and that there are many demands on the public purse. The Government's job is to balance priorities and resources, and the report and the debate today will help to inform that process.
Mention was made by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, of the age distribution of university systematists. While the lack of new blood is a matter for concern, the NERC report, Evolution and Biodiversity: The New Taxonomy, showed that the problem is not unique to systematic biology and it is important that we look to new opportunities. That is exactly what the initiative announced by the NERC in May sets out to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, highlighted the recommendation that the Advisory Board for the Research Councils should assess the need for MSc courses and allocate funding. I must remind your Lordships that the ABRC has an advisory rather than executive role in the allocation of research expenditure. The Government cannot answer for the ABRC today. However I can give the House the view of the Government, which is that the scientific community should get together with the Funding and Research Councils to determine the need for trained systematists and tackle any areas where shortage of supply is constraining the development of science and its application. The NERC initiative is a creditable first step in improving training opportunities in higher education.
The noble Lords, Lord Dainton and Lord Whaddon, also mentioned the recommendation that the Department of National Heritage should have access to scientific advice. That is a new department; its organisation is still being developed. The recommendation is something which I am sure it will be considering carefully. However, I would not like your Lordships to think that that fine institution, the Natural History Museum, takes decisions in blissful ignorance of science. The board of trustees for the museum of which the noble Baroness is a member, has on it several eminent scientists who provide the necessary scientific advice.
The Government are sympathetic to the recommendation mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, that a
1338
forum should be established to develop a national curatorial policy. The Government are considering how best to set up such a forum, which could also build links with overseas institutions to develop an international framework for systematics.
My noble friend Lord Cranbrook posed the direct question in regard to the progress that had been made on the Darwin project. Perhaps I can add to what I said. We have already taken part in preliminary discussions with some of the organisations and institutions which we hope will be involved in the initiative. We invited all public and private organisations with an interest to contact us. The action team will be formed from representatives of institutions, NGOs, industry and government officials. The hope is that the whole debate will be furthered and that we shall have more to report in a short time.
In response to my noble friend's wonderful suggestion that we should name species after contemporary fellows, I was reminded by my noble friend on the Front Bench that there exists a giraffe known as the Thornicroft Giraffe, found in Zambia. I understand that the proper name is Giraffa Camelopardalis Thornicroftii. Whether that has any relationship to our noble colleague in this House, I am not sure.
My noble friend also asked for progress and ratification. Ratification will depend on satisfactory understandings and arrangements that take full account of the concerns of the United Kingdom in regard to financial commitments and potential liabilities.
My noble friend Lord Selborne referred to science in the national curriculum. I am delighted to say that for the first time ever there is now a requirement that all children shall be taught science from the age of five through to 16. As someone who frequently visits schools as part of my job, I can only say that there are exciting things happening in science in our schools today. That certainly bodes well for the future and for a growing number of scientifically aware young people.
My noble friend Lord Lindsay spoke of the ICI reed beds. I am aware of the success of the reed beds planted by ICI in the Middlesbrough area. It is an impressive project, and we take note of my noble friend's comments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to core funding by the ODA of taxonomic institutes overseas. The ODA's overall task is to support development in poor developing countries. That is achieved by funding projects and programmes that directly support development. Some of the activities currently supported are indeed in institutions carrying out taxonomic research including, among others, the Goeldi Institute in Brazil and the International Bureau for Plant Genetic Resources. In those cases the specific projects involved have direct developmental benefits and project budgets which may include an element to meet that part of the institute's core costs related to the projects.
The noble Baroness will understand that it would not be appropriate to use those specific funds to

1339
provide core support to those or other bodies except through projects that can be shown directly to support development. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook referred to curation of collections. The Government agree that valuable collections should be properly maintained and accessible. It is important also to maintain living collections such as seeds, growing plant material and microbial culture collections.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, mentioned that it has been said that systematic biology is no longer relevant because all the identification and recording have been done. I can give her an absolute assurance that that is not a view to which the Government subscribe. The Government fully understand the importance of systematic biology as a fundamental research tool with applications in environmental, agricultural, industrial and medical fields, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. We shall continue to support systematic biology research and collections at a level necessary to maintain the United Kingdom's strong position in that field.
In summing up, I should like to reiterate my thanks to the Select Committee for the report. Its reports encourage constructive debate on science and technology issues and keep the Government on their toes.
The Government have recently given science and technology a higher profile with the establishment of the Office of Science and Technology under my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, supported by Professor William Stewart, the Government's chief scientific adviser. One of its functions is to promote areas of science which span several departments such as biodiversity and systematic biology and to ensure that important issues do not fall between the cracks.
Noble Lords will know that the Government have announced their intention to publish a White Paper on science and technology early in 1993. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is consulting widely. I am sure that he will welcome contributions from this House. Our debate will certainly be a valuable additional comment. The creation of the Office of Science and Technology has been widely welcomed by scientists, industrialists, the media and across parties. I am particularly pleased that several of your Lordships have welcomed its creation. I trust that the Science and Technology Committee had a fruitful exchange of views yesterday with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
The Government look forward to a continuing dialogue with the Committee and will of course give most careful consideration to all the points that have been raised in the report and by noble Lords today. Again, I extend our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, for bringing this debate to the House.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, this has been an interesting and informative debate. It has been so informative that in some ways I am tempted to substitute the word "seminar" for "debate". We have ranged over a very wide field from fundamental
1340
problems to practical issues of great importance. I am immensely indebted to all noble Lords who have contributed to the discussion and from whose comments I have learned much. There seems to have been a general feeling today among those who spoke that the United Kingdom has let systematic biological research decline just when it is needed to play a full part in some of these great international attacks which we have to make on the problem of conserving global biodiversity and when the subject is also poised for a major advance.
That we have got into this situation is unfortunate, but I would repeat that the sub-committee is convinced that it can be rectified very cheaply. The noble Baroness has told us that some action has already been taken. I wish to emphasise, as my noble friend Lord Porter has stated, that, apart from the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, those of us who formed the sub-committee lacked any biological knowledge of any significance. I believe that we were regarded as a very hard-nosed lot of physical scientists, if we were scientists at all, and difficult people to convince. We were in fact very firmly convinced by the evidence that came in front of us.
It is in that context that I listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness said in her reply. Obviously, I cannot deal with all the points tonight, not least because I am very conscious of the Order Paper, which I have just been glancing at. There is a queue of Motions for approval after this, among which the Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning Order sounds rather threatening. Perhaps it should be the subject of some systematic biological research.
Nevertheless, there are one or two points on which I feel I must comment. The first among them is the opening statement in the noble Baroness's remarks that the Government look forward to a constructive debate with the committee. Perhaps I may say how very much we welcome that. We shall be very willing to respond in a positive way and put what knowledge and evidence we have before the Government. We are also grateful to learn of initiatives which the noble Baroness described and which the Government have taken since the publication of the report, though I do not believe that we would be so bold as to claim that issuing the report triggered those decisions. However, I hope that it helped in that respect.
I am concerned about the global environment facility. It is very well known—the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and I having seen it. I hope that very careful scrutiny will be made of the proposals which the World Bank wants to engage in under that heading. I hope that the Government can reserve their position until they are satisfied that there is to be a degree of accountability for that money which is at least as rigorous as the accountability of our own research councils and spending bodies to us. That is of absolutely vital importance. If it is not I can give warning now that I shall return to this particular issue and demand a mere 1 per cent. of the money which is promised for the global environment facility: it will solve all the problems here.
I was particularly interested in the ideas for better co-ordination which were mentioned. I should love to

1341
hear a great deal more about that. I believe the noble Baroness has promised that we shall. I hope that happens before there is a fait accompli, so that we can contribute some ideas on the subject. Those ideas have been, as it were, tossed around in committee. The NERC surprise, if I can call it that, from my noble friend Lord Chorley was wholly delightful, although the Minister herself was privy to it.
Before I came to the debate this evening I was jotting down a few notes as to what I was going to say if in fact nothing was happening at all. I was going to say that I hoped that by now, some five months after publication of the report, some research council, perhaps more than one, would have come up with an imaginative, practical scheme which it could incorporate in its bid to the ABRC. That would then be a good opportunity for the ABRC to respond positively, if necessary using the new executive powers which were conferred on it, I may say, with historical irony, largely in response to a committee set up under Dr. Morris to study the problems of biological funding by multiple research councils. I take this very welcome initiative of the Natural Environment Research Council as the forerunner of other initiatives in what the French used to call action concertée (concerted action) by many funding bodies to resolve this problem in the most sensible way. I regard the NERC proposal, as my noble friend Lord Chorley described it, as embodying many of the essential ingredients for success. I congratulate the council on going forward. I hope that the initiative will be rewarded in the only possible manner that research councils can recognise; namely, money.
There are many other issues which I could touch on. The noble Baroness said that the age structure was not unique and skewed in this way. That is perfectly true. There are other aspects in other subjects within universities which display a skewed age distribution and which are a reflection of the history of the past two decades. But there comes a point when, in a particular subject which is especially important, the problem becomes serious. That was why we chose this subject and examined it in such detail. The other issues which arise as a result of the age structure in other subjects lie outside the remit of my sub-committee.
I was a little disappointed when the noble Baroness said that the National Heritage Department does not need advice on funding the Natural History Museum. As a trustee of that museum for some 10 years, and having been a member of the Museums and Galleries Commission, I believe that there is a need there. I hope that that particular problem will be thought about a little more. I hesitate to say that I hope it will be thought about a little more deeply, but it struck me as a rather quick reaction because what one wants to see is that the National Heritage Department, when it is weighing up the claims of the British Library, the Victoria and Albert Museum, the British Museum, the Tate Gallery and so on, in relation to the Natural History Museum, has some kind of guidance on that which it cannot easily get and does not possess among its own officers. One obvious source of information on
1342
that would be the Museums and Galleries Commission. I speak with inside knowledge having been a commissioner for some years, as I say.
The forum for curatorial policy is very welcome. I believe that that might have come about anyway, but the fact that the Government are prepared to give it a little push will help enormously. If that little push can be accompanied by a little of the fluid which oils the wheels—again we are talking about the slight cost which may be incurred—that too will help.
The science curriculum and the determination to keep the subject in, as it were, need some rather detailed attention. One of the things that really horrified us was to learn the advice that was given to parents in a well-known school that, because of the options which were available in the general certificate of education at advanced level, it was perfectly possible to get any grade from E to A without touching systematic biology. Parents were, therefore, advised that their children need not study it. Obviously, that points to a lacuna in the system which needs to be closed in some effective way. There are problems in that respect.
Generally, however, I am delighted. The Minister referred to the new Office of Public Service and Science, headed by Mr. Waldegrave. Yesterday we had the privilege of seeing him appear, with Mr. Robert Jackson, before the Select Committee on Science and Technology. He is enjoying the advantage of a dinner at the Royal Society from which the length of this debate has excluded me, I am sorry to say. However, when I next see him—as I will—I shall thank him for this. On behalf of the committee, I shall also encourage his office to look at some of these difficult problems which arise from time to time in all subjects because the social dynamics of a particular group of people lead the system into a downward spiral and it is then that special action has to be taken. This is a case that has been staring us in the face for many years and action should have been taken earlier.
While I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, very warmly for the spirit of the Government's reply and while I look forward eagerly to the constructive dialogue to which she referred at the beginning of her speech, all I would plead for in conclusion is that one should be prepared to have some body that can look across the whole field of science—I hope that the new Office of Science and Technology will fulfil this role —and which can identify where there are problems of this kind before things get too difficult. There may be problems because subjects fall between the cracks or because they appear not to be important in the light of existing fashions. We then need to take the earlier and cheapest of all possible remedies, which is the only remedy.
Perhaps I may conclude by thanking all noble Lords who have spoken for their participation in this debate, which, from my point of view, has been very rewarding. Perhaps I may also commit the sub-committee—for as long as it exists—to engaging in the dialogue which noble Lords agree is necessary. We might have something to offer.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) Order 1992
8.22 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 15th June be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in view of the lateness of the hour and having regard to the further business in your Lordships' House later this evening, perhaps it would be convenient if I moved the order standing in my name formally. Therefore, if your Lordships agree, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 1 5th June be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing (Validation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992
8.23 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd June be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order, though brief, is highly important to the licensed trade in Northern Ireland. As the essence is in Article 3, I shall confine my comments to that. This article validates liquor licences in which the title, through no fault of the holder, has become flawed. In effect it does three things. First, it validates protection orders where two or more have been granted to the same person. Secondly, it validates subsequent actions on the licence such as renewal or transfer. Thirdly, if the licence is one where a previous holder had died or become bankrupt, it too is validated by the provisions.
Perhaps I may briefly explain the background. The Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1990, which consolidated previous licensing law, allows anyone acquiring a liquor retail business to apply to the court for a protection order. This allows him to trade until he is able to apply to the court for transfer of the licence. A protection order lasts for six months but often this has proved insufficient to complete the necessary formalities. In those circumstances, applicants have applied to the courts for further protection orders. Invariably since 1971 the courts have granted these.
However, in December 1989, the Court of Appeal held that, apart from one exempt category, the law did not permit two or more protection orders to be granted to the same person. In that case, which concerned bankruptcy, the licence was declared void. As a result of that decision and a more recent one in which bankruptcy was not involved, there are about 500 licences at similar risk through no fault of the holders themselves.
Your Lordships will appreciate the serious threat this poses to businesses and jobs province-wide. It is hardly surprising that those in the licensed trade now seek urgent remedy. In this they are supported by the legal profession, who through the Law Society of Northern Ireland have made formal representations in the matter. The Government do not propose any substantive change to the existing law since the legal profession and the trade consider that by making some adjustments to past practice problems can be avoided in future.
I hope and trust that I have sufficiently explained the reasons why the order is so essential. In those circumstances, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd June be approved.—(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for explaining the technical nature of this order and the fact that it does not involve a point of principle.
I assume that the 500 or so licensees involved have not suffered any financial loss as a result of the error on the part of the licensing justices in granting two or more protection orders successively to the same person in respect of the same premises. I also assume that the department is satisfied that the clerks to the licensing justices fully appreciate that the practice of issuing two or more protection orders successively must henceforth cease. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that both assumptions are well founded.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I should like to raise a limited point in connection with licensing, of which I have given notice to the noble Earl. We all know that there has been a considerable tightening up of licensing legislation which was extremely necessary in view of the number of shebeens, speak-easies and clubs dominated by paramilitary organisations that used to exist in former years. By and large, this process has worked through quite smoothly.
However, it seems that it bears rather harshly particularly on the voluntary community associations which have their own premises and which need the occasional licence to sell drinks in order to accommodate such events as wedding receptions, 21st birthday parties and other local community celebrations. As I understand it, if they wish to have an occasional licence for a day, an evening or any other short period, they have to appear before the magistrate and they probably have to be represented by a solicitor. That is a costly and cumbersome procedure. What I am asking the Government is whether means can be found to simplify that procedure for these extremely bona fide organisations. I am sure that the noble Earl and his advisers will be able to think of methods by which such a simplification and cost reduction could be achieved.
My experience of these matters stems from quite a number of years' association with and knowledge of the Ainsworth Community Association which is located on the interface between the Springfield Road and the Shankhill Road in West Belfast. It has done an extremely good job over a long period of years in

1345
keeping the peace, holding the community together and promoting everything that is constructive and worth while. I hope that the noble Earl will give this matter his favourable consideration.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am grateful for the support given to the order during this short debate. In the Government's view it satisfactorily addresses the protection order difficulty and ensures a speedy reinstatement of title on the affected licences.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked for confirmation that when the order takes effect people will not be applying for two protection orders again. I can confirm that, apart from one exempt category which deals with illness or infirmity of the licensee, this will indeed be the case. I can also confirm that there has been no financial loss to the 500 licensees.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about a simpler procedure for voluntary organisations seeking to obtain occasional licences. I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing my attention to problems that organisations are facing and for his suggested solution. I shall see to it that this aspect of the law is examined and I shall advise him of the outcome of this matter as soon as I can.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1992
8.31 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd June be approved [1st Report frotn the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this draft order renews the temporary provisions in the Northern Ireland Act 1974 under which government by direct rule continues in Northern Ireland. In presenting the draft order to the House I wish to give a brief account of the Government's stewardship in Northern Ireland over the past year, including some explanation of how we have taken forward the task of seeking to promote alternative and durable structures of government for Northern Ireland.
Your Lordships had the opportunity recently to discuss the security situation in Northern Ireland and will be aware that over the past year the campaign of violence by terrorists on both sides of the community has continued in all its malignancy and futility. Since last July 106 people have died and many more have been injured. Homes and livelihoods have been destroyed by bombs and incendiaries.
Our first priority is to bring this terrorism to a permanent end; the people of this country deserve no less. But this must be done within the rule of law. That principle cannot be set aside. So the Government will continue to support the vigorous and impartial actions of the police and the Army as they operate with seasoned professionalism.
On the economic front, during the course of the 1980s the Northern Ireland rate of economic growth
1346
broadly matched that achieved at national level. From then on, the local economy has been adversely affected by the national recession. Nevertheless, the Province's economic performance has proved to be remarkably resilient in the circumstances. Unemployment has risen by 5,600 over the year and now stands at 105,000, or 14.4 per cent. of the workforce. This rate of increase has, however, moderated in recent months and is substantially below that for the United Kingdom as a whole. Similarly, while output and employment levels in Northern Ireland are down by around 2 per cent. over the year, this compares with United Kingdom decreases of about 3.5 per cent. Moreover, recent business surveys point to an increase in business confidence in Northern Ireland and to a welcome revival in export performance. Taken overall, the past year has provided encouraging evidence of Northern Ireland's economic capabilities.
This trend has also been seen much closer to home in the growing interest of industry and commerce in exploiting the opportunities that exist for trade with the Republic of Ireland. The IDB has been working very effectively with the Irish Trade Board to develop exhibitions and roadshows, through which companies north or south can demonstrate their products and their capabilities to each other. We are seeking also to open up the public purchasing market in Northern Ireland and the Republic to small firms from all over the island. Good communications are obviously a vital factor in facilitating trade, and the recent decision on the upgrading of the Belfast-Dublin rail link is therefore particularly welcome. Work on that will start later this year.
The year 1991 was another encouraging one for the tourism industry, with Northern Ireland recording its highest ever number of visitors—1.19 million. Within the figure there was an increase of 18 per cent. over the previous year in the number of holiday visitors, which stood at more than a quarter of a million.
On the agricultural front, the major development has been the CAP reform agreement. This will remove the uncertainty over production levels and support and enable farmers to plan ahead on the basis of agreed production levels. A rural development initiative, assisted with funds from Europe, has also been established to tackle the social and economic problems of the Province's most deprived rural areas and, because we all recognise the need to ensure that agriculture is developed in an environmentally friendly way, a scheme of environmentally sensitive areas is being set up around the Province.
In health we have continued to make good progress towards implementation of our reforms which will enable our health and personal social services to meet the growing demand for treatment and care in the Province. Contracting out of services came into operation in April and one health and social services trust has been established—the Royal Group. Other applications are being considered. Significant numbers of general practitioners have also expressed interest in joining the GP fundholding scheme.
In education the Government are proceeding with the implementation of the programmes of study in the compulsory subjects of the school curriculum; by

1347
September this year 10 subjects will have been introduced into secondary schools and six into primary schools. The Government have also approved a common core syllabus in religious education for use in all grant-aided schools, and this will be phased in to primary and secondary schools from September 1993. Open enrolment has been introduced into both primary and secondary sectors and better and more timely information for parents about schools is being produced.
On the community relations front the Government remain firmly committed to the promotion of equality of opportunity and the elimination of all forms of unlawful discrimination in employment. Since the beginning of 1992 the registration and monitoring requirements on employers have been extended to include those with 11 to 25 employees, and the number of firms registered with the Fair Employment Commission has as a result increased from 1,900 to just over 4,000. The commission is currently investigating 47 firms where monitoring returns have indicated that there is a substantial under-representation of either Protestants or Roman Catholics in the workforce.
In general, however, the Fair Employment Commission has been most encouraged by the response of the vast majority of employers to the new duties placed upon them by the 1989 Act. The Government are committed to carrying out a formal review of the effectiveness of the Fair Employment Act after five years, and it is our intention to publish a detailed paper on the workings of the legislation later in the year.
I should now like to turn to the political talks. As your Lordships will be aware, a round of discussions took place last year under the previous Secretary of State and new talks were launched this year on 9th March. They resumed after the general election on 29th April. It will, I am sure, have given your Lordships very great satisfaction last week when the participants—the four main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and the British and Irish Governments—agreed to move the discussions forward to the second and third strands. Up to that moment the talks had remained in the first strand, addressing the question of relationships within the community in Northern Ireland, including between any new institutions which might be created there and the Westminster Parliament. As a result of last week's agreement to move into strands II and III, when the Irish Government become directly involved, the talks are now concentrating on relationships throughout the island of Ireland and in due course between the two governments.
I am sure that all your Lordships will join me in wishing the participants well in this vital enterprise. On behalf of Her Majesty's Government I should also like to acknowledge the important part being played by Sir Ninian Stephen, the former Governor general of Australia. As the previous Secretary of State made clear before the talks began last year, the participants are,
"setting out to achieve a new beginning for relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and between the peoples of these islands".
The Government's objective is clear. They wish to return greater power, authority and responsibility to Northern Ireland's locally elected representatives, within a framework of new political agreements which would attract widespread support and would take account of Northern Ireland's wider relationships with the rest of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.
I cannot go into the detail of the discussions. As your Lordships will know, they are confidential. It will be clear to all of your Lordships, however, that although the continuing progress of the talks gives cause for optimism there are many difficult and sensitive issues yet to be addressed. I can assure the House that, for their part, Her Majesty's Government will continue to do everything possible to ensure that the talks realise their full potential. I am sure that that is what the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland and the Republic would wish to see.
In conclusion, the Government will remain committed to striving, through action on the security front, the economic and social front and the political front, to promote a more just, prosperous and peaceful society in Northern Ireland and one in which its elected representatives can take their rightful share of responsibility for the direction and administration of the affairs of its people. However, until it proves possible to put in place workable and durable structures to that end, direct rule must continue. In those circumstances, I commend the present order to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd June be approved [1st Report of the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Arran).
8.40 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the broad review of the industrial and social developments in Northern Ireland during the past 12 months. But, of course, that does not compensate for the loss of democratic control which is implied in direct rule. In fairness to the Minister, he did not make that suggestion. Indeed, it is a remarkable fact, and a sad one, that the House is being invited for the 18th successive year to renew the Northern Ireland Act 1974. I find it hard to believe that that was foreseeable in 1974.
Although we give our consent again this year to the renewal, we should never grow weary of repeating that the 1974 Act which imposed direct rule on Northern Ireland is an affront to a democratic society. That is not just my description; it is a description which has been used by the Secretary of State himself. He was quoted in last Saturday's Financial Times as saying:
"My job is to relieve the people of Northern Ireland of the indignity of having their local affairs governed for them by Westminster ministers. It is an indignity, it is an affront and I also think it is an absurdity".
Part of our task, but in a very modest way, is to assist the Secretary of State in his job. Direct rule involves a huge and unhealthy concentration of power in the Northern Ireland Office, in its Ministers—with all respect to the noble Earl, Lord Arran—and in its appointed agencies which are unaccountable to the people of Northern Ireland. Of course, in theory the

1349
Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament, but in practice that accountability is plainly inadequate. Direct rule denies to the people of Northern Ireland control over the way in which government policies are determined, control over the legislation, such as the housing order that is enacted and control over the way that the services are run. We shall be dealing with those subjects later.
As we all know, Northern Ireland is a very small country with a small population of about 1.5 million. There is probably no other part of the United Kingdom where the sense of identity with a community and territory is as strong as it is in Northern Ireland. Yet, there is no other part of the UK where democratic government has been so effectively undermined at every level. Even at district level the elected council is a feeble creature, whereas at county level there is no means whereby the citizen can enjoin representative government.
Therefore, as one reflects upon that landscape and also recalls the grim and persistent campaign of violence and the pain and suffering of the past 18 years, it is easy to take a sombre view of the prospects. Yet, at long last, there are now hopeful signs that the climate is slowly improving. Throughout the country there is evidence of an overwhelming desire for peace. Men and women of different religious and political persuasions, and those of none, are co-operating in their own communities, and throughout Northern Ireland, to tackle and resolve issues of immediate concern to people. The evidence for that is to be found in the reports of the voluntary organisations; such as, the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action, the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust, Bryson House, Corporation North, Shelter Northern Ireland and the Protestant and Catholic Encounter, to name but a few notable examples.
That activity involves the collating of proposals and then the resolution of different views for the greater good of the community, or in the interest of all potential beneficiaries, whether they be Protestant or Catholic, Unionist or Republican. All that involves a just regard for the views of others. I believe that to be a new factor which is emerging. By now there is also, in full measure, a desire that leaders of the constitutional parties should make a success of the present negotiations to which the Minister referred. I think that we all read with a sense of relief and anticipation the announcement early last week by the Secretary of State and the reports of the progress which appears to have been made. We very much welcome what the Minister told us this evening.
Of course, our hopes must not be exaggerated. Indeed, ever mindful of the gloom of Irish history, we are not under any illusion about the difficulties that lie ahead. As the representatives are getting away from generalities and getting down to detail and specifics, formidable difficulties have been identified and other formidable problems have yet to surface—of that we can be sure.
On the other hand, there is every incentive for the political leaders and the two governments to go the extra mile under the guidance of Sir Ninian Stephens
1350
to steer a successful course around the rocks and the shoals. If the political parties and the two governments could summon up the will to do just that then, for the first time since 1974, we could begin to anticipate the coming of the day when the Northern Ireland Act 1974 will no longer have to be renewed. It is on that note, which I hope is justified, that we give our consent to the passage of the renewal order.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, if an illustration were needed of the manner in which Northern Ireland is governed and how remote and inappropriate it is, it would be the Licensing (Validation) (Northern Ireland) Order which we discussed a short time ago. That is not the sort of matter which should be discussed in Parliament; it should be discussed and resolved in Northern Ireland itself. The phrase, the "indignity" of direct rule, used by the Secretary of State and quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is extremely appropriate. Indeed, in his cogent introduction of the order, the noble Earl made the point himself.
When the order was debated in another place, Mr. John Hume pointed out that it was very disappointing that the only people in the Chamber were Northern Ireland representatives. If one looks around this Chamber tonight, one sees a handful of us present, all very engaged with the subject. It must be apparent to the people of Northern Ireland that such matters, which mean so very much to them, are on the margin of Parliament's attention. That cannot be right. It is better that Northern Ireland be governed more directly by Northern Irish men and women.
It is for that reason that we on these Benches welcome the tentative steps which the Leader of the other place, Mr. Newton, has taken towards a reconsideration of the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee. Liberal Democrats have long called for the proper scrutiny of Northern Ireland legislation. In the light of the agreement reached a fortnight ago to reinstate the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, it seems appropriate that there should be proper parliamentary monitoring of Northern Ireland Office business. Will the Minister give an assurance that the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee is given priority in government business in the coming months?
As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said, there are some grounds for hope. We are discussing Northern Ireland affairs in a more promising atmosphere than has been possible for a long time. There is more cross-community action. There is a greater awareness of public opinion. I found it notable that in the recent general election at least the leaders of all the parties in Northern Ireland felt obliged to fight the election as men of peace and reconciliation. They felt obliged to respond to Northern Ireland public opinion. The fact that the talks have been reconvened has, I believe, something to do with the realisation that public opinion in Northern Ireland now wishes Northern Ireland politicians to get on with the process.

1351
That is not in itself a reason for assuming that the talks will be successful. There are some in the Chamber with much more experience of the difficulties of reaching agreement in Northern Ireland. I am sure the Minister is right when he says that the fact that the talks are going well should not lead one to assume that they will reach a satisfactory conclusion. We cannot assume that. I, for one, should like to see a firmer Strand I before the leap is made to Strands II and III. Those of your Lordships who attempted to juggle with oranges when you were young will remember that you can just about do so with two, but that to juggle with three becomes rather difficult. I fear that in the desire to make progress a firm enough base—to change my metaphor—may not have been established at base camp one before the talks move on up the mountain. It would be ungracious of those outside the process to carp. We should congratulate Sir Patrick Mayhew and his predecessor most warmly on the progress they have made; Sir Ninian Stephens on his wise chairmanship; and all the participants on the fact that they seem to have managed—in a remarkable way for Northern Ireland politics—to maintain confidentiality. It is extraordinary that so little has come out. We must not tempt them too much in tonight's debate.
One of the reasons why it is so important for the talks to succeed is that success could harness so much frustrated energy within Northern Ireland society. At the moment we deny many good people real participation in the management of their own affairs. That in itself is a cause for sourness: even local government representatives have little left to them beyond emptying bins. That has created a political vacuum which the extremists and terrorists have been able to fill.
On these Benches we hope that there is a happy ending to the story. We hope that it takes the form of a devolved, power-sharing government in Northern Ireland. It is clear that the Government of the Republic of Ireland are willing to go a great deal further than they have been before, at least in contemporary times, to advance the process. Every advantage must be taken of that. But there is one thing that the British Government could contribute. I was most encouraged to see that the Secretary of State referred to this point the other day. It is the introduction of a Bill of Rights. From these Benches I would say that that should be for the whole of the United Kingdom. But if we cannot have it for the whole of the United Kingdom, then let us have it for Northern Ireland. The Minister will be aware that that is something which is supported by all the parties in Northern Ireland. A Bill of Rights could be a vital underpinning of any constitutional settlement. The Minister will recall that the excellent report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, for 1991–92, which was laid before us last week, called for the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law as a whole, but especially in respect of Northern Ireland.
I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to say that Liberal Democrats endorse the conclusions on the use of emergency legislation in the terms of chapter 5 of the Standing Advisory Commission
1352
report. That is a subject to which I have referred previously in the House. It is disappointing that the Government have chosen not to implement the recommendations of the Standing Advisory Commission and of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, not to mention Amnesty International and Helsinki Watch, to introduce video tape recording of interviews held wholly in detention centres. I hope that at some point the Government will respond positively on that issue. I should be interested to hear the Minster's observations tonight.
Finally—and this is something to which I hope to return this evening—one of the great advantages of a successful conclusion to the talks would be the prospect of greater North-South co-operation in terms of economic development. It is preposterous that only 5 per cent. of Northern Ireland's trade is with the South and that an even lower percentage of the Republic of Ireland's trade is with the North. That makes no economic sense. The economic bonus that is potentially available from a peaceful settlement, which is so badly needed in terms of jobs, employment and inward investment, and of a greater infrastructural connection between the north and south of the island must be apparent to everyone.
As European borders come down and as the trade and money flows grow within Europe, and as the Channel Tunnel connects the British mainland to Europe, the danger is that the island of Ireland will be on the periphery. The transport links are not good enough. We on these Benches have been encouraged by the Government's recent announcement, and that of the Republic of Ireland, that the Belfast-Dublin rail link will be upgraded. I hope that that can be followed up constructively by the improvement of other lines and road connections. There should be better co-operation and telecommunications. I wonder whether there could not be better synergy between the two parts of the island; for example, by tapping the Dublin-Scotland interconnector. It would be nice to hope that with the lowering of tension the North-South gas link could also be reopened. All those questions of the North-South connection to which the Anglo-Irish Parliamentary Conference has also been devoting itself are important. If the Government are wise, they will continue to treat those economic matters and constitutional and human rights in parallel, because it is only by acting on both that the prospects for a peaceful and prosperous life for the people of Northern Ireland will he improved.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I support the adoption of the order for the extension of the period until 16th July 1993. This may seen a little belated, but this is the first opportunity since the Minister was appointed to his position in the Northern Ireland Office—some three months ago, although it sounds much shorter when one says three months rather than 13 weeks —that I have had to congratulate him. We have met in the corridor and exchanged the normal salutations and greetings but I should like to have my congratulations on the record. I join with my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies and other noble Lords who have

1353
expressed their warm congratulations to the Minister on his appointment. I also offer him my goodwill and co-operation in those matters which are important to Northern Ireland.
I know that the noble Earl occupies an onerous and difficult position, sharing duties not only in his department but having to come to the House to deal with other matters. I hope that he will not think that the kid glove I offer him when I sit down has a horseshoe in it. I note that he seems to be enjoying his period of office in Northern Ireland, he appears on television, his photograph is in the press and he always seems to be in a joyous mood, with a smiling face, getting around to see people in Northern Ireland. In this House and on these Benches, we share a respect for his work in meeting the people of Northern Ireland.
I welcomed the remarks of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, who dealt thoroughly with various points, as did my noble friend Lord Holme. Both paid great attention to legislative and other matters in Northern Ireland.
I remind the House that, since the introduction of direct rule in 1972, there have been 10 Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland; 53 Ministers, Labour and Conservative, have held office during the past 20 years. There have been many attempts and honest efforts by both Labour and Conservative administrations to obtain agreement to what were considered to be more democratic, accountable, equitable or durable alternative procedures. However, these all failed to obtain a consensus.
Meanwhile, among other tragic features of death and destruction, sectarianism, hatred and bitterness are destroying the heart of the Northern Ireland community. The outlook for our children is being seriously impaired, their minds are being poisoned and their future blighted. I hope that an interest in the talks is very much a feature in the minds of those taking part. However, I am sure that all noble Lords can readily understand that those directly concerned in the current political talks, especially the elected representatives, are under considerable party political and other forms of extreme pressure.
While the issues being debated are largely taken up with historical, constitutional and practical administrative matters, I hope that the agenda will also include some of the vital matters which we shall shortly consider in the Appropriation Order. The Minister has already mentioned some of these in his opening remarks.
The scale of the United Kingdom subvention, the urgent need for an upturn in the economic prosperity of Northern Ireland and the full commitment of all people in positions of leadership and influence to ensuring equality of opportunity and equity of treatment for all must surely he enshrined in any agreed political accommodation. I feel sure that those who are in Strands I, II and III of the talks have their minds concentrated on the need of the people of Northern Ireland for social and economic uplift. It will certainly condition their minds as regards the kind
1354
of framework required to be established. However, that is a matter for them and I am sure that they will give it consideration.
I close in sharing with the noble Earl, as I am sure do all noble Lords, the wish for political success in the outcome of the talks in the interests of future community peace, prosperity and justice in all Ireland. I also hope that the renewal of the order may not be necessary in 1993. I support the order.
9.4 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, every year we have the ritual of passing this order and others. This one is by far the most important of all the yearly reviews that take place because without it there would be no need for an appropriation order. There would be no mechanism for the massive subventions which are given by the Government to the Northern Ireland economy. So this is by far the most important order.
I take the view that direct rule as now applied in Northern Ireland is cumbersome, undemocratic and certainly not the best political institution by which to govern the country. However, unlike most people in the House, I do not blame the Government, nor do I blame their predecessor, the Labour Government. In 1974, it was a Labour Government who, faced with the circumstances that existed in Northern Ireland, had to bring this legislation to the statute book. The reason is that the Northern Ireland Unionist Party had governed the country since 1920, since the setting up of the state. The party governed it in such a way as to create bitterness and resentment among the minority population until eventually in the late 1960s and early 1970s they withdrew their consent to be governed in the one-party state by the Unionist Government. Thus, the country was ungovernable.
Faced with that situation, in 1972 the Conservative Government abolished Stormont. It was obvious to the world that the minority population had withdrawn their consent to be governed. In 1973, the political parties held discussions at Sunningdale in which I took part. On 1st January 1974 we formed the Executive. At that time we thought that we were acting with majority consent to form an Executive in Northern Ireland to govern all the people. Then the Unionist majority withdrew its consent to be governed by the Executive. So again the responsibility went back to the British Government because the minority and the majority communities in Northern Ireland, for the same reason but at different times, withdrew their consent to be governed.
In 1975 a convention was set up by the then Secretary of State, who is now a Member of this House. I was a part of that convention and we could not find agreement in Northern Ireland to set up institutions by which we could govern ourselves. Then we had to keep renewing the legislation. As I stand here in 1992, I feel it is difficult to find something new to say. I spoke in 1974, 1975 and 1976. People have forgotten what I said then and it may be as well to take the opportunity to remind them of it. The noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Blease, have referred to it.

1355
When I was a young boy in Northern Ireland I read nationalist political mythology. One of the good sayings I came across in my reading was, "The graveyards of English politicians have been dug in Ireland". I believe that saying means that English politicians had no political success in Northern Ireland and their political futures were therefore damned. But I am not too sure how true it really is because the nine Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland who have been appointed since 1972 are now all in your Lordships' House. I am not sure whether this House can be regarded as a political graveyard, but I do not see many skeletons sitting on either side of the House.
In 1982 the newly appointed Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the noble Lord, Lord Prior, decided to establish rolling devolution. He set up an assembly, the members of which were to be elected through democratic elections under proportional representation. When the elections were over the nationalist population did what it had done in 1972, with less reason. The nationalist population decided it would not attend that assembly. Sinn Fein expressed exactly the same view. I am not sure whether Sinn Fein expressed that view first followed by the SDLP. However, I think it happened in that order. At that time an opportunity was given to the people of Northern Ireland and they refused to accept it. They refused to form a government for themselves. Incidentally the assembly staggered on under the Unionist community in Northern Ireland until it eventually fell apart because of course it did not obtain the co-operation of the nationalist minority. We reverted back to the terms of the 1974 Act.
I do not think there is any politician that I know in this country who wants to maintain direct rule for one minute longer than is absolutely necessary. Members of any political party and none all hope desperately that some agreement will be found as a result of the talks that are now taking place. If good wishes were to bring success in this matter, that success would be gained tomorrow morning in Lancaster House. The good wishes not only of the elected representatives but of all the people in the United Kingdom are given wholeheartedly to the people of Northern Ireland.
But let us not jump too quickly on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, made a point that should be drawn to the attention of the House. We were first told that the talks would comprise three strands, Strands I, II and III. Strand I was supposed to concern an internal solution to the Northern Ireland problem. The aim of that strand of talks was to try to find agreement between the Northern Ireland political parties in respect of governing Northern Ireland. I believe that that aim should have been taken much further down the road and a much greater degree of agreement should have been found before Strand II of the talks was embarked upon.
That situation takes me back to the Sunningdale Agreement. Under the chairmanship of the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, we agreed on an executive in Stormont, in Northern Ireland. When we discussed the matter at Sunningdale, the Republic of Ireland
1356
became involved. It was that tangent of the Sunningdale Agreement which eventually led to the downfall of the Sunningdale executive.
I am not party to the present talks but I still have a close involvement with many individuals in Northern Ireland. The Irish Government and the SDLP—we can take it that those bodies are acting in conjunction throughout the talks—have progressed 80 per cent. of the way down the road of the Strand I talks. Then they said to the Unionist majority, "We are not going to discuss that other 20 per cent. to find agreement because if we find agreement on 100 per cent. of the talks, you may not proceed to Strand II of the talks. We are not going to agree to the final 20 per cent. of the talks unless you get into Strand II". Strand II of the talks concerns the nationalists' position. The nationalists want to involve the Irish Government. The Unionists, however, do not want to involve the Irish Government. It was that situation that brought about the downfall of the Sunningdale executive.
It is alleged that Strand II of the talks will be concerned with Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution which lay claim to the territory of Northern Ireland. The Irish Government have also put up for discussion the 1920 Government of Ireland Act under which the Northern Ireland state came into being. Even the most moderate of the Unionists in Northern Ireland view Articles 2 and 3 and the discussion of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 as an attack on their territory. They see that two-pronged attack as an attack on the territorial integrity of Northern Ireland.
I switch on my television set and see what is happening in Northern Ireland and in many parts of Europe where the same motivation drives people to kill each other. I see that happening in Bosnia and in other parts of Europe where the nationalist genie has been let out of the bottle. That must be an awful hill to climb; it must be an awful obstacle in these talks which are taking place now in the week running up to 12th July.
Can agreement be found? Will the SDLP and the Irish Government insist on saying, "We must have an input into Northern Ireland or you do not get Strand I agreed to"? That is not agreement but an ultimatum, or at least that is the way that the people of Northern Ireland will see it. I am not sure what the answer is. I think that Strand II is by far the most important part of these talks.
Again, as we shall see in our appropriation debate later this evening, Northern Ireland exists by means of massive subventions from this House and, although one is not supposed to say it out loud if one is an Irishman—and sometimes I come under severe criticism for saying it—we saw what happened in the recent referendum in the Republic. The Republic's whole economic base would collapse were it not for massive subventions from the European Community. At the present time in the European Community the people who put the money in are Britain and Germany. It is Britain and Germany who are the sole creditors and who put the money in. Later this year, incidentally, France may begin to contribute just a little, but at the moment she is contributing nothing.

1357
So we have Northern Ireland living on massive subventions from this House and we have the Republic of Ireland also living on subventions. During one Question Time this week my noble friend Lord Stoddart asked whether the Minister was aware that the Republic of Ireland received £1,800 million in subventions last year from the European Community. Therefore, it must be quite obvious to anyone who has any knowledge of affairs in Northern Ireland that financially, were it not for the subventions from this House and from the European Community to the Republic of Ireland, there would be very severe economic distress all over Ireland. In the next order we are to debate the sum involved will be £5,000 million —from this House billions—for the yearly Estimates in connection with Northern Ireland.
I do not believe that any British Government want to maintain domination over Northern Ireland in these circumstances. The Minister must be aware of that because even in the short space of time he has been in Northern Ireland he must have met people who would say things to him quietly, although they may not say them out loud. For example, the Catholics may say, "We do not like direct rule but we would rather have it than be dominated by a Unionist Assembly or a Unionist political institution in Northern Ireland. As it is, we can expect to get some form of fair treatment from the British Government, whereas if there were a Unionist-dominated Assembly we may revert to the old circumstances, and what guarantee would there be that the whole thing would not revert 1969 and 1970?" While direct rule is full of imperfections, there are many people in Northern Ireland who are prepared to put up with that and are not going to lose any sleep if there is not a dominant Unionist Party returned to Stormont.
Looking at the talks as they stand at present I should like to be optimistic but, knowing Northern Ireland and the bitterness, resentment, fear and suspicion that have been created there over many centuries, I think there is a very high hill to climb. I know that the Government and also the Opposition on this side of the House will do everything they can to ensure the success of the talks; but let us not be too optimistic. There is really very little ground at present for such optimism to be expressed in relation to these talks.
9.19 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, we are discussing these important matters in a thin House and at a late hour of the night. I regret that. Nevertheless, it is a pleasure to speak on this order and at a time when there is a certain amount of good news in the air from Ireland generally. I should like particularly to welcome the recent speech by the President of Ireland when addressing both Houses of Parliament in Dublin. I am sure that she spoke for many millions of people on both sides of the sea and indeed on the Continent of Europe when she mentioned the deep commitment to dialogue and friendship. That is something that we can all support.
1358
I should like to welcome the fact that political negotiations are continuing. That they are doing so is due in considerable measure to the mixture of patience and determination shown not only by the present Secretary of State but also by his immediate predecessor. The fact that we are still negotiating may also have something to do with the power of prayer. We all know that there is a religious dimension to the conflicts of Northern Ireland. That has its divisive side, but it also has a better and more positive side. I believe that the prayers of many express the hopes of the majority that a political settlement will precede an end to violence and terrorism.
I know that there is no guarantee that the talks will succeed. Indeed, Strand I remains controversial. I therefore ask Her Majesty's Government to examine fall-back positions that would still improve on direct rule as we know it. For example, why not create two city regions for local administration and democratic accountability? They could be based on the cities of Belfast and Derry and would correspond to many of the known facts of economic and social reality.
I welcome also the talks that have been going on in recent months between the clergy of various persuasions and members of paramilitary organisations and their political stalking horses. In my opinion these talks are necessary at a time when government may be inhibited from having such conversations. They are necessary as something going on parallel with the political discussions and negotiations.
I should like to welcome very warmly indeed something that is known as Initiative 92. It may not be well known yet to your Lordships. It is a voluntary move to try to discover what political and other institutions the people of Northern Ireland in fact want at the present time. The process may also show —I hope it will—what kind of political settlement would be approved by the people. I believe that this work is essential because it has been shown over the years that political opinion on particular issues is often in advance of the stated positions in the constitutional political parties.
In a sense this piece of work is something like a private Royal Commission. I am glad that independent commissioners have been appointed and adequate funds secured so that evidence can be taken in a thorough and comprehensive way. I look forward to the findings and trust that they will be a positive help to an overall settlement.
I also applaud that degree of power sharing which now occurs on district councils. For example, I visited Dungannon in May this year. That is an outstanding example of what can be done in an elected body which is divided almost exactly 50/50. Derry City also has a system for rotation of the office of mayor, together with a most effective police and public liaison committee. I should like to salute the courage of Mr. Raymond Ferguson in resigning the leadership of the Official Unionists on Fermanagh District Council when his own party refused to accept the rotation of chairmanship.
I come now to the European dimension to Northern Ireland. We know that it is largely concerned with funds, but not exclusively so. It is now

1359
highly probable that much larger European Community funds will he available in the future for Ireland as a whole. Will Her Majesty's Government ensure that Northern Ireland receives its fair share of whatever funding is available? The chances of that occurring will be considerably improved if we can bring ourselves wholeheartedly to practise additionality. In this audience there is no need for me to spell out the meaning of that term of art.
As well as the European Community, the European dimension includes the Council of Europe and the overarching body, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. Both institutions are concerned with minority rights and with human rights. As the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, mentioned earlier, all political parties in Northern Ireland want a Bill of Rights. Why should they not have it? Most of them want an ever-improving application of the European Convention on Human Rights. Will the Government give ever-increasing priority to human rights in Northern Ireland? Perhaps they will consider using as a checklist a book published in 1988 entitled Human Rights and Responsibilities in Great Britain and Ireland, edited by Mr. Sidney Bailey, published by Macmillan. The Minister may know my concern over a long period with the handling and interrogation of suspects. On 10th June his right honourable friend the Secretary of State said that an independent commissioner would be appointed for the RUC holding centres. Has that appointment yet been made? If not, when will it become effective? Will the Minister say whether improvements have yet been started to the building of the Castlereagh holding centre?
As regards police complaints, the total rose by 25 per cent. in 1991. This may well be a tribute to the efforts and the greater independence of the Police Complaints Commission. It is significant that on 14th May the chief constable of the RUC said that he would not resist an entirely independent investigating body for police complaints. I believe that such a newly created body would transform the effectiveness of the commission and public confidence in it. There is bound to be scepticism when police officers investigate each other and especially so in Northern Ireland. What view do Her Majesty's Government take of that idea? Can they offer any timetable for action?
Prison policy is another difficult area in which I am interested personally and as president of NIACRO. The prime consideration has to be the safety of both prisoners and prison staff. I trust that there will always be available within the prison system a choice for paramilitary prisoners between integrated and segregated conditions, just as sex offenders can choose between association or segregation.
Fine defaulters constitute a high proportion of total prison admissions. It is highly desirable that they should be dealt with non-custodially. Both the Prison Service and the Probation Service favour that move. Will the Government give the green light to it? Will they press ahead with the experiment now under way on unit fines?
Will the Government also initiate a review of criminal justice in Northern Ireland comparable to
1360
that now being conducted in England and Wales by the Royal Commission? I ask that question because I know of some cases of miscarriage of justice. Constant vigilance and improvement are needed to avoid them. Meanwhile, I trust that the Government will study with the utmost care the report from the Committee on the Administration of Justice on the Casement Park trials. My belief is that the doctrine of common purpose was stretched to the utmost limit and probably beyond.
As regards security and intelligence, will the Government examine all the implications of the recent Brian Nelson trial? Will they insure that intelligence is effectively co-ordinated between the various security services and that the security forces act in as accountable a fashion as is humanly possible?
In conclusion, I welcome and express appreciation for the long, hard and patient work of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. In particular, I urge the Government to accept its recommendation to abolish the 15 per cent. capital contribution which is still required on new or improved Roman Catholic schools. That is particularly inequitable in view of the need to improve the teaching of science in that sector. I congratulate the Government on the progress that has taken place in recent years as regards integrated schools and education for mutual understanding.
9.31 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, your Lordships have understandably shown special interest in the political talks which this week have entered a new and important phase. I was glad to hear the expressions of support that were forthcoming from all sides of the House. In particular, I was grateful for the kind words of the noble Lord, Lord Blease. It is certainly a most challenging job; one that I intend to carry out to the best of my ability and with dedication to all my responsibilities in Northern Ireland.
Your Lordships have displayed a clear understanding of the important opportunity now presented by the talks. In a joint statement read out to the opening session of this week's talks my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach spoke of:
"an historic opportunity to make lasting political progress".
They went on to state that the two Governments and the four Northern Ireland parties have:
"together set out to achieve a new beginning for relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and between the people of these islands".
It is a task of monumental proportions. Clearly, the way ahead will be difficult. At times the speed of progress appeared to be frustratingly slow. However, the participants are to be commended for the way in which they have stuck to their task and retained their commitment to the process. We are certain that they have been encouraged by the overwhelming sense of support which has been forthcoming in Northern Ireland, from each side of the community, in the Republic of Ireland and further afield. The support within your Lordships' House this evening is a further encouragement.
We all remain conscious of the fragility of the process. A great deal has been achieved since the first

1361
talks took place last year. But even more remains to be done. It is far too soon to start thinking about possible outcomes. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, warned us of those particular matters. However, if your Lordships are looking for encouragement it can be found in the way in which Northern Ireland parties have shown remarkable resolution and dedication to the process. Whatever happens from now on the parties and the two Governments have sent a clear signal to the community in Northern Ireland. That signal is that the way forward for Northern Ireland is through political dialogue and constitutional politics.
The participants have been prepared to put aside their differences and to sit around the same table in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. I am sure that we all hope and pray that the full potential of the talks will be realised. That was an extremely clear point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I assure your Lordships that, for their part, Her Majesty's Government will continue to do everything possible to ensure that maximum progress is made.
On the subject of direct rule, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said, in quoting the words of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, that direct rule is recognised as being far from ideal. As I explained in my opening remarks, the Government wish to return greater authority and responsibility to Northern Ireland's own political representatives. The present political talks have a vital role to play in that context. As I have said, the Government will do everything possible to ensure that the talks reach the best possible conclusion.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, said that he wished that there could be a firmer base for Strand I. I take note of his view. However, as I said in my opening remarks, I shall resist the temptation to be drawn into the detail of the discussions. Those are very much matters for judgment of the participants but I am sure that, like Her Majesty's Government, the noble Lord, Lord Holme, is encouraged by the fact that the parties agreed to move on to the remaining strands.
The approach and speech of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, were extremely realistic. He asked about the possibility of a Select Committee for Northern Ireland. As the Government's response to the Procedure Committee's report on the working of the Select Committee system made clear, we see a need for further consideration of the desirability and practicability of a territorial Select Committee. We are keeping the matter under review. We believe that arrangements for the scrutiny of matters within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are best taken forward in the context of political talks.
The noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Hylton, asked about the possibility of a Bill of Rights. That possibility, or other forms of entrenched human rights provision for Northern Ireland, is to be considered in the talks which are currently proceeding. It would be premature, and against the basis of confidentiality on which the talks are being held, if I were to comment further on that matter this evening.
1362
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, raised the subject of cross-border co-operation. As I said, a number of initiatives are being taken to improve cross-border trade. The upgrading of the Belfast-Dublin railway line is an example of that. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, about the other ideas he put forward this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, gave us an erudite and interesting exposition of political initiatives over 20 years. I read the article by the noble Lord in the press earlier this week which covered some of the ground that he covered again this evening. He suggested that Strand I should have been taken further. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Holme, made the same observation. Obviously I shall not comment on those issues which must be for the participants of the talks; and certainly we wish them well.
On political talks, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked the Government to examine fall-backs, perhaps based on two city regions. I believe that the noble Lord has advanced that idea before. He referred also to Initiative '92. The Government are very much aware of its activities, which are well intentioned. I am sure that the noble Lord will understand if I reply to both of his points by saying that the Government's main focus of attention at present is and must remain on political talks.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about future EC resources. The future financing for EC programmes overall has yet to he agreed following the signing of the Maastricht Treaty. Allocations for specific areas can only be decided once overall financing is resolved. The United Kingdom Government made clear that one of their aims is to retain Objective I status for Northern Ireland. On that basis the Government will be pressing for a maximum share for Northern Ireland of available allocations.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised the topic of additionality of EC receipts. The Government fully accept the additionality requirement contained in the EC regulations and all receipts, including those of Northern Ireland, are handled in a way which fully satisfies that requirement.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, put forward a number of additional points. Perhaps he will allow me to write to him on those further points as there are a lot to answer this evening. I thank your Lordships for the support given on all sides of the House, particularly for the talks and your Lordships wish for them to progress in the future. On that basis I commend the order to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992
9.40 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd June be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, laid before the House on 2nd June, be approved.
This is one in a series of financial orders for Northern Ireland which come before the House each year. The draft order before us today authorises expenditure of £2,874 million for Northern Ireland departments in the current financial year. That is additional to the sums voted on account in March and brings total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departments to £5,014 million.
I should like to set the estimates in the context of the recent performance of the Northern Ireland economy. The region's economic fortunes are, of course, closely bound up with those of the UK as a whole. It is not therefore surprising that Northern Ireland has been affected by the recent recession. However, the local economy has been remarkably resilient over the past year or so. While unemployment at 14.4 per cent. of the workforce is higher than any of us would wish, it is well below the peak of 17.7 per cent. in 1986. The increase in unemployment has moderated in recent months and is substantially below that set for the UK as a whole. Similarly, output levels and employment have held up better in Northern Ireland than in the remainder of the United Kingdom.
Recent business surveys also point to an increase in business confidence in Northern Ireland and to a welcome revival in export performance. Taken together, that is encouraging evidence of Northern Ireland's economic capabilities and should leave it well placed to take advantage of the economic upturn.
With your Lordships' permission, I now turn to the main items in the order, starting with the Department of Agriculture. Net provision in the two agricultural Votes amounts to some £152 million, an increase of £8 million over 1991–92. In Vote 1, £33 million is for various market support schemes which operate throughout the United Kingdom. That includes £19 million to support farming in the less favoured areas by means of headage payments on hill cattle and sheep.
In Vote 2, £53 million is for a wide range of professional and technical services to the industry, including scientific and veterinary services. That reflects the importance of maintaining the highest possible quality of Northern Ireland Agricultural products. A further £27 million is sought for arterial drainage, fisheries and forestry.
The Department of Economic Development's Vote 1 seeks provision of £168 million for the Industrial Development Board. The board's main aim is the introduction and development of internationally competitive companies, as that will provide the basis for growth in durable employment. Existing companies are being encouraged and assisted to improve their competitiveness in order to meet the opportunities and challenges offered by the single market.
In Vote 2, £44 million is sought for the Local Enterprise Development Unit which is also placing greater emphasis on improving the competitiveness of small companies; £9 million is sought for the Industrial Research and Technology Unit, which was launched in March to assist companies with research and innovation.
Finally in Vote 2, £11 million is for the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, to assist the further
1364
development of the tourist industry. That is nearly £4 million more than last year and will help the tourist sector generate additional jobs and benefit the economy throughout Northern Ireland.
The Department of Economic Development's Vote 3 seeks £189 million for the Training and Employment Agency. That includes some £46 million for the youth training programme, £51 million for the "Action for Community Employment" programme and £18 million for the job training programme. Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that 90 per cent. of apprentices on training centre courses provided by the agency enter permanent employment on completion of their training.
I now turn to the Department of the Environment, where £169 million is sought in Vote 1 for roads, transport and ports. That includes £142 million to finance the operation and maintenance of Northern Ireland's well-developed road system and for new construction and improvement works.
Vote 2 covers the important area of housing, where £187 million is sought to provide assistance to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and to the voluntary housing movement. When net borrowing by the housing executive, rental income and capital receipts are taken into account, the total resources available for housing this year will be about £531 million. This will enable further progress to be made in improving housing conditions.
In Vote 3 gross expenditure on water and sewerage services in 1992–93 is estimated at £152 million; of which £98 million is required mainly for normal operation and maintenance and £54 million for capital expenditure, including schemes to improve further the quality of drinking water in line with the standards laid down in European Community directives.
In Vote 4, £132 million is sought for a wide range of environmental services. This is some £5 million more than in 1991–92, and includes additional resources for pollution control measures.
The estimates for the Department of Education seek a total of £1,213 million, an increase of 6 per cent. over last year. Vote 1 includes £743 million for recurrent expenditure by education and library boards, an increase of £54 million over 1991-92. This includes £389 million for school teachers' salaries and £237 million for other expenditure on schools and further education services. For libraries, youth, transport and administration £117 million is provided and £50 million is for boards' capital projects, including the provision of new laboratories and technology workshops. Voluntary schools have £123 million and there is £6 million for integrated schools. I know that your Lordships continue to take a keen interest in the development of integrated education in Northern Ireland and will therefore be pleased to learn that there are now 14 integrated schools in operation, with a total of 2,581 pupils in attendance.
In Vote 2, £266 million is sought, including £89 million for universities and £126 million for student support. The vote also covers expenditure on a range of youth, sport, community and cultural activities, including £3 million for community relations activities funded by the department.
For the Department of Health and Social Services, total net provision of £1,243 million is sought for health and personal social services. This is an increase of £74 million over 1991–92 and will help to ensure that the already high standard of these services in Northern Ireland is maintained and developed. Included is £252 million for family health services, £887 million for the health and social services boards and £46 million for a substantial capital development programme.
In Vote 4 a total of £1,022 million is sought for the range of benefits administered by the Social Security Agency. That includes £187 million for disability benefits, £567 million for income support and £268 million for family and other benefits.
Finally, I draw attention to the Department of Finance and Personnel Vote 3, where £4 million is sought for the community relations programme. This brings total spending on this programme to £7 million this year. The Government will continue to support and facilitate developments which lead to increased contacts and understanding between the two communities. Much useful work is being carried out in this area and it is encouraging, for example, that some 500 schools and 300 youth organisations are now involved in cross-community contact programmes. This offers great hope for the future.
I hope that your Lordships have found this summary of the main components of this order to be of help. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd June be approved.—(The Earl of Arran.)
9.49 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his summary of the main provisions of the order. The importance to Northern Ireland of the National Health Service and social security stands out very clearly in the estimates. Added together, the expenditure on those two services accounts for almost one-half of the total current annual expenditure of the Northern Ireland departments, excluding security and law and order. Having regard to the magnitude of that expenditure and also to the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, is the Minister who has special responsibility for both programmes, I thought that it would be appropriate for me this evening to concentrate on these two services to the exclusion of the other services, although I do not underestimate their importance for one moment.
Although the two programmes are extremely important for people in Northern Ireland, they have not been discussed at length in your Lordships' House for some considerable time. As I have said, however, we have the advantage and the pleasure this evening of having with us the Minister in charge. I have to refer to criticisms that I hear about the planning of the health service capital programme in the Province, but let me say at once that I would not wish to be thought blind to the fine achievements of the dedicated men and women who serve the patients in Northern Ireland or to the magnificent contribution that is made by the service.
1366
The debate on this order in another place on 18th June, together with complaints from at least two deputations which came to Westminster last year, suggest that all may not be well within the planning structure of the National Health Service in Northern Ireland. I put it no higher than that. It would appear that those who have had dealings with the planning departments of the four Health and Social Service Boards would prefer to try almost any other form of planning which the wit of man could design. An inference that the Government might fairly draw from this is that it has something to do with the failure of the boards to undertake their planning tasks in a way that retains the confidence of the local communities. Another inference would be that the boards have failed to appreciate the historical role of the hospital service in relation to its community. They simply treat such hospitals as if they have outlived their era.
I would be the first to concede that the reorganisation of hospitals is inherently difficult. It is difficult because a community will be wedded to its local hospital. Historically, that hospital will have been dependent on local donations, public-spiritedness and involvement. However, the public of 1992 have not been convinced by the department or the four boards that their own community hospital can have an extended role in the future. I am sure that the Minister is fully aware of that criticism, but he may be unaware that there is also a widespread conviction that the leaders of the local communities feel they are impotent in their efforts to influence the health boards and to shape the National Health Service.
The criticism that we hear is not confined to the nature of the planning of the capital programme; it also touches the composition of the health boards. I accept that board members are anxious to do a good job of work, but I have to say to the Minister that the membership of the boards and their role is something of a mystery to many people who have had a lifetime of experience in public life—
Lord Fitt: Hear, hear!
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I hear the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, supporting me.
It is widely rumoured that too many of the members are ex-civil servants—the innuendo being that they are there to represent the interests and the prejudices of the Civil Service and to ensure that the board becomes an instrument of the Civil Service. Although I would be cautious about accepting that innuendo, I am sure that the charge cannot be ignored or lightly brushed aside.
I should be glad to hear from the Minister how the Government propose to answer that criticism. It would be helpful if the noble Earl could tell the House what is the test for membership of the area health boards. Can the Minister place in the Library a list of the names of the present members together with a description of their occupations, or former occupations if retired?
As well as being a department of central government, the DHSS in Northern Ireland, over which the Minister presides, also fulfils the same role

1367
as an English regional health authority. How well does the department perform its regional health authority functions?
Among the official documents published this year perhaps one of the most revealing of all in this respect is the authoritative report by the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland which was published in February. I regret to say that the report brings to light a sad picture of the department's inadequate and sloppy control and monitoring procedure in respect of the purchase of X-ray equipment by the four area boards during the past four or five years. The report gives an impressive list of omissions and deficiencies by the department, which owing to the lateness of the hour, I shall not repeat now. While the responsibility for the state of affairs revealed by the report must in part be that of the boards and their officers, it is also certain that there has been a lack of drive and sophistication in the relevant section within the department. That is a severe criticism but I am satisfied that it is properly based on the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Another worrying point is that the Department of Health performs other regional functions. I appreciate that the Minister has been in his present post for only three months but I should like to urge him to satisfy himself that similar deficiencies are not affecting those functions as well and that the department is using the powers which it undoubtedly possesses to supervise more effectively the work of the health boards. I anticipate that its task of supervision may become even more important as the health trusts take over the provision of health care and the service becomes more fragmented in the future.
The Comptroller and Auditor General also reported that, since the resignation of the department's advisory committee on radiology in December 1989, it no longer has available to it the advice of an independent group of radiologists drawn from throughout Northern Ireland. He concluded that this was a loss to the service and he recommended specifically that this specialist committee be reconvened. I hope that the department has not been unsympathetic to that advice.
I am aware that there is a body of opinion in Northern Ireland which favours the setting up of an independent Northern Ireland health advisory board to give advice on the formulation and application of health policies. Such a body should have among its membership well-informed and articulate lay people who could bring some pressure from the outside world to bear upon a bureaucracy which is perceived to be set in its ways. I wonder whether the department is sympathetic to that suggestion.
I should now like to make one or two comments on the social security service. I should point out that, since July last year, the service has been administered by the department's agent, the Social Security Agency, which employs about 5,500 people. That is something like 20 per cent. of the whole of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. Moreover, two-thirds of the population of Northern Ireland, inclusive of old-age state pensioners, is in receipt of social security benefits.
1368
Those few facts show the heavy extent of Northern Ireland's dependency on benefits. It follows that the day-to-day well-being of two-thirds of its population cannot be separated from the smooth, effective and efficient running of the Social Security Agency.
The foregoing implies that there should be fair and prompt adjudication of applications for benefits and that there should be speedy procedures of appeal whenever there is a dispute. It also implies that the adjudication officers in the district offices should possess a sound and up-to-date grasp of the complex legislation so that an applicant can receive her or his just entitlement.
I accept the fact that these are early days in the history of the agency. Fortunately, the chief adjudication officer's latest annual report covers the period ending last June. Therefore, it includes the first three months of the agency's programme. I am glad to say that it appears to me that the chief adjudication officer is not living in a world of his own; he is living in the real world. His report gives the impression of being realistic in its approach to the difficulties. It does not hesitate to point out that much work remains to be done in respect of some benefits in order to bring first-time adjudication to a satisfactory standard.
Nevertheless, it is very disturbing to read that many district offices do not have up-to-date particulars of the detailed legislation relating to unemployment benefits, income support benefits and the Social Fund. That puzzles me. How can a claimant receive his or her proper entitlement unless that basic information is immediately available to the staff who handle the claim? I suggest to the Minister that that is a deficiency which must urgently be put right. Understandably, there have been some problems of redeployment and retraining and selection of people for new posts; but can we be assured that such problems—which, as I say, are inevitable—will he sorted out by next April?
I very much hope that the Minister will encourage the agency to pay the maximum attention to the authoritative report that I mentioned. Will the Minister also confirm that the agency will study the lessons that are spelt out in the DSS-sponsored research study evaluating the Social Fund? That study was undertaken by the Social Policy Research Unit of York University. Its report was published yesterday. Indeed, I am indebted to my noble friend Lady Hollis for alerting me to the publication of that valuable report and to some of its disturbing conclusions. However, if the Minister can confirm that the agency will pay immediate maximum attention to the findings of that study group, I shall be content.
The Department of Health and Social Security, over which the Minister presides, has full control of those two major areas of policy and expenditure. It is not dependent on any external factors. As the people of Northern Ireland are heavily dependent on both programmes, they can benefit substantially by effective and efficient running of the National Health Service and administration of the Social Security Agency. That is why I have taken the liberty this evening of concentrating at some length upon those

1369
services, knowing that other speakers will do justice to many of the other equally important subjects covered by the order.
10.5 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has eloquently made his own this evening the subject of health in Northern Ireland. Perhaps I may presume for a moment upon the very topic that he has been addressing—I must apologise to the Minister for not having given notice of the question I am about to ask—because there is a considerable problem of which the Minister is no doubt aware. It relates to the Throne Hospital in the Royal group of hospitals of the Eastern Health Board. As I understand it, to acquire trust status in 1993, the Royal group has to find savings of £3 million. It intends to save £1 million by closing the Throne Hospital, which, as the Minister will be aware, specialises in the care of old people.
Given the widespread disquiet that the proposal has caused, not merely among the political parties but among local residents, the old people themselves, and the medical profession, is it the Government's intention, when pursuing trust status for hospitals, to have a good and much-needed community facility for old people closed in that way? Was that the intended consequence? Is there even now any prospect of seeing that decision rescinded?
My main subject is the state of the Northern Ireland economy. In his interesting and comprehensive introduction to the order, the Minister used the phrase that the Northern Ireland economy was well placed to take advantage of an economic upturn. He may be interested to know that a few days ago the Financial Times said that that phrase was always used by company chairmen whose companies were in trouble. We must hope that what the Minister said is true, but I am afraid that the Northern Ireland economy is not in good shape, despite the massive subventions which the British taxpayer makes, on the whole, I believe, willingly, towards Northern Ireland's prosperity. Indeed, the Minister will be aware that the April report of the Northern Ireland Economic Council was one of the gloomiest since the recession of the 1980s.
Despite the fact that 40 per cent. of the jobs in Northern Ireland are public-sector funded, unemployment is consistently 4 per cent. higher than that of the UK and is currently running, as the Minister said, at 14 per cent. of the population—one in seven of the workforce. The numbers of unemployed people have risen from 99,400 in January 1991 to 105,000 in January 1992. That is an increase of over 5,000 in one year in a country of only 1.5 million people. There are a further 5,000 people on training schemes who will soon leave them. They will then be on the dole.
Although the Minister was right when he said that unemployment in Northern Ireland has been worse in the past, there are of course wide regional variations. Some areas such as Strabane, Newry, Mourne, Londonderry and Cookstown have rates of between 19.5 per cent. and 24 per cent. One in five people is out
1370
of work. Emigration continues. Nearly 7,000 people leave Northern Ireland every year to look for work. What do the Government feel that they should do about that grave problem when the some of the youngest, best and brightest people are leaving the Province? There is not merely the problem of emigration and unemployment; currently, inward investment is falling. The IDB has been unable to report more hopeful statistics. Sadly, 1991 was one of the worst years on record for job promotion, with only 80 jobs being created by inward investment. Even including the 350 jobs attracted from the UK during the year, this falls well short of the IDB's own target of 1,800.
Does the noble Earl feel there is any longer a case for the IDB and the LEDU being separate organisations? I notice that they cost £10 million and £7 million respectively. Their areas of operation seem to overlap; indeed, they are currently carrying out a joint project on SMEs. I wonder whether there is scope for rationalisation and, in the course of that more focused promotion on their part.
To finish the chronicle of gloom in which I take no pleasure —it is something that must worry us all—the PA consultancy survey in March 1992 shows that all four forward economic indicators are down for the first time in 30 years. Investment intentions are down 4 per cent. for the coming 12 months; projected employment is down 2 per cent.; and manufacturing output is down 1 per cent. Orders are down 1 per cent. I know what a blow this must be to the noble Earl's honourable friend Mr. Needham who predicted 2 per cent. of real growth for the Northern Ireland economy earlier this year.
The proponents of economic despondency—among whom today I am unhappy to find myself—are bound to try to ask what more could be done. I know that this exercises the Government continually. Where are the green shoots of growth in the Northern Ireland economy? What more could be done to try to get a greater degree of economic self-reliance in the Province and a growing prosperity that does not depend on the drip-feed of subvention?
I return to a point I raised in the earlier debate. There is an enormous potential bonus available from treating the island of Ireland increasingly as one economic area within the European Community. No doubt the noble Earl is aware that Coopers & Lybrand, commenting on a recent CBI/CII survey, said that they thought that an increase in intra-island trade would be a great advantage. The CBI/CII survey thought that an extra £3 billion in increased trade and an extra 75,000 additional jobs were potentially available if the two parts of the island could be in the closest possible economic links. We understand very well the fact that they are not and we all know that for reasons of history and of political tension they have not naturally looked to each other but have both looked across the water. But does this not demand from the Government of the Republic of Ireland and from ourselves in Northern Ireland the greatest possible effort to get the economic borders down? There should be co-operation rather than competition between the two parts of the island.

1371
It is unique within the Community that both sides of the border qualify for objective one status under the EC structural fund. This could be exploited for their mutual advantage. They are peripheral. Both have small home markets; both have important agricultural sectors and large public sectors.
Perhaps I may suggest one or two other areas of co-operation. Both parts of the island—and this means the British Government and the Irish Government—could concentrate on getting state aids in centrally located regions of the EC de-emphasised while emphasising more strongly the peripheral regions to help in the cohesion plans which have been published for EMU. There could be more joint recession development, given the relative similarity of trade. Both parts of the island could co-operate to get European Community funds for research and development.
I referred earlier to the prospect for improved joint energy programmes. It is welcome that the interconnector between the Scottish grid and Northern Ireland has been agreed. It is also welcome that the EC has agreed to help finance the project. That is certainly more likely to create a realistic market in the newly privatised industry than would otherwise have been possible. But would not the interests of the Northern Ireland consumer be better served, and incidentally would there not be greater spinning reserve made available to ensure continual electricity supply and fewer power cuts if the interconnector could be re-established with the South?
I am well aware that the terrorist action of 1975 is the reason why the interconnector has not been re-established. But that is another good reason for the talks to work. We must hope that this kind of co-operation on energy matters will become possible. The noble Earl was kind enough to say earlier that he would write to me on the matter. There is scope to create a key junction in the Scotland/Dublin gas pipeline which could feed Northern Ireland too. On the question of economic development there is greater scope than has so far been put into practice to get the two halves of the island working together—that is what all my comments have been leading to—and in that context to make sure that the British taxpayer gets better value for the money we spend, albeit willingly, on Northern Ireland.
Finally, there is the question of transport, particularly freight. When the Channel Tunnel is completed, the island of Ireland will be the only part of the European Community which is not, as it were, land linked with continental Europe. That will throw together Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland through necessity, or, if one likes, adversity, to concentrate on transport infrastructure both within the island and with Great Britain and Europe.
Once the Channel Tunnel is completed, the land bridge may become more attractive than the direct route to Northern Ireland and the Irish ports. However, the tunnel will only benefit trade on the island of Ireland to the extent that improvements are made in the road and rail infrastructure linking the Channel Tunnel and the west British ports that serve the two parts of the island. As my noble friend Lord
1372
Russell pointed out during the March debate, the Government are aware that at least 10 to 15 per cent. of Northern Ireland freight originates outside the UK, and hence Northern Ireland is critically dependent on GB infrastructure for that trade.
While it is welcome that the Government are willing to discuss the requirements of upgrading the Holyhead/Crewe rail link, that does not directly benefit Northern Ireland which is dependent on links to Stranraer. What are the Government's plans to improve the links with Stranraer? I fear that the proposals, such as we understand them, to improve the road links to these ports, extremely welcome as they are, may be too little too late. We have a projected 3 per cent. increase in road use within the decade and it could be that current planned improvements will be outstripped by demand.
The burden of my theme is that we support the order and believe that the British taxpayer is right to continue heavy levels of subsidy to Northern Ireland. Those subsidies are needed but we must reflect whether there are not ways in which the governments of the Republic and this country working together could do more to improve the common infrastructure and thus the prosperity of the island.
10.18 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I am conscious that the time factor is pressing severely on the business of this House. The points I wish to make will be directed principally to the order before us and will not be argued in detail. Members on these Benches have contributed to searching and constructive debate on these orders. I hope the Minister will have an opportunity to reply to the points made by noble Lords on this side of the House.
To help clarify points in my own mind I shall refer to the Northern Ireland Estimates for 1992 to 1993. The first matter I wish to raise is the DED, Vote 1 on page 48 of the Estimates referred to in the order. It relates to selective assistance and other services to industry. I have heard concern expressed about what appears to be a cut in the provision under this heading of some £37 million. It is readily accepted that there is a need to improve the effectiveness of the methods applied by the selective assistance and other services to produce effective productive development. But I would suggest that any proposed changes in the industrial development grants should be realistically directed to the development of indigenous businesses. There is a greater need than ever to encourage entrepreneurial skills and enterprise in Northern Ireland. That has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Holme.
This would not exclude suitable support for overseas and inward investment on new product development. Indeed I was delighted to hear the Northern Ireland Minister for Industry, Mr. Robert Atkins, announce the Fruit of the Loom expansion at Derry involving some 650 new jobs. But I believe that overseas investment is more readily attracted if potential investors find industrial productive development in Northern Ireland rather than the drip-feed and lame cluck connotations that we have heard

1373
mentioned tonight. In this connection I would join the CBI in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland trade unions and the Belfast Unemployed Centre in welcoming the establishment of the new Research and Technological Unit. It is to be hoped that this unit's new board will effectively encourage closer links between both sides of industry which comprise the board. Indeed there is a great need for co-ordinated action at all levels of the industrial partnership to generate employment. There is a very close-knit management-labour relationship—a small span of command—that can effectively deal with problems and new methods of production in an earnest and quick manner, so it is unfortunate that there should be this cut of £37 million in the provision as listed. I would ask: is there a figure for the provision of a new RTU?
I should like to refer to DED, Vote 2 on page 51 of the Estimates dealing with the Health and Safety Agency for Northern Ireland and also with health and employment protection. Both these are small financial provisions. Why is there a cut of some £18 million in regard to these very important safety services? It is particularly unfortunate in this year, the European Year of Hygiene, Health and Safety at Work. I should have thought there would be some special provisions to indicate that Northern Ireland was in line with what was happening in the rest of the United Kingdom and in Europe.
I now come to the item on page 54, Vote 2, on mineral exploration and miscellaneous services. I was surprised to see the extent of the cut, £278,000, in connection with expenditure on the search for minerals and petroleum and on the monitoring of current exploration developments in the Province. I understand from people at university level who are competent to assess these research and mineral explorations that optimistic results have been obtained about possible commercial prospects from shale oil deposits on the Antrim plateau and other commercially viable mineral deposits in the Province. I ask the Minister whether we have given up hope of profitable exploration in Northern Ireland? Why has this huge cut taken place this year.
With regard to the General Consumer Council—DED, Vote 2 on page 54—the Minister will be aware of the work of that organisation. It is extremely active and effective in the discharge of its statutory remit. It has responded very positively in a supportive manner to the principles of raising the standard of high quality public services and giving more power to the citizen, as announced in the Northern Ireland Citizen's Charter. Indeed, the chairman of the council, Lady McCullum, has been appointed a member of the Secretary of State's advisory panel on the charter.
I ask the Minister whether he will tell us the reason for that severe cut. Why has a provision of the General Consumer Council been cut by £25,000 even when it was proven that its very limited budget for last year had been extended to the limits? I understand that the council's budgetary estimates for the programme of
1374
work for the year were duly submitted to the department but no explanation was received about the work or the finance involved.
With regard to DED, Vote 3 on page 58, the Youth Training Programme (YTP) and Action for Community Employment (ACE), from experience I know that both those programmes have been very tightly financed, monitored and controlled. I very much regret to see cuts of some £6 million in those essential and vital services. Indeed, I had hoped to have seen substantial additional funds for that vastly increasing problem in Northern Ireland.
One has only to read the editorial and report in today's London Times to understand the problems in Great Britain arising from unemployment among young people. Many of them have left school without qualifications and have little or no work experience. Employment schemes are vital to the future and general good of young people and the community at large. I ask the Minister to use his good offices to draw this matter to the attention of his ministerial colleague to have it urgently examined.
In the matter of the employment services, I should at least like to present a bouquet on Vote 3 (page 60 of the Estimates). There is a very welcome provision of £170,000 for employment schemes and facilities at the Training and Employment Agency offices throughout the Province—those are jobcentres—which are found in every town throughout Northern Ireland. I mention specially the offices at Gloucester House, Belfast, and in the North and West of Belfast, for the type of help given. I have had feedback from a number of people with whom I have been associated in going to those offices. They have praised at great length the highly advanced and specialised equipment that is made available to them there. I understand that it is the best in the United Kingdom.
The unemployed and job seekers are helped personally in every possible way to be placed in the employment that is most suitable to their aptitudes, skills and abilities. They are able to be put in touch with vacancies and prospective employers not only throughout Northern Ireland at any time but also throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. I understand that measures are soon to be adopted to extend that type of information to all the jobcentres in Europe. In that respect, Northern Ireland is well ahead of Great Britain. I should like to give credit to the people who are manning those particular jobcentres which I know and have experienced.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, referred to electricity. Reference has been made to the DED Vote on pages 61 to 64 for the OFFER in Northern Ireland. There are no comparable figures available. It is a new venture to meet the needs of the 600,000 electricity consumers in Northern Ireland. I do not wish to go into the details about the quotation and other matters. However, there is considerable anxiety among consumers and industrialists in Northern Ireland about the future in that connection. Such concern does not arise from rumour or lack of understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland. It arises from the situation that already exists in Great Britain.
In its brief the Northern Ireland CBI states:

1375
"Large users are at severe disadvantage in Northern Ireland. During 1991 CBI research highlighted that these users were paying 15–25% more for electricity in NI compared to GB, costing approximately £10 million … and even more compared to many other EC countries.
Since April 1992, 21 companies (representing 10% of the manufacturing employment) have been facing significant increases—even though Minister Needham said that tariff levels would not increase in real terms until 1996/7. DED has imposed 6 month freeze (till 30 September) on price increases as they try to resolve [the] problem. Additional cost being threatened [is] estimated at £3 m".
Naturally the CBI sees a need for some form of competitor in that new venture on electricity. It supports the electricity of the interconnector already referred to and the gas pipeline with Scotland.
There is considerable information in a new publication available on the magazine rack in the Library of the House of Lords. It is a publication from Northern Ireland entitled Northern Ireland Business Review and is published monthly. It will be of great value to people in Northern Ireland and those interested in business affairs in Northern Ireland. Its information is positive, informative and reliable.
Those are the points that I wish to raise. I have given the Minister notice of some of them.
10.32 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the heavy force has just arrived on the Government Front Bench; and I suppose that we should be intimidated and not keep the House up at this late hour. However, it is necessary to speak on this Appropriation Order. That is what the House is for. When we were invited to take our seats in this Chamber we were invited to express our opinions on legislation that affects our constituencies.
The people of Northern Ireland should be very grateful that we have the noble Lord, Lord Blease, in this House. He is the only Member of your Lordships' House who both regularly attends the debates and continues to live in Northern Ireland. With his industrial background in the trade union movement, he still after many years remains concerned with the industrial position in Northern Ireland. I believe that all the people in Northern Ireland should be grateful to him for his continuing interest.
I have taken the same view as my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies in relation to the debate. I do not live in Northern Ireland. Although there is no substitute for living there, I try to keep in touch with people in Northern Ireland by telephone, by meetings, and by reading the debates of another place. I intend to concentrate on that aspect briefly tonight.
During my political life I have found few occasions to agree with the honourable Member for North Antrim in another place, Dr. Paisley, particularly in respect of constitutional issues. However, I have always recognised him as being a valiant constituency worker. He has shown a great deal of interest in the welfare of his constituents and in other people throughout Northern Ireland. On reading his contribution to the appropriation debate in another place I was astounded at some of the revelations which he made. Although there may not be too many Members in your Lordships' House this evening I know that many Members read the Official Report of
1376
our debates. I believe that something should be read into the records of the Official Report to show the extent of what I regard to be a serious problem in Northern Ireland.
My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies drew attention to what he considers to be great discontent within the health service as regards the boards which have been set up—the "quangos" as they are referred to in Northern Ireland. All political parties in Northern Ireland have voiced concern about the composition of the boards. They consider that the people who have been placed on them are there to voice the opinions of the Northern Ireland Office. That is a bad way to run a health service. Referring to an earlier debate, I hope that, if there is a conclusion to the political talks which are now taking place, the responsibility for heath and social services will revert to a Northern Ireland institution. Those people will then have the responsibility either for the continuing existence of the quangos or, if they want to abolish them, for the setting up of a new structure which will more ably represent the views of the people.
I want to read a paragraph of what was said in another place by the honourable Member for North Antrim. He said:
"Last week, the Eastern health and social services board announced that it would close six hospitals. Some 750 beds in the area will close and up to 8,000 nursing staff will eventually lose their jobs. The Government propose to close Newtownards, Bangor, Belvoir Park, Down, Foster Green and Musgrave Park. What a list of hospitals to be closed!" —[Official Report, Commons, 18/6/92; col. 1131.]
He then went on to point out that those hospitals have specialist agencies within them to deal with infectious diseases.
On the face of it the Eastern health and social services board has decided to close six hospitals and to make 8,000 staff redundant. Therefore, there must have been gross mismanagement in those hospitals, considering the number of staff involved, the hospitals which will close and the facilities which are to be transferred to other places. I am certain that if the board were run by Northern Ireland people that would not have taken place.
I am perhaps the more concerned for personal reasons and I have been in touch with the Minister's office to ask him about the matter. I receive daily telephone calls and letters from people in Northern Ireland complaining about the length of time that people there must wait for by-pass and heart operations. It is well known that Northern Ireland is the worst region in Europe for heart complaints. No one knows why, but that has been the case for a number of years. The honourable Member for North Antrim stated that he knows of people who have had to wait four years for heart surgery and that it is a matter of life and death. He quoted from the Register General Quarterly Returns for Northern Ireland for 1990, showing that:
"the number of heart disease deaths in the Greater Belfast area was: Ards, 165; Belfast, 922; Castlereagh. 188; Down, 215; Lisburn, 218; and North Down, 200—making a total of 1,908".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/6/92; col. 1133.]
He added that the figures for other heart-related disease deaths were Ards, 22; Belfast, 178; Castlereagh. 25; Down, 21; Lisburn, 28; and North

1377
Down, 22. That makes a total of 296. The grand total of deaths from heart disease in Northern Ireland was 2,204.
I find those figures absolutely devastating. As I say, we do not know why heart disease is so prevalent in Northern Ireland but surely the Government should be able to throw more facilities into the tight to try to combat heart disease. I have asked the Minister—and I hope he will be able to reply this evening—how many by-pass operations were carried out last year in Northern Ireland and how many people are on the waiting lists. Is he satisfied as regards the number of specialists that there are in Northern Ireland to carry out heart surgery? If the facilities for heart by-pass operations or other operations related to heart disease are not available, could not patients be transferred to other parts of England, Scotland or Wales so that they would not have to wait for such a long period of time for an operation? It is extremely important for the Government to look at and take seriously the remarks that were made by the honourable Member for North Antrim, because it would appear that he has carried out a searching inquiry into the number of people affected by heart disease. The people of Northern Ireland deserve all the support that we can give them.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, mentioned the Throne Hospital issue. That hospital is situated in the Antrim Road, which is in what was formerly my North Belfast constituency for many years. That has provided a good service to people of all religions and of all political views over many years. It has always been regarded as an institution which could enlist the support of the whole community in that particular area, as it has done on this occasion. Every political party in Northern Ireland has supported the retention of the Throne Hospital. Although it appears that there will be savings of fl million, I am certain that that £1 million should be devoted to refurbishing that hospital. The building, the structure, is sound. The whole area is amenable to what the Throne Hospital is trying to do.
In relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Holme, mentioned, I still believe that there is no great anxiety in Northern Ireland over the privatisation of the electricity authorities or the water or sewerage services.
Two days ago I ran into a demonstration taking place outside the House. Immediately I was recognised by the fishermen from Kilkeel. I am sure that the Minister must have received forceful representations in relation to the ongoing dispute which is now taking place. The fishermen told me that many of them will be forced out of the fishing industry. They have been told by the Government that they must stop fishing for 136 days per year while fishermen from other EC member states will be able to fish in the waters in which our fishermen would normally be fishing. That directive from the EC acts greatly to the disadvantage of our own fishermen. Before the Government take any final steps, I ask them to look to the old adage that charity begins at
1378
home. They should look after the interests of our own fishermen rather than kowtow to the European Commission on the question of conservation.
Many representations have been made to me over the past two days about an investment company known as the International Investment Company Limited, which is based in Gibraltar. It has placed many advertisements in newspapers in the United Kingdom and in particular in Northern Ireland and, indeed, in the Republic. Many people have invested their life savings or redundancy payments with those people in answer to the advertisements. There are now rumours circulating that Northern Ireland may be about to experience its own BCCI scandal. I was wondering whether any representations had been made to the Government in that connection. The Minister may not possess that information for me tonight, but perhaps he will write to me. There is deep concern in connection with this matter.
10.45 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I may say straightaway that in the interests of time it is probably best that I do not answer all the questions this evening. I shall do my best to answer as many as I can, but I shall certainly write to noble Lords in connection with any that I cannot answer.
Several noble Lords showed a keen interest this evening in the development of health and personal social services. The health and social services boards will have £887 million available from net current expenditure in 1992–93. That is an increase of £55 million over 1991–92 and is to improve the services for patients and clients.
It is a matter for boards to plan the development of their services in the light of the additional resources being made available, and with sufficient flexibility to enable them to cope with emerging pressures. However, I note what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, regarding planning by the boards, and I shall write to him in that regard.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and other noble Lords, I understand that local communities may be extremely concerned when a health and social services board proposes the closure or change of use of facilities or services. But I hope they will agree that if boards are to continue to provide the highest quality of services, changes are inevitable. I know that boards take seriously their responsibility to consult their local communities when changes are contemplated. Decisions to close or to change the use of facilities will not be taken lightly. The views of local communities and their public representatives will always be given the most careful consideration. I give the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and other noble Lords my complete assurance on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, mentioned the question of the closure of the Throne Hospital. The Eastern Health and Social Services accepted proposals for the closure of the Throne Hospital. The board proposals are in line with the department's policy for the care of elderly people as set out in the regional strategy for health and personal social services for 1992–97. The aim is to build up services in the

1379
community so that a greater proportion of people aged 75 and over can be cared for in their own homes rather than in institutions.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was kind and courteous enough to give me advance notice of the points that he wished to raise this evening. He referred to the membership of the health and social services boards, as did the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. Membership of the boards consists of people drawn from a wide range of backgrounds who have an interest in health and social care. Individuals are appointed as non-executive directors of boards on the basis of the skills and experience that they can bring to the board's business. The appointment of chairmen and non-executive board directors was publicly announced on 28th March last year. As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, suggested, I am arranging for a list of members to be placed in the Library. But it is not normal practice to disclose personal information about individual appointees.
The noble Lord asked also about the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the purchase of X-ray equipment, and the suggestions that the department's advisory committee on radiology should be reconstituted. The Public Accounts Committee recently took advice on that matter and it would he inappropriate for me to comment at this stage. When the committee's report is published, its conclusions and recommendations will be carefully considered and the Government will respond fully through the normal medium of a memorandum of reply.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked also about the prospect of setting up an independent health advisory board. My department receives advice from a wide range of professional advisory committees, but I shall certainly consider the noble Lord's suggestion in that regard.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to the Chief Adjudication Officer's report on adjudication standards. The social security agent has given an extremely positive response to the report and is taking action to effect improvements in the areas highlighted. I can assure the noble Lord that the agency is determined to attain the highest possible level of performance in adjudication work.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, spoke about the report in Great Britain by the Social Policy Research Unit at York. Although the report covers only Great Britain it will be studied extremely carefully to see whether it contains material which would be of relevance to Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, suggested that the I DB and the LEDU might amalgamate. There are no plans at this time to do so, but a harmonious and effective working relationship exists between the two organisations. That is being continually developed and built on. A review of structures within the Department of Economic Development and its agencies undertaken last year recommended that IDB and LEDU should remain separate, but that action should be taken to strengthen coherence of policy and eliminate any areas of overlap. The review's recommendations are being implemented.
1380
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, also asked about North-South economic co-operation. Certainly, we welcome any constructive contribution to the discussion on cross-border economic co-operation which has of course increased significantly in recent years. The Government are ready to provide assistance with, for example, the development of infrastructure in those cases where it can be shown to be of mutual benefit. However, it must be recognised that there are also many areas where the natural North-South relationship is one of competition to serve the same markets. It is for individual firms both North and South to determine where their own interests lie and to pursue those relationships which they believe will enhance their competitive position in world markets.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, raised several points. I shall respond to a few of them. He asked why the level of selective financial assistance to industry this year is about £20 million less than for 1991–92. The answer is that the reduction mainly affects industrial development grants where a lower number of projects have been grant-aided in recent years, reflecting the more difficult economic situation and a reduction in the level of grants available towards total investment costs. Grants may be spread over a number of years and there will inevitably be fluctuations in the estimates from year to year. However, I can assure the noble Lord that the change in provision does not reflect any reduction in the Government's commitment to industrial development. That remains the Government's second public expenditure priority in Northern Ireland after law and order.
The noble Lord also pointed out that the current provision for the Health and Safety Agency and for health and employment protection shows a marginal reduction over last year. This allocation is considered adequate for both the agency and the Health and Safety Inspectorate's needs, including any activities associated with the European Year of Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work.
As regards funding for the General Consumer Council, the Government believe that the sums provided in the estimates should enable the council to carry out its functions including any relating to the Citizen's Charter.
Perhaps I may take one point of the many which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, brought up. I hope that I have covered some already. As regards the Kilkeel fisherman, I understand the points that he has made about the anxiety expressed by the fishing industry in Northern Ireland, including those fishermen based at Kilkeel. However, we consider that the package announced by my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture, which also included a decommissioning scheme, will make a definite contribution to the conservation of fish stocks through reduced fishing effort. We consider that the package represents a good balance between the use of public funds, further controls on fishermen and the opportunity for the industry to play a greater role in securing its future.
I conclude my remarks by thanking noble Lords for participating in this debate and displaying their

1381
customary interest and concern for the people of Northern Ireland. I commend this order to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.

Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1992
10.55 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th June be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order is long and complex but I am relieved to say largely non-contentious. The order has been subject to wide ranging consultation with interested bodies in Northern Ireland. In total, comments were received from 36 organisations, including the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the Northern Ireland Housing Council, 10 district councils and other professional and representative groups. A number of amendments were made to the detail of the order as a result of this process but I am pleased to say that overall most respondents felt that the provisions were a sensible and logical development of Northern Ireland housing legislation.
Part II restates with amendments the legislation governing registered housing associations. The amendments are broadly similar to those contained in Part II of the Housing Act 1988. They centre on the decontrol of rents on new lettings and a more flexible framework for the payment and recovery of grants. They will give housing associations more control over their own affairs and provide greater incentives for efficient management. They will also enable housing associations to raise private loan finance and thereby achieve a higher programme output for a given level of resources.
Another important provision of the order is the replacement of the existing complex right-to-buy legislation with a simple requirement for the housing executive to operate a house sales scheme. The scheme, which will require the Department of the Environment's approval, will be similar to the executive's current highly successful voluntary sales scheme which to date has facilitated the sale of over 51,000 homes to tenants. Housing executive tenants will therefore continue to be able to purchase their homes on terms which are at least as favourable as those provided in the right-to-buy legislation in England and Wales and any future changes to the legislation can easily be incorporated in the scheme with the minimum of delay.
There is little doubt that to many people the most eagerly awaited provisions of the order are set out in Part III and relate to the replacement of existing grants legislation with a new regime along the lines of
1382
that contained in the 1989 Local Government and Housing Act, suitably tailored to suit Northern Ireland's circumstances.
Under these provisions, renovation grants will be mandatory in the case of unfit owner-occupied houses and they will also be available to landlords primarily on a discretionary basis to bring single dwellings and houses in multiple occupation into a fit condition. Except in the case of minor works grant and repairs grant, a test of resources will be applied to determine the amount of grant that can be paid. This will target grant towards applicants who do not have the resources to carry out work without assistance more effectively than under the current scheme. The particular and very real concern of fire hazard in houses in multiple occupation has also been addressed with the introduction of grant aid for fire precautions as well as a means of escape.
The order contains a number of more minor amendments, but I hope that I have been able to explain the main provisions of the legislation. Excellent progress has been made in recent years in improving housing conditions in Northern Ireland and in meeting urgent housing need. The provisions in the order should help us to maintain that progress. I therefore commend the order.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th June be approved.—(The Earl of Arran.)
10.58 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, once again the House is grateful to the Minister for explaining so clearly the scope of a complex order, consisting as it does of 108 articles and nine schedules. It appears to me that it changes significantly the legislation affecting housing in Northern Ireland. The Minister explained that many of the provisions mirror developments in housing legislation in England and Wales, but there is no way in which we can test their relevance in the Northern Ireland context nor is there any way in which we can change any of its provisions.
Although I have no expertise in housing legislation, I should like to touch briefly on seven points. I have given the Minister notice of the contents of my questions.
First, does the order indicate a possible shift in the role of the housing executive? Is it anticipated that some of the resources currently allotted to the housing executive are likely to be transferred to the housing associations, and if so, how radical a shift will that be? Secondly, particularly in the light of Article 16, does the department intend to set up a body to be representative of the housing associations? If so, will a housing association be obliged to affiliate to such a body? Thirdly, I am concerned that under Article 26(1)(b), after an inquiry under Article 23 and without evidence of any misconduct or mismanagement on the part of the association, or without evidence that it was failing to carry out its objects, the department can direct that its land be transferred to another association if the department considers that its management would be improved thereby. As I understand the order, there is no means whereby that direction can be challenged. My fear is that the

1383
procedure can be put in train in order to reduce the number of housing associations if the department considers that the reduction is desirable or convenient. If that is so, I feel that the department is going too far in reserving such a power to itself.
Fourthly, what role are the housing associations expected to play in the provision of hostels? We are particularly concerned about hostels for the homeless. Is it envisaged that they will play a leading role in the provision of hostels for the homeless? Fifthly, looking at the position from the consumer's standpoint, will the tenants of those housing associations whose membership is not confined to their tenants have by law a majority representation on their management committees? I find it difficult to believe that their voice should not be heard, and heard effectively.
Sixthly, the principal purpose of a housing association is to provide housing for its members and not to trade at a profit. Accordingly, in what circumstances under Article 15(4) is it envisaged that an association can lawfully acquire commercial premises or a business and set up shop; and for how long can it hold such premises or carry on such business without forfeiting its tax relief advantages?
Seventhly, Article 18(4) provides that the registrar is to give notice of cancellation or suspension of a registered housing association to the department. The power of cancellation is to be found in Article 17, but nowhere in the order have I seen the power to suspend. Where is it, please? I note that Article 17 provides an appeal procedure against cancellation, but within what period of time must the appeal be lodged in the High Court?
I could continue because housing is one of the biggest influences on how people live. I hope, however, that I have said enough late on a Thursday evening to make the point that this important legislation deserves a Bill which could have been properly examined in Committee. I make the further point that direct rule, about which we have spoken so often today, is not even second-best government.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of this rather lengthy piece of legislation. The order consists of 108 articles and nine schedules and is contained in some 126 pages. I agree wholeheartedly with the comments of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies that this is not a suitable or adequate way to discuss an order of such magnitude.
The order makes some major legislative amendments to existing law in Northern Ireland relating to private rented accommodation, housing associations, owner occupied accommodation and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. However, I should like to add that there has been some criticism and disquiet over the failure to have reasonable consultations concerning the draft order. Not only are we faced with the dilemma of debating the matter in the Chamber after 11 o'clock at night, but also, when the order was sent out for consultation, suitable attention was not paid to the opinion of other organisations. Not only was consultation seriously limited because the six-week period stipulated included Christmas and the New Year holidays, but, in addition, there appears to have been a restricted list for the distribution of the
1384
draft proposals. Some major voluntary housing organisations were excluded and did not have adequate time in which to consider the order. The Council of the Homeless in Northern Ireland was one of the bodies which had to make a special request for a copy.
It appears to me that the mandatory grants scheme is clearly targeted at unfit housing. The scheme is to be commended, yet it may well pose serious budgetary problems for the housing executive. Means testing is likely to deter applications. If tackling fitness is a goal, such a filtering mechanism may well prove counterproductive. It also seems inequitable to means test tenants, owner occupiers and charitable organisations who provide accommodation while actively encouraging private or commercial landlords to maximise grant aid for the creation of future private profit. Overall, the order has significant potential. However, if the provisions are not accompanied by resources to enable effective implementation, it will have limited impact.
One point is, I believe, relevant not only to discussions on this order but also to discussions which took place earlier this evening. The chairman of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, Mr. John McEvoy, stated on a television programme that over the next three years the shortfall in the housing executive's financing would be in the region of £55 million. That is required to meet the needs of the present legislation and includes modest housing accommodation, the build and repair programme and the homeless legislation. But that amount is outside the legislation now being enacted. The sad feature of the situation - which, in my opinion, is not contrary to Mr. McEvoy's television broadcast—is that the present high level of unemployment in the construction industry is costing almost the equivalent of the housing executive's financial cuts. By re-directing the finances to the Northern Ireland Office, the Government could reduce unemployment, provide housing, remove much human suffering, illness and distress and create hope and happiness—a re-direction in other words of unemployment benefit to the positive construction of housing to meet the needs of Northern Ireland. With those remarks, I welcome the order in its intention and hope that the finance will be available to implement its proposals.
11.9 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I have one brief question: will the noble Earl use all his influence with his colleague at the DoE to try to speed up to the maximum possible extent the current demolition work and building of new houses on the sites of the Divis flats and the Unity flats? To do so would be a major confidence-building step in the centre of Belfast.
11.10 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who were good enough to notify me of their questions. At this time of night that helps to speed up progress in your Lordships' House, especially when an Unstarred Question follows with some two hours yet to come.

1385
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised a number of points relating to housing associations. While housing associations in Great Britain have become the main providers of new social housing, I can confirm that in Northern Ireland the Housing Executive will continue as the main provider of public sector housing. It is unlikely that there will be much change in the number—currently standing at 46—of housing associations registered with the department over the next few years. All those associations are affiliated to the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations which has received financial support from the Department of the Environment since it was incorporated in 1977.
The noble Lord also asked about the composition of management committees. Housing associations are of course voluntary bodies and their membership is not confined to tenants. In most associations tenants do not have a majority representation on the management committee.
The noble Lord asked also about the role housing associations can play in providing hostels. The position is that associations can provide housing accommodation in a hostel if that is appropriate for their client groups. That has been done, for example, for people with a mental handicap, women at risk of domestic violence and the single homeless.
The noble Lord also raised the issue of the tax position of association. Those wishing to acquire and develop mixed residential and commercial property would, where appropriate, have to consider carefully with the Inland Revenue the consequences for their charitable status. Grants in relief of tax incurred on such activities would not be available from the department.
Finally, the noble Lord inquired about the suspension of associations. The department does not have the power to suspend a registered housing association and references to suspension in the order relate to the powers of the Registrar of Friendly Societies to suspend the registration of a body under the industrial and provident society legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, said that in his opinion the consultation period had been too short. First, the standard consultation period for orders is six weeks; secondly, the consultation period for the housing order was six weeks and one day; and, thirdly, to meet some anxieties expressed at the time we took on board responses received up to three weeks after the original closing date. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that work is proceeding on the Divis and Unity flats but it must be in stages.
I thank your Lordships for your indulgence and patience over the past three hours during which we have dealt with important Northern Ireland orders, and I commend this order to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CAP Agreement: Impact on Rural Economy
11.12 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton Lord Wade of Chorlton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what impact the recent CAP agreement will have on the rural economy; and whether they consider that the bond scheme proposed by Professor Marsh and Professor Tangermann would be a good way of helping the agricultural industry to adjust.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who are taking part in the debate for their support at this hour. I thank especially my noble friend Lord Hamilton for choosing this occasion to make his maiden speech which we all look forward to hearing. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister who has agreed to reply to the debate.
The reform of the CAP will result in a reduction of some 16 per cent. in farm incomes over the next four years. By the third year of the reform, 14 per cent. of land in the United Kingdom now used for cereals will be entered into set-aside. The purpose of the reform is to reduce production, and yet the UK is already a net importer of food, and so will become more heavily dependent upon imported food, which will create extra cost.
The reform will not reduce the cost of the CAP, which is still expected to rise in the short term. While the reform seeks to reduce the level of production on the one hand, on the other it seeks to make direct payments to farmers for perceived benefits which bear no relation to the known market demand.
There is no acknowledgement in the proposals of the fact that the CAP in itself has done enormous harm to the rural economy by creating high prices for food, followed by high prices for land and other farming costs, and has placed an enormous burden on the European taxpayer through the cost of the bureaucracy and controls of the CAP, but it has not put any money into the farmers' hands
There is no acknowledgement of the fact that the problem is not overproduction but production at too high a price. The proper solution to the crisis in European agriculture brought about by the central planning and restrictive practices of the CAP is a return to the free market, utilising and encouraging the use of the great resources the UK has in land, skills, livestock, cereals, with the new varieties, and technology, all supported by the most efficient and up-to-date food industry in the world to produce the safest and finest foodstuffs at the lowest possible prices.
Aiming for world market prices for agricultural products over a period of time—say 10 years—rather than trying to maintain a high priced regime in Europe would, in my view, bring far-reaching benefits to all consumers and ultimately all producers. Such a change would also have an impact, of course, on the rural economy as the agricultural production adapted to a free market regime and a very competitive environment.
The right way to deal with those changes would be to allow a much greater flexibility of opportunity in

1387
the rural areas so that the entrepreneurial spirit among farmers and landowners is encouraged and a proper balance obtained between the use of land for agricultural production, for business in rural areas, for leisure, for the commercial encouragement of sites of special scientific interest or special ecological importance, for national parks, for forestry and for access to and enjoyment of the countryside by the population.
It is only by allowing the marketplace to create the right balance between all these factors and appreciating the costs and returns for each that we shall offer a proper way forward for the rural areas of Europe for the future. It is the planning and controls that create the tensions, with one pressure group demanding what the other pressure group refuses and expecting the Government and the EC to find a compromise, which is disliked by everyone. On a visit to Skipton only this week I heard of a rural village in a national park where the villagers are strongly resisting the park planning rules which are working against the interests and the requirements of the local people. They have no way of changing the rules.
The proposals for the reform of CAP take a very important and positive step by reducing intervention prices and introducing direct payments. That is a policy which I applaud. The principle, if taken forward correctly, could be the precursor of the changes in the industry that are necessary. But rather than being direct and simple in their application, by bringing in the concept of taking land out of production into set-aside and actually paying farmers for not producing, the reform has been turned into a nonsense.
The various attempts to force farmers into uneconomic use of land resources is fundamentally against the interests of every person who lives in our country. It will turn out to be a policy which will be looked back upon with ridicule and derision.
An alternative view is to take a positive free market line which everyone, and particularly our own Government, must realise is the only sensible approach. However, it has to be accepted that the present high level of food prices in EC countries was imposed by politicians for their own political purposes and never because it was in the public's and producers' interest.
If, for political reasons, it is now necessary to reform CAP and bring EC food prices more in line with world prices, then there will be a cost of managing that change, just as there have been massive costs of change in the European coal and steel industries and no doubt there will soon be in the rail transport industry.
The way to deal with that cost of change would be to pay for it in the form of a bond to each farmer in Europe which would represent the payment of an annual sum of money over, say, 10 years, which would compensate producers for the loss of income and capital value over that period of time. By the end of the 10 years, farm prices would be assumed to be at world levels.
That is the essence of the bond scheme proposed by Professor Tangermann and Professor Marsh. The
1388
scheme encourages efficiency and the maximum use of our resources, which is surely one of the tenets of Conservative thinking. The bond scheme would encourage innovative ideas of food production and land use: the present proposals for the reform of CAP discourage such initiatives. The bond scheme would encourage the production of food in Europe for those areas of the world that need it at a price they could afford: the reform proposals discourage it. The bond scheme would encourage a fairer balance between all uses of land which would bring rewards to everyone. The reform proposals establish the need for more controls and bureaucracy and offer less choice for consumers.
CAP reforms as now proposed will result in further stresses and imbalances in our rural economy with continuing problems of a lack of job opportunities, declining standards of living, growing frustration with government and a constant fight between those who want to do something and those who want to stop them. It will hinder the completion of GATT which is so important for economic development in the world and it will make Great Britain a poorer place. I look forward to hearing the reply from my noble friend the Minister.
11.20 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, once again your Lordships' House must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, for bringing this all-important subject of agriculture to your Lordships' attention. But how tragic it is to discuss this before such an empty House and so late at night.
The noble Lord has, as always, pinpointed many vital issues and I naturally look forward as well to the Minister's reply, especially as to the bond situation, although I personally think for the moment that is purely academic. Every time I have spoken in your Lordships' House on the subject of agriculture, I have been prone to hark back as to why we are in this situation. With the greatest possible respect to civil servants, low and high ranking Eurocrats and politicians, we are in one hell of a mess. It is vitally important that we examine why. Twelve years ago we were told that more food was required. We were told, "Drain the wetlands and here is a grant to do so. Oh, and by the way, your bank manager will lend you the shortfall". Now today we are told, "Stop. Set it all aside".
Travelling as I do up and down the east coast railway line twice weekly, the effects of set-aside are, for the lack of a better word, revolting. I dread to think what the countryside will look like in five years' time when there will be so much more land set aside. How ironic the lines of "Jerusalem" will sound in England's green and pleasant land. I wonder how many of your Lordships have been watching recently on television the effects of the famine in Africa. There was a school of thought that we must teach the Africans how to farm and not just dump our surpluses on them. For some time I subscribed to that school of thought but how, for example, can one grow anything in Zambia when one has had no water for years?

1389
I am aware that I am slightly straying from the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, but I find it difficult to balance the equation with Europe sitting on mountains of unwanted food. At the end of May the European Community had in stock 211,000 tonnes of butter, 284,000 tonnes of skimmed milk powder, 627,000 tonnes of beef and an unbelievably outrageous 20,358,000 tonnes of cereals. Then one thinks that yesterday 36,000 children died; 36,000 will die today and 36,000 more will die tomorrow. It does not take a genius to work out that that is more than thirteen and a quarter million children a year—over 13 million—and here we are discussing how to produce less.
For anyone to die of starvation in the late twentieth century is an international scandal, and one which we ought to be bitterly ashamed of. At this point I should like to add my congratulations on the way the United Kingdom's negotiating team were able to return, perhaps not exactly in triumph, but certainly holding their heads high, after the latest talks on the reform of the CAP. However, I still do not understand how, in realistic terms, bureaucrats, well cushioned in Brussels, can dream up sets of rules that are to apply to the Greek islands and at the same time to the Outer Hebrides. Surely that simply is not practical. We have recently seen the Soviet republics break their union and now we are proffering a union with the rest of Europe while French trawlermen cut our fishing nets. However, we must all eagerly await the implementing texts, especially as many of us have been longing to finalise our cropping plans for next year and, indeed, order seed. In the 14 years since I have been trying to farm, I have never not had everything ordered and finalised by the middle of June, and living in Scotland of course, our season is a good deal later, especially bearing in mind that the combines are rolling already in southern England.
I am sure that the noble Earl, being a farmer himself, realises how very great is our sense of urgency. All the information currently available in the arable sector is worthless unless we know the make-up of regions in the UK, responsibility for which Brussels has delegated to individual governments, and indeed to learn what the base years are going to be. I have seen at first hand parts of the huge Brussels bureaucratic machinery and how it works when I represented Scotland on the European Landowning Organisation—and, yes, I have seen attractive dolly birds straight out of Madrid university, drafting in pencil ideas, for example, to stop farmers shooting crows. How can this make realistic sense?
There has, and rightly so, been much talk of diversification into non-farming activities as a result of the reform of the CAP, but there is a limit to the number of golf courses that can be built. In East Lothian, for example, one of the richest agricultural areas, there are already 16 golf courses and plans for a further six.
At this stage it is extremely difficult to know what the effects are going to be, especially as there is so much uncertainty around. This in itself has a major effect and is a constant source of worry to all those in
1390
the farming industry. I use those words most carefully, as at the end of June 1991 there were still some 79,000 holdings in the UK engaged in cereal farming. If one adds all the ancillary trades such as machinery suppliers, fertiliser manufacturers, advisers, etc., there are many hundreds of thousands of people involved in this all-important industry and I fear that there will be heavy redundancies in all these fields as a result of this CAP reform.
When I made biscuits, we knew how much we could sell a packet for. But today, even with the harvest under way, no farmer has any idea what his income is likely to be. I do, however, believe that there must be a glimmer of light, and I see that light in the form of bio-fuels. I feel certain that, long term and with careful genetic engineering, arable crops will be able to help with the world's fuel crisis; and here I would urge the Government to allocate funds to help research into the future of bio-fuels. I think too that we ought to pay tribute to the farming community for behaving in such a responsible manner, particularly if one looks across the Channel.
Survival is the name of the game. And it does seem ironic that farmers are the victims of their own success. However, I suppose we must take heart from the green aspect of the reforms and let us hope that, with sufficient funding from the Treasury, the colour green does not turn a sickly yellow when in six months' time there is no money. What firm assurance can the Minister give that there will be funds available for new environmentally friendly farming systems starting later this year?
11.29 p.m.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for calling this debate and giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech, although I did not think it was going to be an after-dinner speech. When I was contemplating making it, for some reason or other the thought came to me of what was voiced on Founder's Day at Eton, when we used to praise famous men and our fathers that begat us. At a time when so many noble Lords have joined this House on their own merits, it suddenly came home to me what those words meant. I certainly praise my father, in whose shoes I stand and whose wish it was that one day I should perform in your Lordships' House.
I farm a substantial acreage and have a number of tenant farmers. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. One's tenant farmers are the yeomen of England. They have coped marvellously well with the problems that they have encountered over the past years and have behaved amazingly well compared with their fellows in France.
The failure of the common agricultural policy is a failure of over-production. I agree with the instincts of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, in wishing for a freer market. But I see the political problems. It would be easy enough to reverse the increases in production caused by too high prices over so many years by a return to a free market. But I also understand that that

1391
is likely to be politically impossible to achieve. The result is that we are left with a situation in which we have to rely upon set-aside.
If set-aside at 16 per cent were going to restore the balance of the market in the same way that too high prices caused an increase in production, a balanced market itself ought to produce higher prices. I should have thought that were one to argue that, as a result of the latest measures, prices would continue to bump along on their support levels, the answer would be that set-aside and the whole basis on which the revisions in the common agricultural policy are based must have failed.
That brings me to the matter of the bond. The bond must involve some element of price. It would be very interesting to hear the Minister's view on how to price a bond over 10 years. It would involve the Government taking the view that prices would either remain on their support levels or would not. It is interesting to note that two years ago the price of wheat in May and at the end of the selling season rose to some £140 a tonne for feed wheat and higher for miller's wheat—levels which were way above the intervention prices. It is clearly possible, in a market that is balanced, for prices to go up and down. It would therefore be interesting to hear the Minister's view on how a bond, if it were to be launched, should be priced.
One might have two other reservations about the bond. I understand that it is likely to provide a lower rate for large farmers than for smaller ones. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will return to Europe to argue the case that that should not be so, as he has clone with such success in other cases. The second thing that would unnerve one would be that with tenant farmers it would conceivably be possible for the tenant to sell his bond and quit the land, leaving the landowner with no subsidy for any future tenant who might come in. Those two points ought to be looked into if this bond comes into existence.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, I too had planned a little diversion, because the noble Lord, Lord Forester, and I have a share in a farm in Zimbabwe. The whole thing has now been devastated by the fearful drought which they are experiencing. The Government there is under a certain amount of criticism. They abolished the two years' supply of food, which used to be held in the country against such emergencies, and lowered the price given for maize to a level at which the minimum was produced. We tend to despair about third world governments and how they get on. We shrug our shoulders and say, "There it is". I should like to ask the Minister whether he can tell me what is the difference of principle between the policies of Mr Mugabe and Mr MacSharry.
11.34 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, it is my duty and pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, on a splendid maiden speech, which he delivered with great clarity and common sense. I think that it was also non-controversial - a
1392
tradition of this House which seems to be broken more frequently than it is followed—but it was not lacking in interest.
I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, for introducing this important Question on what impact the CAP agreement will have on the rural economy and whether the Marsh/Tangermann bond scheme may help. One must consider the CAP agreement and its importance. The CAP is immensely important to this country, to Europe and to the world. It has been argued about for a long time. It has become evident that, rightly or wrongly, the GATT Round depends upon some sensible resolution. I am therefore surprised that such a debate should begin after 11 o'clock at night at a time when one could describe the parliamentary programme in your Lordships' House as slow to dull.
We should consider the CAP agreement as it now stands. I cannot remember the precise date when Mr. Gummer returned from Brussels and said that we could stand tall in the company of the world because we were going to please them, the GATT Round would go forward and so on. I would call the package that he brought back skeletal because it has not been fleshed out in any way. Masses of details are missing. As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, made perfectly clear, for an industry which should plan in years rather than in months to be reduced to planning in weeks, or even days so far as I can see, for major decisions is an almost impossible situation and can only lead to inefficiency.
We also have the compulsory set-asides. To me that is bad news. I shall return to the broader aspects of the rural economy, but restrictions such as set-asides and limiting headage payments on sheep, suckler cows and so on must mean less labour. Therefore a problem is created.
On the other hand, the Minister returned with a reasonable package of money for the farmers. He also did well in that he got rid of much of the discrimination against this country. But he did not bring back any concept of the whole of Europe, or indeed this country, becoming more efficient so that one day in the future we can compete in world markets. Surely we do not expect to continue for ever bolstering up farmers in Europe. In 20 years surely we should be able to compete even with the low wages in South America and the rolling plains of milling wheat in Saskatchewan and so on.
Furthermore, the CAP arrangement is now complicated to a degree. It will be difficult for farmers and the people in MAFF to understand. The arrangement will need a tremendous amount of resourcing. When MAFF has the resources to compete in a situation that is already obviously behind schedule, I suspect that it will have considerable difficulty in getting the right people together in the right places to undertake the multifarious tasks to ensure that people are not cheating. We know that the European Court of Auditors disliked the system immensely because of the possibilities for fraud.
That is where we stand at present. We have a rather unsatisfactory situation with regard to the farmers, although the money may be right. On the world stage

1393
there remains an unsatisfactory situation as regards the GATT Round. I do not believe that the Americans will consider it good enough to allow that situation to go forward, which is most important.
I appreciate the difficulties with tenanted land, although I do not concede that they are impossible to overcome. However, the bond scheme is completely straightforward. It depends on certain difficult political decisions. There must be a reference from which the loss of profit to the farmer is made up. It must be decided whether to penalise the large farmer. The length of the bond must also be decided upon. The scheme will not be as expensive as the present arrangement, nor will it be so open to abuse. There is a feeling that what is to be arranged—or what is two-thirds arranged at the moment—is so complicated that it probably will be unworkable. It is also felt that if the arrangement comes to fruition its life will not be that long. If that situation arises—and I think that it well might—the bond scheme should be put forward as a practical answer.
As regards the rural economy, no one has as yet followed up the fact that there will be a great many unemployed farm workers. In that respect I wish to make two points. I am aware that through some memorandum the Government have exhorted the planners to view kindly change-of-user provisions on barns and so forth. Will my noble friend ensure that that is followed up and is seen to work? If 15 per cent. of the land comes out of cereal production it will not merely be a matter of old Victorian barns being converted for ironwork and basketwork businesses. There will be perfectly good asbestos and steel factory units for some clean industry or other scattered throughout the countryside. I regret to say that I heard of one district council which shall be nameless which was pleased that the barns would be empty. It considered that they were a blot on the landscape and wanted them pulled down. Surely planning must be fixed to provide as much employment as possible in these circumstances.
My second and final point is that the Rural Development Commission should be used in a stronger way. It is a powerful agency because it is extremely well run and does a good job. Its duties should be extended beyond the advice that it now gives and its powers to purchase factories and small workshops and to lend money to people who are trying to set up in business. Those powers should be extended to retraining. The commission should be funded in a more robust way.
11.44 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, it is unconventional for those who speak after the one who follows a maiden speaker also to offer their congratulations. Nevertheless, I do so wholeheartedly, remembering the great affection and respect in which I held the father of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, when we served together. I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Wade for providing an opportunity to take a quick look at the recent CAP agreement. However, a
1394
rapid glance is all that is appropriate at a time when a close examination of the scheme is not possible while the details have still to be worked out.
Having presented the Select Committee's report on CAP reform to your Lordships last October, the temptation to speak in depth about the reform scheme is extremely great. However, even at a more civilised hour it would be better to leave to a later date a discussion on the merits or otherwise of the scheme, how it differs from earlier proposals and how far it falls short of the kind of reforms that we felt were needed —and fall short it does.
Other noble Lords have referred to the many questions which must be answered on how the scheme will work out in practice. Obviously the Ministry of Agriculture is now under considerable pressure to present farmers with the rules of the game in a matter of days rather than weeks.
I turn to the first part of my noble friend's Question in which, again, I have an interest, having presented the Select Committee's 1990 report on the future of rural society. I do not know how the Minister, when he replies, will assess the impact of CAP reform on the rural economy. Perhaps his reply may be that the compensatory measures contained in the reform package will soften the impact on farmers of reduced price support and that they are intending to allow farmers to carry on making the necessary adjustments to their businesses to ensure efficient production and a reasonable standard of living in the future. He may say that if a healthy rural economy depends largely on a viable agricultural industry, then the impact of CAP reform should, at any rate in the short term, be neutral.
However, in our rural society report we concluded:
"Agricultural policies alone can no longer be assured to provide widespread benefits to the rural economy and society as a whole".
We said that because there are deep-seated problems for the rural areas and they will remain to be resolved, whatever the impact of CAP reform: problems arising from the changing social balance in the countryside; a lack of job opportunities; a relatively poor infrastructure and bad access to basic services; severe unemployment in the fringe areas; and, above all, lack of affordable rural housing.
If the effect of the reform package is malign so that farming continues its present slide into depression, those problems in the rural areas will become worse. If the effect of CAP reform is benign so that farmers can carry on in business without too much hardship, all those problems will still remain to be tackled. In either case, CAP reform must result in structural change in agriculture leading to an increase in the size of farm units and fewer farmers and farm workers being required. That effect in itself will exacerbate existing housing and employment problems in rural areas.
In the second part of my noble friend's Question, he asks whether the bond scheme will help the agricultural industry to adjust. Without going into details, the Select Committee looked at that scheme very carefully when considering CAP reform. We said:

1395
"The Commission and the Member States should evaluate more fully the mechanics of providing all compensatory payments to farmers by means of such a Bond".
As some noble Lords have said, the new arrangement provides for a very different and expensive system of compensatory payments which seem to exclude any place for the kind of fixed redeemable bond as proposed by Professor Tangermann.
We do not know how long the new compensatory payments are to continue. With my noble friend Lord Radnor I take the view that the scheme's durability is extremely limited. It seems to have a short shelf-life built into it. Whereas expenditure on the elaborate structure of intervention prices, threshold prices, export refunds, green money and the whole complex and convoluted CAP machinery was notoriously difficult to control, nothing can be simpler than to cut compensatory payments. If politics demand it, cut they will be.
The tax-paying public are unlikely to see much reduction in food prices after CAP reform, but they will see acres of brambles and thistles in the countryside which they must pay for. The time must come—some people think it will come quite quickly —when under economic and political pressure not merely the level of the compensatory payments to farmers but the whole reform package will come to be reviewed. That is when a scheme such as that of Professor Tangermann may well provide an acceptable alternative solution should one be needed.
Any alternative scheme for compensation should be transitional; it should be acceptable under GATT and de-coupled from production support. It should be fixed and not renegotiable. Those criteria would be satisfied by the professor's bond scheme. However, it presents some difficulty of a practical nature; hence the need to begin working on it as soon as the new CAP reform arrangements are finalised.
It is for that reason I believe the Question of my noble friend Lord Wade is extremely relevant. It will soon be time to start evaluating a different form of adjustment aid to that in the CAP package.
11.52 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the rather natural gloom that we may all have felt in debating this useful subject introduced by my noble friend Lord Wade at such an untimely hour was enlivened by the pleasure we had in hearing my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell make a fascinating maiden speech. It made all those present realise how much we shall look forward to hearing him frequently in the future.
The CAP has always been the Achilles heel of Europe. First, it has been a bottomless pit for the taxpayer; secondly, it has kept agriculture in Europe in a form more suited to the Middle Ages than the 20th century; and, thirdly, as the Marxists would say, it has been full of internal contradictions in the sense that even where there has been prosperity it has been profoundly destabilising. I need only refer to the way in which the prosperity of certain parts of England led to absurd price levels for land, which lured institutional investors to buy farms. They installed managers to obtain a totally unreal return and they massacred the landscape in so doing. Incidentally,
1396
many smaller farmers became extremely unsoundly borrowed during a period when there was far too much money being offered by too many money lenders.
No Brussels policy has been more widely criticised by both governments and voters alike. It has probably done more than anything else to alienate people from the Europe envisaged by the founding fathers which was to be one in which prosperity and economic growth were to come from free trade.
For many months Mr. MacSharry has been attempting to reform the system. But his whole framework for reform has been largely on the basis of perpetuating some of these iniquities. That is illustrated by his blatant attempt to discriminate against some of the most efficient farmers in the Community—the British. Mr. MacSharry lost that particular battle and we should all salute my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture for his part in preventing that specific discrimination.
That is my last bouquet of the evening. I want to say a word about three of the criticisms already referred to by others.
First, timing and administration; secondly, the economic effect; and thirdly, the environmental impact. As regards timing and administration, it is completely unacceptable that business people, which is what farmers are, should have fundamental changes imposed on them, not at short notice, not at no notice, but in effect, retrospectively. We have a scheme which came into force on 1st July—a week ago—yet we still have none of the detailed, crucial regulations under which it is to be administered. Farmers went through all this 10 years ago when milk quotas were introduced. But the Bourbons of Brussels learned nothing from that experience.
So here is a scheme with no regulations to implement it. We have heard about the nonsense over feed wheat. We have heard something about the process by which the system is to be under a series of inspectors. This could mean agriculture being administered by bureaucrats as intensively as soviet agriculture was in the worst periods of collectivisation. There are many crucial questions to be decided: for example, what is an agricultural holding? Nobody yet knows.
May I say a word about the economy? Until the recent recession much of the countryside had in recent years prospered. Ten years ago the Rural Development Commission, to which my noble friend Lord Radnor made a kind reference, designated 27 areas which were the least favoured in England and Wales as rural development areas. The employment in those areas has become very healthy. Indeed, as recently as January of this year only five of them had unemployment above England's average. But the picture may now have changed. There is some reason to believe that over the next few years, there could be as many as 100,000 jobs lost from agriculture out of a total of about 640,000, and half as many jobs again upstream and downstream.
There could also be a serious impact on the rural economy from the rundown of the forces, and particularly from closure of the American bases in

1397
East Anglia. As we all know, Britain's population has been remarkably stable over the past decade but the rural population has increased rapidly. That is largely because people want to live and work in the countryside. There are very real problems of housing which are being gradually dealt with by housing associations. I am afraid that the situation was accentuated by the sale of council houses.
There have been many problems connected with supplying sufficient workspace. David Keeble, the Cambridge geographer, has drawn attention to the way economic development in the countryside is being held back by a lack of workspace. We therefore welcome the way in which the Government are now taking a more sensible attitude towards development in the countryside. The DoE PPG 7 directive does give a better chance for factories and workspace to be provided.
The environmental impact of the MacSharry proposals is very disappointing. Compulsory annual set-aside will do little for the countryside. It will damage and erode the big advances which have been made recently by the Countryside Premium Scheme and the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. As far as we know at the moment these are not going to count against the 15 per cent. set-aside. That is quite wrong. There is a danger that about half of the 17,000 acres which has been carefully nurtured as premium land may be lost to the new annual set-aside scheme. It is unclear what financial help will be provided for the environmental advantage which is referred to. There are no details and, as I understand it, there will be no details for a year after the scheme comes into force, as to how these environment measures will work. How can one possibly operate in that kind of situation?
In a couple of minutes perhaps I may say what would have been the right way to reform the CAP. Clearly, I believe that the downward pressure on prices was the right way to do it. It is only when one gets supply and demand in balance through the price mechanism that one has a sensible level of production. My noble friend Lord Hamilton referred to the bogus nature of some of these world price concepts. The so-called world price, we are always told, is too high. In the case of wheat it is the price at which small surpluses are traded in Chicago. If those small surpluses are turned into deficits there would be very different prices. I am quite certain of that. We must also remember that, for all their pious statements and their criticisms under GATT, the Americans are and have always been extremely clever at subsidising their own agriculture in various ways.
I believe that the most useful thing that we could do is to take a lesson from what happened with milk quotas. They only worked because they were freely tradeable from the beginning. So it would be desirable for set-aside to be traded between farmers. That would make the best use of market forces for the allocation of set-aside. Of course, the 15 per cent. would have to be increased, but it will almost certainly have to be increased any way. The European surplus of cereals is said to be some 35 million tonnes which is about 19 per cent. of the 180 million tonnes of cereals that are
1398
produced in Europe. To get a balance, I would guess that with the set-aside of worst land it would probably have to be much closer to 30 per cent.
I do not believe that the scheme which has emerged will achieve its objectives either of removing surpluses or of saving taxpayers' money. I do not believe that it will be administrable or enforceable - and unenforceable law is bad law and corrupts. Furthermore, the environmental results of the package will outrage those who love the countryside. Fortunately, for all those reasons, I believe that the life of Mr. MacSharry's baby will be shorter than its period of gestation.
12.1 a.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, while I, in common with 99 per cent. of working farmers and my noble friend Lord Marlesford, was amazed—I think that that is the word—by the success of my right honourable friend Mr. Gummer in ensuring that the efficient farmer was not sacrificed on the altar of the inefficient peasant, I have yet to meet anyone who believes that the details of the CAP reforms will work. They are a bureaucratic nightmare which will be abused and exploited either legally or illegally. Moreover, even if it was possible to adjust them to make them work, they would not reduce the surpluses which I in my naivety thought was one of their objectives.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Howe will accept these flaws in the CAP reforms and admit that, as my noble friend Lord Middleton mentioned, they cannot possibly last. We need now to start thinking about how we will make them work and this Unstarred Question poses exactly that question and suggests a way forward. Like the farming industry, I am greatly indebted to my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton for posing that question this evening and for explaining it so carefully to your Lordships. I very much hope that he will get a positive and constructive reply because, as I have said, we shall. I know, be in great trouble in a year or two if we do not have a plan to put forward.
As far as the first part of my noble friend's Question is concerned, I follow a similar but slightly different line from my noble friend Lord Radnor. I would ask my noble friend Lord Howe what impact set-aside (at 15 per cent. to start with, and, as I explained the other day to your Lordships, it will have to increase) will have on the landscape, so alienating the urban public that it will inevitably cause further rural impoverishment. I would also ask my noble friend whether he can say what this loss of production will be and what effect it will have on our balance of payments. I hope that he can assure me that the farming industry will not be criticised yet again as a result of this enforced cut for allowing foreign imports of food to take over what we could easily and economically produce at home.
Bearing in mind these problems, I would also ask my noble friend to look very carefully at the bond system suggested by my noble friend Lord Wade. Does he agree that it would require far less bureaucracy? It would be no more expensive, it would reduce uneconomic surpluses, it would result in

1399
efficient, unsubsidised production, removing, as has already been mentioned, one of the main GATT stumbling blocks, and of course it would eliminate that most horrible of all things, set-aside.
Given that the bond scheme would cause a reduction in land prices and rents, which I as a farmer would welcome, and provided that the larger British farm received a bond that did not penalise it—a point made very forcefully in the most eloquent speech of my noble friend Lord Hamilton, which to me, wearing a tenant's hat, was not quite as non-controversial as he liked to make out, which I am delighted to note—I am sure that the best British farmers would flourish.
12.6 a.m.
Lord Forester: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend and neighbour Lord Hamilton of Dalzell on his excellent maiden speech. I hope that we shall hear from him frequently in your Lordships' House.
Like other noble Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Wade for introducing this important subject at such a relevant moment. In view of the hour, I am not sure that that is any longer right, and I shall therefore be as brief as possible.
It is quite clear that changes in the common agricultural policy are already and will increasingly have a serious impact on employment opportunities, particularly in lowland livestock producing areas such as my county of Shropshire, through reducing prices, reducing quotas, extensification and the aim of reduced output.
I wish to make three points. The first concerns structural funds. I was fortunate enough to meet Philip Lowe, of DG VI of the European Commission, earlier this year. He told me that, in parallel to the proposed changes in the CAP, the Commission is examining how support to rural development may need to be adapted to reflect agricultural changes and to help to create a wider, more solid base for the rural economy. That is splendid. But there is a catch, obscurely known in Eurospeak as the "Fontainebleau mechanism" which creates monstrous anomalies for rural areas.
The original treaty of accession to the EC placed unfair burdens on the United Kingdom in terms of the amount we contributed to expenditure elsewhere in the Community. To limit this the UK negotiated a new arrangement which shielded us from having to contribute so much to spending in other member states. The price we paid was in effect a downward adjustment to the amount of any EC contributions coming to the United Kingdom rural areas. Farming prices come under the guarantee fund and additionality is forced on the Treasury. But it is a very different case with the guidance fund, the main source of grants for structural policies and the rural economy. Fontainebleau meant that, while other member states received from Europe 25 per cent. of the cost of guidance grant, the United Kingdom received in practice only 7 per cent. Only this week, I am told, DG VI is crying out for people to take up money for agro-environmental schemes. It is time we put right these serious anomalies and started to receive equal structural funds with our partners.
1400
Secondly, I come to forestry. New woodland planting in Britain is at its lowest level for 20 years. Ten per cent. of Britain is afforested compared to the European average of 25 per cent. Almost 90 per cent. of Britain's forest products are imported at a current cost of some £7 billion. We have 15 per cent. less woodland than the European average--equivalent to our total set-aside requirement. Yet, we are not allowed to plant trees on our set-aside. It is unbelievable.
The reduction in planting was originally due to the 1988 Finance Act. But I was intending to do some planting last winter—until I discovered that the Farm Woodland Grant Scheme was being replaced by the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme which was much better. Therefore, I cancelled all my planting and thought that I would do it this year. However, I now find that I cannot use this year's planting for set-aside so 1 have postponed it all again until next year when, as I understand the rules, I probably can use it as set-aside. Forestry is a vital part of our rural economy —but by our stupidity we have lost two years' planting. I hope that we can put that right as soon as possible.
Thirdly—and my noble friend Lord Marlesford has already briefly covered this ground—we must be told the rules of the common agricultural policy in time to plan our businesses. We must be told the set-aside rules in detail; we must be told about environmental set-aside; and we must be told about hedgerow grants. We must also know if British feed wheat is acceptable into intervention. I asked my noble friend the Minister that Question on June 24th. He said:
"We have made it very clear that feed wheat must continue to be eligible for intervention".—[Official Report, 24/6/92; col. 440.]
I was delighted to hear that. But on 3rd July I read in the Farming News that,
"Ray MacSharry has given a major hint that feed wheat will be excluded from intervention".
I am now told that a decision was made on 30th June; but it was only a decision that a decision would be made in the future by Ministers as to the quality standards for wheat. I am led to understand that it will probably be October before we learn of the ruling. I am dumbfounded because most of our wheat will be planted by then.
In summary, we need policies which pursue sustainable development, which will encourage agriculture to provide energy from renewable resources and other products for industry and leisure —rather than 15 per cent. of land wasted. We must encourage planning attitudes which look to the future and encourage rather than constrain initiatives. PPG7 is fine if all planning officers translate it in the same way, but they do not.
We must attract more youth back into the countryside. We have to broaden the economic base of our rural areas using every European and United Kingdom government initiative available. We must have a level playing field. To achieve that we must reorganise our structural funds. We must also have a realistic forestry policy. Finally, we must have up-to-date information. If we can get those points

1401
right—and if we cannot achieve that during our presidency we never will—I feel that there are enormous opportunities for the rural economy.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, perhaps I may first tell the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, that the best compliment I can pay him is to say that I did not think his speech sounded at all like a maiden speech. We look forward to hearing him many times in your Lordships' House.
We on this side of the House are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, for asking this Question, although the addition of bond schemes complicates the answer. However, I hope to say a brief word later about Professor Tangermann. As we see it, there are three basics in answering the Question. First, Commissioner MacSharry's original proposal; secondly, the Select Committee report on the future of the CAP (No. 16 in the 1990–91 Session); and, thirdly, the settlement by the Agricultural Council on Commissioner MacSharry's proposals, detailed in the MAFF press notice of 22nd May.
Settlement was a success for Britain. The Minister is entitled to credit for what he achieved, although it is necessary to say that a number of deals had to be done in order to achieve that settlement. He was helped by majority voting. The settlement gives United Kingdom farmers a better deal than the one Commissioner MacSharry proposed originally. It is radical, but whether radical enough to form the basis of a GATT settlement, we do not yet know. Indeed, it seems to us that there is a danger that, having shown our hand in this matter, the United States and the Cairns Group of countries will ask for even more from the European Community.
We are now all worried—the speeches tonight have indicated noble Lords' worries—about the detailed implementation of the scheme which goes to the heart of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wade. A Written Answer in House of Lords Hansard of 6th July gives some idea of the problems, even before we have the Commission's tables implementing regulations for adoption. For cereals, the time factor for the 1992–93 season is serious. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, commented upon that matter. Sowing and set-aside areas cannot easily be decided in advance of regulations. What to sow is equally vital. For example, which quality of wheat will be eligible for intervention —milling or feed wheat? The NFU naturally says feed wheat, but millers are saying milling wheat. When will that decision be made known?
The general effect of the settlement is not the saving of money overall, but a change from direct payments to farmers to a combination of direct and indirect payments. Consumers should, in consequence, pay less for food; but taxpayers will pay more. Is the consumer/taxpayer distinction here not more apparent than real, especially where food is concerned? There are few taxpayers who do not eat; and there are few consumers who do not pay tax. How much, for example, will the change reduce, say, the cost of a standard loaf of bread?
1402
Millers and bakers in Britain are now largely one and the same, with certain companies having a large share of the flour and bread trades. The new Director General of Fair Trading has been reported in the press recently as seeing his role as one of a bloodhound rather than a watchdog. He may care to keep watch on those commodity prices which should be lower, however slightly, between 1993 and 1995 as a result of the CAP settlement and the restructuring flowing from it.
A 15 per cent. set-aside of cereal-growing land, whether permanent or rotational, will change the appearance of cereal farms. Quota sales of ewe and beef premia, when added to those of milk, could also mean farming changes. As has been pointed out, the environmental impact of the consequential changes could be significant. The numbers employed in agriculture seem likely to continue to fall, a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. Early retirement is hardly an option for many farm workers, whose pensions are likely to be state-derived and so inflexible. Farm work is not well paid and, as the Health and Safety Executive's reports show, it can also be dangerous. It seems unfair that, in comparison with many other workers, the farm labour force is not well off and is likely to lose jobs under CAP changes.
A contracting farm industry also means a need for even greater diversification. Many noble Lords have made that point this evening. We have seen some diversification in recent years, but more will undoubtedly be necessary. That of course places a considerable onus on planning authorities, as has been said. The Minister of Agriculture's awareness of that need was made clear in a speech he made on 24th June at a conference on the countryside and the rural economy. Planning policy guidance note No. 7, published in January last, which has been referred to, is germane to all this. The Rural Development Commission faces an even greater challenge as a result of the CAP restructuring. We believe that it needs to be closer to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. During legislative changes in the House, we endeavoured to bring about that change. We had little encouragement from the Government's then spokesman on agriculture. Nevertheless, we feel that the need is still there. I wonder whether in replying tonight the noble Earl can tell us how close the Rural Development Commission still is to the Ministry of Agriculture.
Farmers must be relieved to see the changes to Commissioner MacSharry's original ideas. Nevertheless, they must now live with the new common agriculture policy regime, even if only for a few years. Until the GATT negotiations on agriculture are resolved, however, the full nature of the change and its effect on the economics of running a farm business cannot be established. The trend to larger farms in Britain seems likely to continue. High interest rates do not help farmers. Cheaper agricultural credit ought to figure more largely in National Farmers Union, Country Landowners' Association and tenant farmers' submissions to government. Projections

1403
about the impact of the settlement on the incomes of British farmers cannot be divorced from the cost of borrowing, except perhaps for an affluent few.
The Select Committee report on the future of the common agricultural policy was not unsympathetic to the concept of bond schemes as the medium for buying out the guarantee payments system. The notion of a bond which farmers can cash annually or for a lump sum, with costs being met out of annual savings on CAP payments, would operate better if each member state had power to devise its own scheme. As things are, bonds, apart from being used to compensate for future cuts in milk quotas, have been overtaken for now by what has been agreed by way of restructuring the CAP. Even the proponents of bond schemes acknowledge that bond values would have to take account of GATT negotiations. Sharing bond values, including tapers for larger farms, between landlord and tenant, seems to me to present major problems, despite experience with selling dairy quotas. Nevertheless Professor Tangermann's thinking is still with us. 1 agree with the noble Lord, Lord Middleton: I do not believe that it will go away.
The answer therefore to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, must be that it is too soon to assess the rural impact, but that we are grateful to him for the interim report which I feel sure the noble Earl will give us.
12.22 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and as usual when we discuss the common agricultural policy there has been no shortage of views for the Minister to consider. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, but I should particularly like to thank my noble friend Lord Wade for giving us the opportunity to discuss these important and topical subjects. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell on his most stimulating and well argued maiden speech. It was well worth while staying up until this late hour to hear him.
I must confess at the outset that it is not possible for me to answer all the questions that have been asked or to give a full assessment of the effects that these CAP reforms will have. At the Agriculture Council last week agreement was reached on the regulations giving legal force to the agreement reached in principle in May. Your Lordships may like to know that a brief in question and answer form, together with a more detailed leaflet on the new arrangements for the arable sector, have been placed in the Library of the House. Copies are available in the Printed Paper Office.
However, there are a good many details which have yet to be settled. This will be done in further implementing regulations. Those regulations will be discussed by representatives of the member states in the various commodity management committees and the ministry will of course consult interested parties about them. As your Lordships will appreciate, until all the detailed regulations are in place it will not be
1404
possible to give comprehensive information about the new regimes or to make a complete assessment of their implications.
There is a further difficulty in assessing the impact that CAP reform will have on the rural economy. Not only do we not yet have precise details of the new arrangements. We do not know how farmers will change their production practices and patterns in response to them. It is undeniable that, if the basis of current production patterns and practices were maintained, the reform package would cause producer revenues to be lower than they would otherwise have been, although by significantly less than under the Commission's original discriminatory proposals. But even on these unrealistic assumptions the effects of CAP reform would not be uniformly felt: indeed, some farmers would be better off.
In reality farmers are resourceful and will adjust to the reforms, changing the way they farm and manage their businesses. Such adjustments will have favourable effects on incomes. Overall, I would not be surprised if by the end of the reform period the effect of the reforms on aggregate farm income was broadly neutral. But again the aggregate figure would disguise larger variations as regards individuals.
An important element in the reformed CAP, and one that will help farmers to adjust to lower price levels, is the introduction of direct payments. My noble friend Lord Wade has suggested that these should take the form of income bonds. I agree with my noble friend that the concept of income bonds, as proposed by Professors Marsh and Tangermann, has a good deal to commend it, although implementing a bond scheme would pose some practical problems. How, for example,—this question was raised by my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell—could bonds be apportioned between landlord and tenant? We see advantages in the bond scheme. Many of those advantages were mentioned by noble Lords tonight. However, the Agriculture Council has agreed a different scheme. Indeed the features that commend income bonds to us in this country are the very ones that deterred those member states seeking, for example, permanent and full compensation for all price cuts. The final compromise is not perfect, but it provides for a workable scheme, with levels of compensatory aid fixed over three years. In the longer term it remains our view—as it is of my noble friend Lord Radnor—that these compensatory payments should be phased out.
Under the reformed CAP farming will continue to play a key role in the rural economy. That goes without saying. An essential feature of the new CAP is that the role of price support and of intervention is reduced and farmers will need to rely more on returns from the market. By providing the framework for an efficient and competitive agriculture, geared more to the demands of the market and less reliant on artificial support mechanisms, the agreement creates the right conditions for farming to go forward into the next century. Of course farming will not return to the dominant position it held in the rural economy 40 years ago. The number of full-time farmers will continue to decline. These changes are, I fear,

1405
inevitable. As your Lordships' European Communities Select Committee pointed out in its report last autumn on the original Commission proposals, the declining economic importance of agriculture, and, indeed, of all primary industries, is a feature of all developed economies. This is not something that can be changed through agricultural subsidies. I must agree with my noble friend Lord Wade that the attempts by the European Community over the past 30 years to deal with deep rooted economic and social problems via agricultural support policies lie at the heart of the failure of the CAP in its current form.
The decline in the economic significance of agricultural production has been coupled in recent years with increasing recognition of the importance of agriculture for the maintenance of the countryside and the environment. This is acknowledged in the CAP reform package, which includes, as some noble Lords have mentioned, an agri-environmental action plan. This builds on the success of schemes such as the UK inspired environmentally sensitive areas scheme and requires all member states to introduce suitable schemes to encourage environmentally friendly farming practices. These schemes will reward farmers who take positive steps to conserve the countryside; at our insistence, management of land for public access and recreation is one of the activities eligible for aid.
There is no doubt that agricultural change will continue to have an impact on many rural areas. How are local communities and governments to respond? As the Select Committee in its report two years ago on the future of rural society showed, there is no single answer. But one thing is clear; farmers themselves have an important role to play. They can and must exploit new market opportunities. A recent survey by one of the major banks has shown that over 50 per cent. of farmers already have some form of farm based non-agricultural activity. But there is scope for more. Farmers have to consider all the business opportunities which they can exploit and most importantly they must learn to market their products and services. In that regard they are no different from any other businessmen. The Government recognise that effective marketing structures are a necessary component of a more market oriented agricultural and horticultural sector. We are actively promoting the creation of large, professionally-managed groups through the group marketing grant, which came on stream in April. We are also keen to bring about an environment where those active at the various stages of the food production, processing and distribution chain talk to one another about their requirements and how to meet them.
Throughout the Community, tourist authorities see rural tourism as one of the major growth areas in the next 10 years. In the United Kingdom we are already helping farmers to diversify their enterprises and exploit opportunities in this and other areas, such as food processing, through the provision of free advice from our technical agencies and through grants to help with capital and consultancy costs. We have helped farmers to collaborate to set up the Farm
1406
Holiday Bureau which markets over 1,000 separate farm businesses offering accommodation on farms. know that there are moves afoot to set up a similar body for farm attractions.
In all of this the Ministry, of course, co-operates with the other rural development agencies and authorities. We are anxious to ensure, for example, that due attention is paid to the need for economic development in planning policies. The recent Planning Policy Guidance note 7 on the "Countryside and the Rural Economy" reminds planning authorities of the need to take a balanced approach to rural development and conservation. It makes it clear that the countryside can accommodate many forms of development without detriment if the location and design are handled sensitively. We must defeat the insidious idea that economic development is the enemy of the countryside. Nowadays, many commercial and light manufacturing activities can be carried on in rural areas without causing unacceptable disturbance. In reality, maintaining a healthy rural economy is one of the best ways of protecting and improving the countryside that we all know and love. My noble friend Lord Radnor mentioned the Rural Development Commission. The RDC is the Government's main agent for diversifying the rural economy. The commission provides workspace, directly or in partnership with local authorities, grants for the conversion of redundant buildings and technical and financial advice to small rural business. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will be pleased to hear that we have been working closely with the commission and others in programmes such as the two European Community LEADER programmes in Devon and Cornwall.
We have also worked with the commission on its new countryside employment programme, which aims to help those rural areas which are particularly vulnerable to the structural changes in agriculture. The scheme, covering parts of Lincolnshire, the English/Welsh border and the Cotswolds, will establish partnerships with local organisations and introduce a programme of action to encourage new types of business and new jobs.
These programmes recognise the fact that the future of the rural economy cannot be based solely on agriculture and its associated industries. If rural areas are to thrive they will have to look for economic development in other sectors as well. Resources freed from agricultural production need to be channelled into other economic activities in the countryside.
One such activity—rightly stressed by my noble friend Lord Forester—could be forestry. Forestry has an important place in the rural economy and the Government wish to see more trees planted, on farmland in particular. As well as offering a productive alternative use for agricultural land, farm woodlands provide significant environmental benefits. The experimental farm woodland scheme was introduced in 1988 and resulted in applications to plant over 14,000 hectares. Although that was less than we hoped for, that area does represent well over

1407
20 million trees. We regarded that as an encouraging start, given that growing trees represents a significant new departure for many farmers.
Last year we conducted a thorough review of that scheme and we have now introduced a successor scheme—the farm woodland premium scheme. The main changes are that it offers improved financial incentives to farmers and is a much easier scheme to understand and administer. A great deal of interest has been shown in the new scheme and I hope very much that it will prompt many farmers to give serious consideration to planting and managing woodland as part of their farm business. My own view is that once farmers have been persuaded to overcome their initial hesitation about planting trees they may well go on to plant more trees in the future.
Most diversification measures will be of benefit not just to farmers but to the general public as a whole. In order to encourage the creation of new woodlands close to towns and cities which will be of value for public recreation, the Forestry Commission now pays a community woodland supplement under its Woodland Grant Scheme. One of the conditions of this supplement is that there should be free access to the public. I hope that that will create opportunities for public appreciation of the countryside as well as contributing to the rural economy.
I shall attempt to answer one or two of the further questions that have been raised in this debate, although, as I explained earlier, my answers may unavoidably he incomplete. To those noble Lords whose questions I do not have time to answer I apologise in advance.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and my noble friend Lord Forester, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, were understandably worried about intervention standards for wheat and asked when an announcement would be made. The UK is pressing very hard indeed for an urgent resolution of the present uncertainty. I repeat my assurance of the other day that we fully agree that feed wheat should be eligible for intervention. We are making that view known at every opportunity.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, mentioned bio-fuels. Bio-fuels may have useful environmental characteristics in terms of emissions and MAFF has considerable expertise on the subject. Without wishing to dismiss the concept of bio-fuels, I would say that unsubsidised bio-fuel production is not economically viable. It costs approximately two and a half times as much as mineral diesel to produce. Perhaps more fundamentally the energy derivable from a litre of bio-fuel is roughly equivalent to the energy required to produce it. So one has to think very hard before going into bio-fuels at this stage in a major way.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked for an assurance that the agri-environmental programme would be adequately funded. I cannot give any details of the level of funding at this stage. Member states have a year to draw up appropriate schemes. But member states are required to introduce such schemes and to ensure that they are properly funded.
My noble friend Lord Radnor asked whether MAFF has sufficient resources to implement the new
1408
schemes. Clearly the new schemes will require additional resources; and equally clearly MAFF does not currently have substantial spare capacity. However, I can assure your Lordships that the new schemes will be properly administered. Once implementing regulations are adopted in Brussels, we intend to move rapidly to finalise the details of the schemes in the UK.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford and the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, mentioned the decline in agricultural employment. It is well known that agricultural employment has declined in recent years and that trend is likely to continue. In the light of my earlier remarks, it is impossible at this stage to say how the CAP reform package will affect agricultural employment trends. It is similarly too early to assess what the employment consequences will be on a sectoral basis.
A number of noble Lords expressed dismay at the renewed arrival of set aside. I can do no better than to quote the words of my right honourable friend Mr Gummer. In a speech that he made in the CAP reform debate on 12th June, he said:
"I know that there are many in the House who dislike set aside on principle. I acknowledge that it does have many disadvantages. Given time, there are much better ways of bringing supply and demand into better balance. But time is what we do not have. With the current level of Community production and the prospect of surpluses of perhaps 30 million tonnes after this year's harvest, only an effective European-wide set aside programme can tackle overproduction rapidly enough".
My noble friend Lord Middleton mentioned low cost rural housing. The Government recognise that provision of affordable housing is a serious issue in rural areas and are determined to meet that challenge. We have made clear in planning policy guidance note 3 on housing that the need for affordable housing is a material planning consideration. Where there is a demonstrable lack of affordable housing, local planning authorities may seek to negotiate with developers for the inclusion of an element of affordable housing in new development both on sites allocated to housing in development plans and on other sites.
My noble friends Lord Marlesford and Lord Stanley of Alderley were worried about the bureaucracy that might arise from the CAP settlement. CAP reform measures are to be accompanied by an integrated administrative and control system which is still under discussion. The measure will seek to ensure that the reform measures are implemented evenly and effectively across all member states and that mechanisms are in place to deter fraudulent practices. The new control system and the various CAP sectoral schemes will inevitably involve form filling by farmers. However, the Government are determined to keep that to the minimum necessary for proper operation of the scheme. We are consulting the NFU and other interested bodies to that end.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford asked about the future of the countryside premium scheme. It appears that the agri-environmental programme provides for

1409
something similar to the countryside premium scheme. That is one of the options that we shall consider. We shall consult widely about it.
My noble friend Lord Forester referred to the Fontainebleau Agreement. I cannot agree with the slant that he put on that agreement. The UK's overall contribution to the budget is reduced by the abatement, and reduced by a very substantial sum of money—£2.366 billion in 1991/92. That sum cannot realistically be allocated to any particular part of the budget such as grant funding.
Again, I thank all noble Lords for the considered views which they have expressed this evening. The
1410
rural economy is a topic to which I have no doubt we shall return on many occasions in the future. It is my hope and belief that the challenge to the agricultural sector will be energetically met and that the opportunities which are there to be seized will over the next few years generate the prosperity in our rural communities which all of us wish to see maintained.

Cattewater Reclamation Bill
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before one o'clock.