Lords Sitting of 17 December 1993

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

GATT
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they expect to be the next steps in the international arrangements within the GATT organisation.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the agreements settled this week will be signed at a ministerial conference, not before April 1994, formally concluding the Uruguay Round. The delay arises from the need to complete the legal texts. The agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation will then be open for signature. An implementing conference in early 1995 will decide on arrangement for the entry into force of the agreements.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Yesterday the House expressed its general satisfaction that an agreement had been reached, but will the new World Trade Organisation make future GATT rounds unnecessary? What is the programme now for the negotiations which were not completed, in particular on financial services and shipping, both of which are of concern to the United Kingdom?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is too early to say whether further rounds will be required, but there is widespread agreement that new issues will need to be discussed. It is important to note that all service sectors were covered by the agreement. We expect there to be further discussions on financial services to improve the liberalisation commitments that have so far been made, but no formal process has been agreed. The negotiations on maritime transport should begin no later than one month after the ministerial conference next spring.
Lord Rea: My Lords, can the noble Viscount say whether copies of the GATT agreement will be available for those noble Lords who would like to have some light holiday reading? When will both Houses of Parliament have an opportunity to debate GATT in preparation for ratification?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government intend to present a White Paper on the results of the round in the new year. That will be made available.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is it not the position that any action which is necessarily to flow from the agreement cannot become operative until after April? If things are done in the interim, what is the sanction?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the situation is as I have described it. The agreement has been settled. It has been agreed, but it has not formally been signed as yet. As I have said, the delay arises from the need to complete the legal texts.
Lord Morris: My Lords, can my noble friend explain briefly why it takes such a very long time between the agreement being struck and the agreement being implemented?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is important to note that the Uruguay Round was the most ambitious set of trade negotiations ever. By the end, 117 nations were negotiating on a wide range of sectors. A delay was inevitable in such complex negotiations on difficult issues which affect so many countries.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the White Paper, which will inevitably deal with the impact of GATT on our domestic economic situation, also cover the impact of GATT on the under-developed countries?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to comment on that at the moment, but the White Paper will obviously cover the important issues. The agreement was significant for third world countries and has been widely welcomed.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what process of ratification the Government have in mind for GATT? Is it to be done under the prerogative as a normal Foreign Office treaty or in some other way?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have described the situation as regards the European Community. Both the Community and each member state will sign and ratify the World Trade Organisation agreement Member state ratifications will follow national constitutional processes.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can my noble friend add any more to his reply on whether further rounds are expected, as has been the case in the past, such as the Uruguay Round, given that there is now a new World Trade Organisation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as I have said, there are bound to be further discussions on the various issues that are outstanding. It is important to note that the creation of the World Trade Organisation puts the system of international trade rules on a secure institutional basis for the first time. It will provide a better system of settling trade disputes and stronger disciplines on unilateral action.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, will the noble Viscount be good enough to answer the question put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Richard; namely, will that be done under the prerogative or will legislation be put before Parliament?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that legislation will not be required.

Humanism and the School Syllabus
11.12 a.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will include humanism in the religious education syllabus for schools.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not determine the content of any locally agreed syllabus for religious education in England and Wales. Each syllabus is agreed locally by a local authority syllabus conference. As humanism is not a religion, there is no requirement that it be represented on a conference or included in an agreed syllabus.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that opinion polls have shown consistently that some 20 per cent. of the adult population has no religious faith? In those circumstances, is it not proper and logical that the subject should be taught to children so that they can see what is involved? On the specific point that the Minister made, we all realise of course that humanism is not a religion, but there is no other appropriate place in the syllabus to put it. Will he comment on that point also?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, guidance on what is meant by religion is taken from the case of Barralet and Others v. Attorney-General in 1980. The advice of our legal officers is that humanism is not a religion and should not therefore be taught as if it were. However, in the context of religious education, a syllabus might deal with non-theistic ways of life such as humanism.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that in some schools on the last day of term the final assembly sometimes has difficulty in focusing adequately on God? Does he agree that, were humanism to be included in religious education, it would be difficult on any logical ground to exclude Marxism, fascism, or any other ideology which does not take seriously the transcendent revelation, the spiritual, let alone God?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate focuses on an interesting point. I concur with what he said.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, will the Minister continue not to be beguiled by the strange theological views coming from Durham? Will he bear in mind that this country's heritage is a Christian one, and that we have built our parliamentary democracy upon the Christian interpretation of the value of the individual? Because of Christianity, we know that no person in this realm is unimportant. Will he direct his thoughts more to Guildford than to Durham?
Viscount St Davids: My Lords, it is not for me to remind your Lordships' House that the basis of our laws and legal system, and indeed our culture, lies deep within the Christian tradition.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister agree that within the Act religious education is defined as education and not instruction, and that it should be mainly Christian?
Viscount St Davids: My Lords, I concur entirely with the noble Baroness.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that humanism is a euphemism for atheism, which is in antagonism to all religion, and therefore cannot be part of religious teaching?
Viscount St Davids: My Lords, the answer my noble friend seeks would require from me a personal observation which I am not entitled to make.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister noticed that in his annual report the Chief Inspector of Schools has commented upon the need felt by schools for further guidance on spiritual and moral education? Do the Government believe that that should reflect the reality that Britain is now a multi-faith society?
Viscount St Davids: My Lords, a range of national model syllabuses is being developed by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and will be issued for consultation in the new year. It would not be appropriate for me to comment upon their content before then.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, will my noble friend not allow himself to be led astray by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, and, I am afraid, other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Renton, on this question of humanism? Will he strike a blow today, at Christmastide, against this monstrous hijacking by agnostics of the word "humanism"? Will he remind the noble Lord that in the English tradition the great humanists—Erasmus, More and Colet—were all Christian believers? Is it not much better to describe humanism as inhumanism, and call a spade a spade?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, again, I have to reply to my noble friend that he is requiring from me a personal observation which I am not permitted to make.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I listened with care to the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy. My noble friend Lord Dormand is still a friend of mine, and I have the greatest respect and admiration for him and for what he tries to do in the House and outside (in fact some of my best friends are so-called humanists). But I believe that the Question is irrelevant and out of order. It represents a contradiction to me and to millions of other citizens who do not understand the relationship in this context of humanism and religion. Humanism is not a religion. It is not accepted as a religion. Perhaps some other place in the syllabus could be found to discuss it, but it should not be in the religious syllabus.
Viscount St Davids: My Lords, the intellectual integrity of the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, is well known in your Lordships' House. I should certainly incur your Lordships' displeasure were I to call into question his beliefs or his reasons for holding them.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, if there is a worry about indicating to people what humanism is all about, should it not be studied as part of the history syllabus as development of thought, in particular during the Renaissance period? As has been said by many noble Lords, it is of no relevance to religious education.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the noble Baroness made a valuable point.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if only 20 per cent. of people declare themselves to be non-religious, or to be humanist, a large number of people are not practising their faith. Is it not the case, therefore, that possibly a majority of people in this country cannot today be described as being religious? Is it not proper that some place should be provided in which moral necessities outside the necessity of belonging in any faith can be taught to children? That is what my noble friend is properly seeking to provide and if it cannot be provided in the way he suggested perhaps it can be provided in another way.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I suggest to the noble Lord that it is for the parents and relations who are involved in humanism to teach it to their children if they see fit.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, is not the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, that if people are not practising their religion there is all the more need for religious education?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, my noble friend is correct.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, of course I expected your Lordships' overwhelming support in answer to my Question! I return to the Minister's answer about the provision of local religious education syllabuses. In view of what he said, is it acceptable that, if representations are made at a local level, they may be included in any local RE syllabus?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education has received representations from the British Humanist Association. Its views will be fully taken into account before a final decision is taken on the text of the circular to be issued in the new year.
Lord Elton: My Lords, given the support in your Lordships' House for religious education to be taught in schools, will my noble friend recommend to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education steps to strengthen the training of teachers of religious education?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I shall certainly report the views of my noble friend to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.

EC Budget: Waste of Funds
11.23 a.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they will take with the European Commission to ensure that there is no repetition of the waste of funds reported by the European Court of Auditors.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Government have pressed and will continue to press the Commission to ensure that the Community budget is implemented with regard to the principles of sound financial management, as now required by the Maastricht Treaty.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend's Answer mean that the Government are satisfied that there will be no repetition of the large waste of funds which the Court of Auditors reported on?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we can never be complacent and we can never be totally satisfied that there will not be waste in the future. I want to make it clear that the Government are committed to sound financial management in terms of the Community's budget. We shall continue to identify problems and inform the Commission of deficiencies where we think fit. Certainly we have the commitment that my noble friend seeks.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we realise that the Government can never be complacent in these matters, but many of us believe that it is high time that they got a bit angry about them. Will the Minister inform the House whether at the recent meeting of ECOFIN it was decided that the Council of Ministers would recommend to the European Parliament that it be granted discharge of the 1992 budget? But before embarking on that course, will the Minister assure the House that at least one member of the Cabinet will actually read the auditors' report for the financial year 1992 and report to the House on his reactions to it, which one hopes will be different to the vapid explanatory memorandum which the Government have just issued?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can give an assurance that—well, I can say to the noble Lord—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is a matter for the Parliament as to its level of budget. The proposed increase is about 5.7 per cent. against a bid by the Secretariat of some 7 per cent. We believe that the European Parliament has at least heeded the need for budgetary restraint and has reduced its bid from a 7 per cent. increase to a 5.7 per cent. increase. I can also assure the noble Lord that all my right honourable friends will read all the appropriate documents as and when appropriate.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Court of Auditors is a very responsible body and that the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, refers to funds and to this country's contribution to them, which comes from the British taxpayer? Ultimately, the Question is whether the British taxpayer will be defended from what is happening, which has been outlined by the court itself.
Lord Henley: My Lords, very much so. British taxpayers, and for that matter taxpayers in all the other European countries, are protected by the scrutiny which goes on in their own national parliaments. As the noble Lord knows, scrutiny in this Parliament is very effective. Certainly the Court of Auditors will continue to audit the accounts as appropriate.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we have been round this course several times before. I am always puzzled by the fact that we always utter the same words about how much we do not like waste and so forth and we are assured that the Government will look at the matter. Will the Minister answer a question which I have alluded to previously? What is the mechanism for doing so? Can he describe the step-by-step approach that leads to the waste being stopped? People can talk and complain, and today at least I can believe that Cabinet Ministers will read the documents—I can just about believe that. But what happens to prompt someone to say, "We must stop this waste and this is how we shall do it"?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it would take too long to describe the process in detail at Question Time and at the Dispatch Box. Put simply, under the Maastricht Treaty it will be for the Court of Auditors to identify waste and inappropriate expenditure. It will then be for the appropriate body that has made the inappropriate expenditure, if that expenditure was illegal, to recover it from those to whom it had been made.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not believe that the Minister understands the point. Thanks to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, we are always identifying the problem. In terms of a business, if one sees waste one says to the people concerned, "You are responsible, you stop that waste. We don't want it to happen again". I cannot see the equivalent of that; I can hear the talk but I cannot see the action.
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is exactly how I answered the question and described what happened. Let us suppose that the Commission has spent money inappropriately and illegally. The Court of Auditors will tell it that it has done so, and it will then be for the Commission to recover those funds.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my noble friend said that it would take too long to answer the first question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. But will he be kind enough to provide a Written Answer and place it in the Library of the House?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should be absolutely delighted to answer a Written Question if my noble friend would care to table one.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the Minister agree that waste is not confined to the European Community? Only the other day Mr. Portillo admitted that the Treasury had mislaid no less than£1 billion.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is possible that waste exists in all organisations. That is why Parliament scrutinises government expenditure to ensure that there is not waste.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, does not the key lie in the Council of Ministers? Is it not a fact that on two or three occasions reports to your Lordships' House have pointed to the importance of the Council of Ministers taking full notice of the reports of the auditors and not authorising the accounts of the Commission and the Community until action has been assured? That point has been made in countless reports from the Select Committee.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct, but it is also important that we, as members of the Council of Ministers, play our own part. I was trying to give an assurance to the House that this Government will pursue fraud and waste as strongly as any other government.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the views of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, are widely held? There is disquiet that when points are made about waste and, in this case when the official auditors, with all their authority, make those points, still nothing seems to be done about it. There is no evidence that it is taken into account or that moves are made to eradicate the weaknesses.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept what my noble friend says. He is accusing the Government of mere fine words. There are those fine words, but we also press the Community to turn those words into action.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, does the Treaty of Rome prevent the Comptroller and Auditor General from investigating the waste of British taxpayers' money in Europe? If it does not, would it not be good for the National Audit Office, which has done such an excellent job in investigating waste by public bodies in this country, to have a look at what is happening in Europe?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend has gone rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I am not sure that I can answer his question; I should prefer to write to him.
Lord Morris: My Lords, it is the responsibility of the nation states to pursue any fraud affecting European Community funds within the jurisdiction of the nation states. How many prosecutions for fraud have been brought by member states?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am unable to answer my noble friend.

Bosnia: Humanitarian Aid
11.31 a.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will seek to end the Owen-Stoltenberg mediation and to strengthen UNPROFOR's mandate to save lives in the former Yugoslavia during this winter.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the European Council in Brussels on 10th and 11th December reaffirmed its support for the co-chairmen's efforts to achieve a political solution to the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. The council also underlined its commitment to intensify its humanitarian efforts in Bosnia through the winter. We agree with the judgment of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that the most effective way to save lives this winter would be to achieve an early negotiated settlement in Bosnia. European Union Foreign Ministers will meet the Bosnian parties again on 22nd December in an effort to bring this objective closer.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is it not quite wrong that the safe areas defined by the United Nations are regularly shelled; that convoys are interrupted and delayed; and mat Tuzla airport is still not open? Will the Government take steps also to provide air cover for the United Nations' forces on the ground?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we provide a great deal of help to the former Yugoslavia in the form of humanitarian aid and the assistance which our soldiers are providing. In the end, that aid can get through only with co-operation. I do not believe that fighting our way through is an option. That would make the problems worse. As regards the reopening of Tuzla airport, as the noble Lord will know, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister stated yesterday mat Tuzla airport should re-open as soon as possible. We believe that it is the Bosnian Serbs who are responsible for blocking it. The United Kingdom and our European partners are ready to offer the necessary expert personnel to man that airport should it reopen.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the Minister's reply that eventually there must be a political solution is to be welcomed. It would be folly of us to seek to blame either the noble Lord, Lord Owen, or Mr. Stoltenberg, who have done their best. Does the Minister agree that they must continue to do their best while at the same time strengthening the role of UNPROFOR?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we shall continue to do our best. The only solution that we have is to continue to negotiate and to continue to offer our support through the European Union to the noble Lord, Lord Owen. We have a very good record in this country of providing aid to the former Yugoslavia and we shall continue to provide aid as far as we can. I tried to make clear to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton,—and I think the noble Lord agrees with me—that in the end, we can get that aid through only with co-operation.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we have heard previously about the necessity of a political settlement before aid can be successfully delivered? That is almost certainly true. But, on the other hand, there will be no settlement unless Serbia is coerced into abandoning its continual aggression. Will the Minister assure us that there is no question of lifting sanctions against the Serbian Government while their interference with the activities of the United Nations continues?
Lord Henley: My Lords, in the end a solution can be reached only if there is agreement among all the parties. I assure my noble friend that the Serbs face the threat of continued sanctions and international isolation if they show unwillingness to reach a settlement.
Lord Richard: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and Mr. Stoltenberg have fixed a meeting with the warring parties on 22nd December, and that after last weekend's European Summit the Foreign Ministers decided to meet the warring parties on 21st December? Was that at the request of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, or in response to a feeling among the Foreign Ministers that the Owen-Stoltenberg initiative had run into the sand and that they needed to take it over? What is happening?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot answer the question as to whether the meeting was fixed at the request of the noble Lord, Lord Owen. I should correct the noble Lord because it is important to have these matters right. On 21st December the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and the parties will meet in Geneva. On 22nd December, the following day, the European Union Foreign Ministers will meet the Bosnian parties in Brussels. More importantly, Mrs. Ogata, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, will also attend on that occasion.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that until such time as it becomes possible to conclude this ghastly business in Yugoslavia, the impact of sanctions upon Serbia is greater, in some respects, than has been provided for? For example, it seems that medical supplies for children are not getting through as they are supposed to. Does the Minister agree that, while sanctions must remain, they should be applied in such a manner that they do not impact where they are not supposed to?
Lord Henley: My Lords, if there is evidence that that is happening, I should be prepared to look at the matter. I shall certainly pass on the views of the noble Lord to my noble friend. As regards the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I am fairly sure about the facts and the dates which I gave him. If I am wrong about that, I shall certainly write and let: the noble Lord know.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, are the Government seeking to strengthen the working mandate of UNPROFOR and, if so, in what way?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are not seeking to strengthen that at the moment. As I made quite clear, we

1505
believe that it is important to continue with negotiations and also to continue to provide what humanitarian aid we can. In the end, if one is providing aid, one has two choices: one can either get the aid in with co-operation; or one can fight one's way in. We do not believe that the right way forward is to try to fight our way in with aid.

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

Trade Marks Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill):
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Public Bill Committee to consider the Bill—

L. Airedale,

V. Allenby of Megiddo,

V. Goschen,

B. Hamwee,

E. Harrowby,

L. Haskel,

B. Hooper,

L. Howie of Troon,

L. Lucas of Chilworth,

L. Lyell,

L. Macaulay of Bragar, L. Monson,

L. Oliver of Aylmerton,

L. Peston,

L. Reay,

L. Strathclyde.

That the procedure of the Committee be so far as possible that of a Committee of the Whole House;
That the report of the Committee's debates be published from day to day and the Minutes of the Committee's proceedings be published as appendices to the Minutes of Proceedings of the House;
That the Committee do meet on Thursday 13th January next at half-past ten o'clock in the Moses Room.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund Bill
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 16th December), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Coins and Banknotes
11.40 a.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will review the design of the nation's coinage and banknotes.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this last short debate before the Christmas break concentrates on a subject which I suggest has rather direct links to our festive cheer. Cynics may say that it has become too relevant and that commercialism is practically swamping the spirit. I do not subscribe to that as a thrifty Member of your Lordships' House. However, what is beyond dispute is that it is a very busy period for the use of our coinage and notes which will be at full stretch alongside the credit card system.
The purpose of the debate is simply to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they accept that there are serious criticisms of some of the recent designs introduced for our coinage and banknotes and, indeed, of the balance of these throughout. Some of that criticism and concern arose from the report of the Select Committee in another place published in May 1991. That committee set out to examine the very subject of today's debate. It produced some disquieting weaknesses of the system, especially as regards consultation procedures and market research of new denominations being introduced into the system.
I shall begin with a premise that our coinage and note system should combine simplicity, convenience and respect. Those are words used by the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury to the Select Committee. Do our present coinage and banknotes live up to that expectation? I believe that they fail on two counts; namely, simplicity and convenience. It was surely a basic madness to design and introduce a new£20 note which could easily be mistaken for an existing£10 note. Some may wish not to admit it, but the banks will tell you of customers' confusion, unhappiness and loss. I recall the noble Lord, Lord Peston—I could not name a sharper-minded economist and skilled Member of your Lordships' House—admitting his confusion and, in consequence, being regarded as a very generous man by a taxi driver.
It is surely a sadness, too, that we are reduced to the introduction of a cheap looking peseta-type five-pence coin. Perhaps we are lucky that it does not have a hole in it. It is a poor-looking, insignificant coin which slips through the slightest hole in your pocket. It is easy to lose, easy to drop and, indeed, is a miserable design.
As for the convenience of our currency, is it convenient to open a£5 note to purchase a packet of Polos to be confronted with apologies for being given eight to 10 coins in change and, by the end of the day, to suffer sagging pockets and bursting purses when you would much have preferred to have had, perhaps, a couple of£1 notes? At the Select Committee hearing a Treasury official said:
"Our coinage is in good shape and getting better".
When my noble friend replies perhaps he can enlighten your Lordships by saying on what basis those comments were made.
One of the faults of the present system is that we have lost a vital balance and ratio between our bank notes and our coinage. At present, we have eight coins of legal tender and next year we shall have nine. The USA has five coins and perhaps we should examine whether that balance has a better consumer advantage. The killing off by the Treasury of the£1 note 10 years ago on the spurious grounds of excessive cost is now, of course, a matter of history.
The policy of the Royal Bank of Scotland to retain the£1 note and to bring out a new design in 1994 (the Robert Louis Stevenson commemoration) is not history. When I asked the bank this week whether it was very expensive to retain the£1 note and why had it been continued, the answer was simple and direct. No, it is not too expensive; but, more importantly, it is what its customers really want. I hope that my noble friend will take note of that and see whether a proper independent market survey should be carried out to consider whether a£2 note should be introduced or perhaps even whether the£1 note should be reintroduced.
In its report, the Select Committee pinpoints, among other things, that the basic weakness was of consultation over design and changes in our coins and notes. As I understand it the coinage comes under the Royal Mint, which is assisted by an advisory committee. It is a formal committee that was set up in 1922 with the appropriate expertise in design. For banknotes, the Bank of England—with no official advisory committee—relies on the judgment of the Court of Directors, many of whom are non-executive and described to the Select Committee as coming from all walks of life other than banking. I do not question that their motives are not the best because, of course, they would be. But is it really appropriate in the present day, with its emphasis on accountability, that such people should have that responsibility? Would it not be better if a formal body with obvious expertise was set up, especially after the fiasco of the£20 note?
One issue upon which my noble friend may wish to comment is the effect on the use of our coinage and banknotes by the credit card system. We read that banks are confidently expecting to produce cards leaving us a cashless society. Is that really likely? Further, have the Government a view on the matter as regards the consumer?
conclude by saying that simplicity and convenience of our notes and coinage are particularly essential to the blind and the infirm. That is the important test. Moreover, the system must also serve all of us. I do not feel that the present system has a balance and a design of which we can be proud. It needs looking into. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend can give us a little extra Christmas cheer by saying something very positive today that will send us happily on our way.
11.46 a.m.
LordBroadbridge: My Lords, I have for a long time wanted to let off a bit of steam about the nation's coinage and banknotes, so I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for tabling the Question. While certain tribes may still use salt and cowrie shells for their transactions, the effective globe is using coins and
1508
banknotes. Everyone will be familiar with the whole range of their own currency and often that of other countries too. It is said of the multi-millionaire, the late Nubar Gulbenkian, that he always idiosyncratically travelled in a London taxi, explaining that he did so,
"because it will turn on a sixpence".
After a pause he would add,
"whatever that is".
But I think that even he knew what a sixpence was. However, I move on now to more serious matters.
I should like, first, to speak of banknotes. Two factors predominate for the user; namely, size and design, though we must not forget security features. To me, our£50 notes much resemble an early English water-colour in design, not harsh but aesthetic. It is much larger than lower denominations. I suppose the fact that in most countries the higher the denomination the larger the size is the rule. I venture to suggest that it stems from earlier silver and gold coinage, where the citizen was given a coin which represented in size its denominational value in silver or gold. Thus, the 18th and 19th century crown was enormous because five shillings-worth of sterling silver had to be given. Of course, lower denominations were smaller, pro rata.
The paper money which has succeeded silver and gold coinage has no intrinsic value at all. But the custom lingers: big value, big note. I remember that the post-war high value Italian notes were the size of small tablecloths. Most countries make that distinction. But the USA, arguably the richest country in the world, has banknotes of uniform size for all denominations. While larger notes for high denominations can be partly justified on the basis that they would hardly be handed over by accident for a smaller sum because of their size, they are an awful nuisance in wallets, back pockets and purses because of their size. They usually have to be folded, and once folded lose much of their size distinction. I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will seriously consider making all our banknotes the same size. The major problem that I believe I and most of the country have with our£20 and£10 notes is the complete lack of a clearly printed denomination value in the corners, particularly on the reverse. The£10 note has been improved towards what it should surely have been in the first place. Surely this vital element should have been properly designed by all those wise, aesthetic, user and technical committees that sit on banknote design as one to be printed large and in a dark colour. These notes have their denominations printed in small size in white out of pale pink and in lilac out of pink and lilac. Redesign has simply changed this to white out of pink. The first effort was well nigh invisible and the second is not much better. Confusion and fraud are the result.
Visitors to this country, whose good will and foreign exchange we desperately need, must surely be confused by the calligraphy and colour, and probably swindled as a result. This does not help good will and repeat visits. In conclusion on banknotes, I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider making our notes all of the same size and printing the value on both faces in emphatic calligraphy.

1509
Secondly, I turn to our coinage. It seems to me the essential elements for consideration are size, shape, colour, design and weight. It is a commonplace mat our coinage is shrinking. While I think the 19th and 20th century silver crown was the finest coin ever produced by anyone anywhere, it is quite unsuitable to the pace of modern life. Coins should be fairly small, and I think we have got it about right, with one exception. The small size of our 5p coin seems to meet with universal obloquy, and I share in this. In a handful of coins it is pain and grief to try to pick it out. It should be larger but because we have 1p and 2p coins of copper and 10p coins of cupro-nickel, it could not really be made larger and of either of those alloys without confusion.
I ask Her Majesty's Government therefore for a larger 5p coin made out of a yellow alloy such as the£1 coin, but distinctive by virtue of being much thinner. Surely the blind would have no problem as the 10p coin is already£1 coin sized but thinner, and a new 5p could be either a little smaller than the 10p coin, or better still about the same size with the 10p coin made a little bigger. Even better, as we have 10p, 2p and 1p coins we could abolish it altogether. Does Her Majesty's Government really think that, with adequate 10p, 2p and 1p coins in circulation, we really need a 5p coin at all? Using my ancient brain to try to recollect what the noble Earl said in his opening speech, I believe he said the Americans have rather fewer denominations than ourselves. What I am really suggesting is that we may be overdenominated in any case. Do we need the horrible little thing or, putting it rather more soberly, do we need a coin of that value at all?
I have little to say about the shape of our coins except to express broad approval. With the old 10p and two-shilling piece gone, there is perhaps no need to have a 50p with flat edges, but we and our automatic machinery are now geared to it and I think it is rather distinctive. I hope it stays. Similarly, I generally approve of its colour. Of seven coins in circulation we have taken the opportunity of the added distinction which a yellow alloy would produce only once, with our£1 coin. Its diameter and thickness characterise it, particularly for the blind, and a lower denomination coin, if we have to have it, such as a new 5p coin as I have suggested, might without confusion, and indeed with greater clarity, be introduced in this colour. We would then have a yellow£1 coin, 50p and 10p coins in silver, a yellow 5p coin and copper 2p and 1p coins.
As regards the design of our coins, art is in the eye of the beholder and we could argue, probably until Christmas Day, about design. I am strongly against ephemeral and passing fancies for our regular coinage. Let those be the province of commemorative coins and medals. Our coins should embody an element of probity and permanence based on our island history and its stability in a changing world. This, of course, the Monarch's head does splendidly, but there is always the other side. Wildlife and birdlife have, I believe, been recently suggested, but while I am, as it were, proud of these, together with our statesmen, great inventors and
1510
much else besides, I believe they are better treated on postage stamps. Let our coins embody symbols of state and nationhood. They do, and I am happy with them.
Finally, I turn to the weight of coins. I remember when at school reading a Bank of England publication on the coinage which, far from dealing with technical aspects and problems of production, was a more philosophical treatise which made the point forcefully that money was of value and should have a significant though manageable weight. I am all against the weightless aluminium coinage of some countries. I well remember once cupping a handful of Italian coins in my hand and feeling that if the wind blew they would be gone. I thus approve this aspect of our coinage. In a busy modern world it is appropriate that our coins have shrunk somewhat, especially as we need more and more of them to reach the same value in real terms, and they are no longer based on intrinsic metal value. This cuts their weight down. Most of us have probably forgotten how heavy the old pre-decimal coinage was. However, will Her Majesty's Government undertake that no lightweight aluminium-type alloys will be used to make our coins? To do so would, I believe, debauch the perceived intrinsic worth of our coinage, if not its intrinsic value.
In conclusion, I think there is much to commend and be grateful for in our coins and banknotes, perhaps more so as regards the coins. However, when we make a mistake, we seem to make a big one, as with the£10 and£20 notes and the 5p coin. I am reminded of a visit I made to Russia 35 years ago when, on return through East Germany my name was missing from the collective group visa. "A small mistake", I told the heavily-armed border patrol man. "Iss beeg mistake", he hissed. I survived, but as is the case with the money I have mentioned, only with some delay and confusion. Could we not take some of the delay and confusion that I have mentioned out of our money? Surely it would be money well spent.
11.57 a.m.
Lord Gray: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend has extended this Yuletide invitation to Her Majesty's Government. As there is no possibility of suggesting what new designs we might have while standing on my feet in this Chamber, inevitably I must, like other noble Lords who have already spoken, offer criticisms of what is presently current. I apologise if I repeat any points, but perhaps I shall be able to give them a different emphasis or draw them out in a different way.
It is doubtless a good thing that our coinage and our banknotes should be aesthetically pleasing. It is certainly important that they should look and feel valuable; but most important of all they should be user friendly. User friendliness applies to both sides of every transaction. Having spent many hours, days and months over the past 20-plus years operating tills in situations where rapid flow transactions were involved, I have seen and continue to see user friendliness from both sides of the counter.
Noble Lords have already mentioned—and this has been mentioned before—the confusion that exists

1511
between the Bank of England English£20,£5 and£10 notes, particularly as regards the backs of the£5 and£20 notes. But there is the Scottish£1 note. I live and work in the West Highlands and in my till every day there are many Scottish£1 notes alongside the various£1 coins in issue.
The Scots banks have kept the traditional green for their£1 notes. The Bank of England has introduced a considerable area of green on the face of its£5 notes. The blue it uses has a greenish tinge. What is more, the notes are virtually the same size. Serious confusion arises, to the embarrassment of both parties to transactions and, on occasion, loss. I have learnt from reliable hearsay that in some corner shops in England£1 notes have been successfully passed off as fivers. I wish that in those far-off days when occasionally a wealthy godfather gave one a tip, similar confusion had been available and one could have had a fiver instead of a quid.
There is another aspect of confusion and legibility. Without my spectacles or in poor light I cannot read a single word or single numeral on any Bank of England note. However, in every case I can read the denomination in the form of a figure or a word on each and every one of the notes issued by the three banks in Scotland. Surely England can learn from Scotland yet again.
It would be unfair not to pay the Bank of England one compliment. I compliment it on the symbols—the roundel, diamond and square—of solid colour which appear on the face of the£5,£10 and£20 notes respectively, which are intended to assist those with poor eyesight. However, for goodness sake, why did they not print them on the back also? If one's sight is poor, one will not know which way up the note is in the first place.
I shall now leave the question of notes and turn to coins. I agree that it would be a good idea to have a more substantial 5p piece. However, I wish to comment on a different aspect of the recently issued coinage. We have a new 5p piece and a new 10p piece. First we had the 5p and then we had the 10p, but we were given the 10p piece before we had forgotten the feel and appearance of the old 5p piece. For several months there was confusion at tills and in purses. People handed over the wrong coin. With elderly people that still happens to this day.
I hope that the Government will be minded to have another look at our notes and coinage, having regard to my shopping list of requirements. My shopping list would include: a more substantial 5p piece; more strongly coloured, clearly marked and ostensibly different notes as between denominations; avoidance of the confusion which arises as, for example, when the new 10p piece was introduced.
Lastly, it should be recognised that it is not in the boardrooms and design studios that the Bank of England can tell whether a note will be a success. It is out on the streets and in the shops. I do not know what consultation takes place at present, but I suspect that it is inadequate. One would hope that consultation would go wider even than trade federations and involve people who handle
1512
money every day of their working lives. Perhaps it might be possible to devise a pilot scheme covering die introduction of new coins.
Again, I express my gratitude to my noble friend for having introduced the debate, and I am sorry that I had to be so critical at this festive season.
12.4 p.m.
Lord Leigh: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for arranging this debate on the coins and banknotes of the United Kingdom. However, the timing of the debate—which probably has nothing to do with him—is most unfortunate. I am sure that many of our fellow Peers who have left for greener pastures would have liked to have spoken on the subject.
My noble friend will probably recall that we were colleagues higher up the Thames at Eton many moons ago, although he may prefer not to be reminded of that darker aspect of his life. Our paths have occasionally met—I was going to say "crossed" but that probably gives the wrong impression. However, I do not believe that either of us ever guessed that one day, lower down the Thames in your Lordships' House, I would be supporting him in a debate on the monetary system of our country.
Be that as it may, being in the early stages of geriatricy—or, to put it another way, at the end of the first third of the third age of man—I find it increasingly difficult to distinguish one banknote from another. Not only do uiey look alike at first glance; they also appear to be roughly the same size. They all have grey backs. Our banknotes look pretty, but in my opinion they are not well designed. The size and colours of the different denominations seem to merge one with another in my wallet or out of me bank cash slot machines. One has great difficulty in finding the figures on the banknotes, which are tucked away in one of the four corners and are in the same colours as the rest of the note, making them virtually indistinguishable. One has to look at the notes hard to ascertain the value, first finding where the figures are and then finding what they say. All the gentlemen on the reverse of the notes have long hair, and at a quick glance they all look alike, although on closer perusal one finds that they are quite different.
If one frequents the racecourse, as I often do, and bets; in cash, one has to identify the value of the note quickly when handed the same by the bookie or at me Tote before being jostled and harried, if not kicked, by the next customer. The same applies in the market-place.
I consulted both my stepson, who is 24, and my favourite stepdaughter, who is 17. They both commented on how alike the different notes look. If both me younger generation and I myself, in the early stages of geriatricy, find it difficult to distinguish between the different banknotes what chance have foreigners, especially the tourists who flock to these isles, not forgetting the old age pensioners? On the one hand, we try to attract tourists and, on the other, we try to baffle or delude them with our money.
The coins are no better. The 5p piece is virtually useless. The only slot machines that appear to take them are on the Underground, which is rapidly becoming a muggers' paradise. Many ladies and gentlemen I know

1513
will not travel on it. Our coffee bar and one or two Pakistani-run shops and multiples price in 5ps, but they are few and far between. Added to that, if any gentleman is fortunate enough to have one or more of these coins in his trouser pockets, together with his handkerchief, the chances are that he will lose them when he blows his nose or wipes his mouth, provided always that he uses a handkerchief and not just his thumb and forefinger or the back of his hand.
My favourite stepdaughter is of the opinion that we should follow the Japanese and/or the Chinese with larger more distinguishable coins. Recently when rummaging in my pocket while trying not to disclose its contents to my wife, I managed to muddle the 20p and£1 coins.
It has always puzzled me why we had to abolish the old notes and coins, when they were so easily distinguishable, and adopt these other bits and pieces. If our notes of differing denominations were different colours, with numbers, and our coins larger, we should all benefit, especially the old age pensioners. We should bring back the old 5p or one shilling coin, the old 10p or florin coin and retain the new 50p coin. We can forget the rest apart from the new 1p and 2p coins for use in supermarkets. The subject is indeed a grey area.
12.11 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to intervene for one moment to say how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gray, about legibility of values on banknotes. It is extremely important. Today that leaves a little to be desired. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, said about coinage. However, I cannot agree that we should have notes of the same size. How many times have I sat in a taxi in New York in the dim light trying to distinguish whether I have a 100 dollar, a 20 dollar, a 10 dollar or a 5 dollar note in my hand? I hope that we shall preserve different sizes in our banknotes. If they could be more legible, it would be helpful. If the£10 and£20 note could each be a little more distinctive to avoid confusion, that would be of help.
12.14 p.m.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, I apologise for not having put my name on the list. I did not think that I would be able to be present today.
I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for initiating the debate. It gives me an opportunity of making a confession to your Lordships' House. In the 1980s when I was in the Treasury, I found myself involved in a number of decisions which have resulted in the currency that we have today both with regard to coins and in particular the£1 note. I offer something of a confession. It is quite clear that not all the changes have been popular. Indeed, some I would criticise myself. On the other hand, there are a number of constraints. It is perhaps worth mentioning them because they limit the choices that the authorities have in producing banknotes and coins.
Perhaps I may, first, refer to the 5p coin. A number of noble Lords have discussed it this morning. One of
1514
the difficulties of choosing a size and weight for coins of low denomination is the need to avoid duplicating the size and shape of coins used by other countries with significantly different values. An international trade has grown up for use of coins in slot machines. It is an unfortunate fact but, with a great deal more travel between countries, it is necessary to have regard to the existing size and shape of other coins, in particular those in other European countries. I am told that that consideration was one of the reasons for the size of the 5p coin.
I do not admit responsibility for that decision in any way because it was taken after I left the Treasury. However, at the time I argued for a larger 5p rather than the size which was chosen, because I agree with noble Lords who have spoken today: the coin is too small to handle conveniently. I hope that it will be possible to have further thought about it.
I was interested in what my noble friends Lord Kinnoull and Lord Gray said about banknotes in Scotland. My impression is that slot machines are used less in Scotland than in England. There is major use of slot machines on the London Underground. There is a greater need for coins suitable for slot machines in England than in Scotland. However, I admire the banknotes produced in Scotland. When I return to England from Scotland, I always try to return with a walletful of Scottish banknotes because I think that they are more agreeable and it is easier to read the denominations.
There is a lesson for those who design the United Kingdom Bank of England notes. I entirely support what has been said about the difficulty of determining in particular the£10 note and the£20 note. Apart from protection against forgery, the one most important characteristic of any banknote is that its value should be obvious. One cannot say that of either the£20 note or the£10 note. I hope that the matter will be addressed urgently. I remember almost the first Question which I heard answered in your Lordships' House. My noble friend Lord Henley had been given an extraordinary answer to offer by his officials when the matter of banknotes was raised: that it was quite a good thing that people should have to look carefully at notes to see their value. As my noble friend Lord Leigh said, even if one looks carefully, it does not mean that one gets it right.
I do not have a copy of Dod's Parliamentary Companion within reach. I cannot check but it is possible that I am even younger than my noble friend Lord Leigh. However, I have trouble in determining between the two notes, as does almost everyone. I regard it as a matter of some urgency that changes are made.
In that connection perhaps I may make one suggestion. It would be perfectly possible to change the layout of the component parts of the design of the two notes. In addition to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, that the figures should be easy to read, there is no reason why all the elements of the design should be in the same place on all the notes. If they were not, it would make it a great deal easier to see the denomination that they represent.

1515
I conclude with one thought for the Minister. It would be possible to have a£2 coin now that the old florin has been removed. A£2 coin, initiated in 1986 for the Commonwealth Games, was not capable of being made a general denomination at that time because of the existence of the florin. Now that the 10p has been reduced in size, we could have a£2 coin. I believe that it would be useful.
12.18 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may add my voice to those expressing indebtedness to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for introducing this short debate. It is rare from this Bench that I am able to say that I agree with everything that has been said from the other side of your Lordships' House. But I am able to say that with regard to the noble Earl's speech.
Clearly notes and coins matter. Since the Government's favourite measure of the money supply is M.0, which is notes and coins, they would be lost without them if we moved over to a 100 per cent. cashless society. But we shall not be doing that. Therefore we have to take the matter seriously.
Perhaps I may briefly refer to the coinage. I think it is dreadful. I see no reason to be less than honest. However, the noble Earl referred to the 5p coin, and I found by pure chance a use for it only last week. The coin got into the lining of one of my ties and I find it quite a good weighting device for keeping the tie straight. I offer that as a helpful hint at this time of year to my noble friends.
The problem, as no doubt the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, will tell us, is that of negative seigniorage. The noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, will know of that from his Treasury days. We clearly do not want and cannot have a coinage which costs more to produce than its face value. The reverse is also a problem. But perhaps the noble Viscount will tell us something about that.
Whatever the costs of production, there is no excuse for not having coinage which is useful and we should not have more coins than we need. Nor do I believe that aesthetics are totally unimportant. I should like coins of which we could be reasonably proud. In ancient times that was an important criterion and I do not see why it should not be so now.
On the notes, I have nothing to add to what has been said, except that, although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, and others and do not regard myself as old, let alone geriatric, I do not find the notes easy to use. The noble Earl referred to my previous experience, which still applies. I ask the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, when responding to the debate to tell us what research has been done. Has there been any realistic research into real situations, not just of old people but of people in a hurry, mothers with young children and similar examples? What is the research basis for the present approach to the currency? We should bear in mind that people often are in a hurry and often use currency in bad light. Has there been any research into those circumstances which shows that our currency is effective?
I have carried out my favourite research in preparing for today's debate. I have asked my taxi drivers over the
1516
past couple of weeks what they think and I have received a 100 per cent. response. It was not statistically significant, but it was a fairly large sample. They said that the currency was just appalling and they believed that we could do better.
The noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, reminded me, since I took part in the debate on the Question to which he referred, that, although we all admire the noble Lord, Lord Henley, he produced what I regard as the best and most interesting Answer to a Question in the whole of my experience in your Lordships' House: he was advised by the Bank of England that it would be a bad thing if coins or notes were too easily spotted because we would not all then be looking for fraud. So my view that we should have a big£5, a big£10 and a big£20 note was rejected. I still regard that as the all-comers' record for an Answer to a Question in your Lordships' House.
Since what the noble Earl asks for is a review, I believe that a scientific review based on research would be helpful. We hope that there will be such a review, and it would report back to both Houses, certainly to our House, where we take an interest. Then we could adopt a constructive approach in the future.
I wish to conclude with what one noble Lord referred to when he started taking an interest. I began studying economics at the age of 16 when I was at school. I was given a book to read on money, written by the then editor of the Economist, now sadly deceased, Geoffrey Crowther. I believe that he ended up in your Lordships' House. It is about the only piece of economics that I remember. The book stated that money should have two qualities: it should be round so that it could circulate and flat so that it could be piled up.
12.22 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving us this opportunity to debate a subject which I know is of interest to a great many people both inside and outside this House, and on which there is a great diversity of strongly held views.
I must first explain that responsibility for coins and banknotes is divided between the Government on the one hand and the Bank of England on the other. The: Chancellor of the Exchequer—the Master of the Mint—is responsible for all matters concerning the coinage. The Bank of England, however, has full responsibility for the design and issue of its banknotes.
I shall begin with the coinage. There is a distinction between design and specification. By design we mean the illustrations that appear on the coin: the Royal effigy on one side and the various designs that appear on the other. Specification refers to the size, shape, weight and metallic composition of the coin.
Designs have changed little since decimalisation in 1971 when most current reverse designs were first used. In the case of the£1 coin, which was introduced in 1983, a number of different designs representing the constituent parts of the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom as a whole have been used. Next year the Mint will begin using a new series of designs beginning with

1517
the one for Scotland. Her Majesty's effigy on the obverse was changed on decimalisation and again in 1985.
The specifications too, have remained remarkably constant, despite recent changes. Changes in specification, and indeed in denominations, of coins are made only when there are sound and compelling reasons and then only after full consultation.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, raised the matter of consultation. The public and special interests were widely consulted, particularly the blind, the elderly and the vending industry. Three thousand responses were received to a consultation in 1987 and the majority favoured change to smaller 5p and 10p coins.
While on the subject of the 5p coin, several noble Lords complained about its size, but of course it would be totally wrong to produce coins where the cost of production was greater than the face denomination of the coin.
In considering changes to coins, the aim is always to ensure that the coins are convenient to use. Individual coins should be readily distinguishable both visually and by touch. They should not be too large or heavy and be suitable for use in vending machines. They should, of course, command respect. Our coinage has to evolve to meet changing requirements and for this reason it is difficult at any one time to say that we have an ideal system. However, I believe that our present system achieves an appropriate balance between aesthetic and practical considerations, which serves the needs of most coin users.
During the 1980s surveys showed that people continued to regard the coinage system as being too heavy. Accordingly, in 1987, the Royal Mint, on behalf of the Government, issued a consultation pamphlet to which I have referred. In particular, comments were sought from the elderly, the blind, bulk handlers of coins and the manufacturers and users of coin-operated machines.
After careful consideration of all the responses, the Government announced their intention to introduce new smaller 5p and 10p coins but to leave the other coins unchanged. This was the option that most people said they preferred. Following detailed consultations with representatives of the blind and partially sighted, the coins were given a more pronounced milled edge to help blind people distinguish them.
The new 5p coin was introduced in 1990. Although there were, naturally, some complaints from members of the public who preferred the old size coin, the complaints were fewer than expected, and demand for the coin has remained high. The new 10p coin was introduced in 1992. I am pleased to say that the transition went very smoothly and that there have been very few complaints.
My noble friend Lord Gray commented that there were two 10p coins in circulation, one with a very flat edge and one with a more pronounced milled edge. The latter coin is the one that is currently in production.
The new 5p and 10p coins have together made a substantial reduction in the overall weight of the coinage. They have finally completed the process of
1518
decimalisation, since the withdrawal of the old 5p and 10p coins involved the withdrawal of the remaining old shilling and two shilling pieces which had circulated alongside them.
Several noble Lords have commented on the Scottish£1 note. Maybe the Scots are more careful with their money; tradition has it that they are, and the circulation rate is lower. However, I am informed that we could not revert to that because the life of the notes is too short.
I now turn my attention to banknotes which are the responsibility of the Bank of England. The Bank introduced the new "E" series banknotes for three reasons. The first was to provide a means of increasing the number and nature of security devices incorporated in the notes. This was to protect the public by making them as secure as possible from the threat of counterfeiting. I shall return to this matter in due course.
The second was to reduce the cost of the notes by making them smaller and also to make it easier for the higher value notes to fit into purses and wallets.
The third was that the time had come for change. Some of the outgoing "D" series notes had been in circulation for 20 years and, in that time, there had been major improvements in printing technology. A change in the notes offered the opportunity to combine the incorporation of enhanced security features with the reduction of costs.
The designs of the new series of banknotes take full account of the Bank's paramount requirement to maintain the integrity of their banknotes through the inclusion of sufficient robust security features. These are based on the use of common characteristics which are both instantly recognisable and hard to counterfeit. Bright colours or dominant numbers are avoided since they would draw attention away from the security features: the feel of the paper, the presence of the watermark, the quality of the printing and the presence of the security thread.
However, from the outset, the Bank was very concerned that the public should continue to be able to distinguish the different denominations. The Bank has maintained the differentials in the sizes of the notes to assist blind people.
Several noble Lords commented on the standard size of the issue in America. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, came down very strongly against that. I believe that his view would be supported by most people.
To assist partially sighted people the Bank specifically included a bold strong-coloured and different shaped symbol on each domination in the new series. These are a turquoise circle on the£5 note, a purple square on the£20 note and an orange diamond on the£10.
Nevertheless, in attempting to reach the right balance between security and ease of recognition, the Bank now accepts that it may have swayed a little too far in favour of security. Indeed, the Bank has taken account of the view of many people that the numerals showing the denominations were not clear enough.
During this year, therefore, the Bank has introduced variants of all the original "E" series notes. The denomination numerals on the£5 and£20 notes have been enhanced and made clearer on the fronts and backs

1519
of the notes. The£10 note had originally been issued with the enhanced numerals. The£10 and£20 variant notes also include a bold numeral in the top right hand corners of the fronts and backs of the notes.
Change is never easy so far as currency is concerned and the Bank does not make changes lightly. However, over time, as the new variants become more widely available, there will be no difficulty in distinguishing each note by its denominational figure. Furthermore, the new£50 note, which will be issued in the first half of next year, will have clear numerals.
In summary, the Bank has responded to the views of the public by giving greater clarity of denominational values on its banknotes. The Bank intends to minimise changes to the current designs since it does not want to confuse people. Furthermore, the Bank is making every effort to encourage the public to realise that its notes are designed to minimise the risks that they may be counterfeited.
I hope that what I have said today demonstrates that both the Government in respect of coins and the Bank in respect of notes keep the designs and specification under constant review but only make changes that are essential or for which there is a clear demand from the public; and that whatever changes are made, the public are consulted as widely as possible and their views taken fully into account. Debates such as this one assist in this and I have noted the many different views that have been expressed and will draw them to the attention of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Governor of the Bank of England.

Royal Assent
12.32 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Elliott of Morpeth): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Act.

Motion for the Adjournment
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, in moving the adjournment of the House, I should like on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches to wish all noble Lords a happy Christmas, an enjoyable and refreshing Recess and a prosperous new year. At the same time, I should like to take the opportunity to thank, on behalf of the whole House, all those who serve us so well in this place and make possible all the work that we carry out. To those at the Table and elsewhere in the Parliament Office; to those in Black Rod's office; and particularly perhaps the Doorkeepers, whose celebration of the season began last night, I hope on an auspicious note; to the Custodians; the staff of Hansard; to the Refreshment Department; and to the security service and the police; to all of them I offer our best wishes for a happy Christmas and new year, and our continued thanks for the charm, courtesy and efficiency with which they each discharge their duties.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Graham, may I say that we on these Benches thoroughly endorse everything that the Chief Whip has just said.
It would be invidious of me to single out any group from those without whom your Lordships' House simply could not function, but I must confess that my curiosity has recently been aroused by my admiration for those who guard the gates of the Chamber and maintain order in its precincts. They seem to grow taller and larger by the hour. I was reminded of the words of the 17th century poet, John Donne, who referred to:
"the great eight foot high iron-bound serving man".
I have ascertained this morning that they are not eight feet tall, that there is no height test for the job, and that, indeed, two of them are, like me, the average height of the mature male in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, I would not advise any visitor to attempt to abseil from the Upper Circle. To them, and to all others who look after us so kindly and so carefully, may I say, in contravention of the rules of this House:
"Nadolig llawen a blwyddyn newydd dda i chi gyd".
A merry Christmas and a happy new year to you all.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, it falls to me to perform the happy duty of following the two noble Lords and echoing everything that they have already said. Last year I took the opportunity of thanking the people who look after our security so well, and particularly those who let me in and out of the barrier each day on whatever form of transport I choose to take. I repeat my thanks this year because they have done it with even greater companionability than before. But I would like to include particularly in my thanks, because I have been in early quite a lot this year—this place is so clean and shining and while visitors notice it, we take it for granted—the armies of people, including a high proportion of women, who perform their cleaning duties with such humour and efficiency. They need to be remembered.
From our point of view it has been an interesting year. We are all enthusiasts and volunteers here. The year has had its high points and its low points. Unfortunately, this year we have, like other sides of the House, lost some distinguished and valued colleagues. That is the sad aspect of each year, the passing of familiar faces of friends and people who serve the House well.
To turn to the high points, the best example of humour in this House this morning was the absolutely exemplary timing of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who came in with his crutches decorated in festive manner with tinsel, completely straight-faced, with absolutely perfect timing. That in some way sums up this House—its good humour and its good taste, as well as its efficiency and its ability to carry out a job well. I should like to give my thanks to all who support us in our efforts to do that, and I wish them all a happy Christmas and, as the Scots say, "a guid new year".
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, on behalf of our Convenor and noble Lords who speak from these Benches, may I just briefly add a few words to what has already been said.

1521
First, we wish Black Rod a full recovery to health and look forward to having him back with us in the New Year. In doing so, we are most grateful to the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod for agreeing to stay on until the spring. As many noble Lords know, he will be working with the new Yeoman Usher, to whom we extend a very warm welcome, but in the hope that he will not be tempted to stamp his feet too hard or possibly to drill your Lordships. May I say a very sincere thank you from these Benches for all that he has done. His flight-path has been very complicated but with the utmost courtesy, his landings have been superb.
Noble Lords can hardly have failed to notice that the Victoria Tower has emerged from the jungle of scaffolding and sheeting. I have to tell your Lordships that that emergence is largely due to the newly appointed officer under the rather uninformative title of the House of Lords Administrative Officer. He now leads that department, formerly that of the Property Services Agency, to which we are most grateful for what it has done in the past. I am reliably advised that there is still two years' work ahead, and that noble Lords may have to put up with a certain amount of disruption and inconvenience before all the work is completed.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, referred two days ago to the departure of two of our Doorkeepers
1522
who are leaving at this time. Together they had served for 56 years in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines, in many different ships and the commandos. Both joined us here in the 1970s and became senior Doorkeepers in 1986. For their 38 years of service, from these Benches we offer them our most sincere thanks and wish both a very happy retirement in pastures new. Others have left or are leaving: the staff restaurant cashier and an assistant librarian. To them go our thanks and best wishes for the future. Perhaps I may also say a word of appreciation for the research work undertaken so willingly by the staff members of the Library. We much appreciate their help and the hard work that they do on our behalf.
Finally, from these Benches I should like to wish all noble Lords a happy Christmas and—dare I say it?—a prosperous New Year, with the sincere wish that the peace initiatives currently under way in the Middle East and Ireland bear fruit in 1994.

Malvern Hills Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned for the Christmas Recess at twenty minutes before one o'clock until Monday, 10th January next.