Lords Sitting of 30 November 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.

Game Licences
Lord Geddes Lord Geddes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consideration they have given to the abolition of game licences.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we are consulting with interested groups to see whether there is a less burdensome means of achieving the objectives for which the game licences were introduced.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that more than mildly encouraging reply. Perhaps I may spur him on in his endeavours. Is he aware that at the end of December last year there were only some 47,000 game licences on issue compared with 700,000 shotgun licences? Does my noble friend not feel that if, even on a conservative estimate, only half of those shooters require game licences, the resultant legality rate of 13 per cent. leaves a lot to be desired? Does he not consider that the situation as regards game licences should either be strongly tightened, perhaps as I suggested in December last year, or that game licences should be abolished altogether?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very valid point, and his figures are fairly, although not exactly, accurate. The figures expose the fact that a large number of people have shotgun licences but not game licences. That is one reason why we are looking seriously at, and having consultations about, the future of the game licence. I was tempted to invite all Members of the House who shoot but who do not have a game licence to stand up, but I thought that that might be far too embarrassing.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, my noble friend says that, but I feel positively antique. I ask my children whether they have a game licence and I invariably find that those aged under 40 never have one. Everyone over 40 has one. Why should the oldies have to pay for the "youngies"?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall not comment on whether my noble friend looks or feels like an antique. I suspect that increasingly people do not realise that they should have a game licence as well as a shotgun licence. That exposes the reason why consultations are taking place about the future of that licence.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, the Minister is a fly fisher, especially a salmon fly fisher. There are game fishing licences. Of course, I urge that that game fishing licence should be abolished. However, I recognise that that is impossible. Therefore, will the
488
Minister and the Government not consider increasing the grant-in-aid to the National Rivers Authority so that it can reduce the cost of game fishing licences? That will enable many people who must endure enforced idleness through unemployment to enjoy that sport.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a good try but he has gone rather wide of the Question on game licences. Fishing licences are not required in at least one part of the kingdom. That is why, on one occasion when I was fishing in the south, somebody asked me whether I had such a licence and I looked at him in an extremely puzzled way. Therefore, I understand the problem.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, there was a rather obscure phrase in my noble friend's original Answer. He referred to the purposes for which game licences were introduced. Will he let me into the secret and tell me what those purposes were?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the purpose of the present system of game licences for those who kill or deal in game is primarily to prevent poaching and also to ensure compliance with the statutory closed season.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the cost of collection is greater or less than the yield of the tax?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the cost of collection is less, although I must admit that it is only marginally less, than the return obtained from the £6 licence.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, has the noble Lord considered the possibility that a number of people who hold shotgun licences may shoot for game but may also shoot for other purposes? For example, certain Welsh farmers who are my neighbours shoot rabbits and other creatures from time to time with shotguns. What is the distinction between a game licence and a shotgun licence for those purposes?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord that if his neighbours are shooting rabbits, they require a game licence. If they are shooting pigeons, they do not require a game licence. I shall check on that as there is some doubt among my noble friends behind me who no doubt have game licences. In any event, people who shoot, for example, pigeons or clay pigeons do not need game licences. Only those people who shoot pheasants, partridges, grouse and so on require a game licence.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if the noble Lord is asking about those of us who have a shotgun licence and shoot rabbits, I have to stand up and say that I do not have a game licence. But I may be an antiquity.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord is in much the same position that I found myself when I went fishing in England.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that game licences are not required for shooting wild fowl, pigeons or vermin?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the matter is becoming somewhat complicated. My understanding on the three species mentioned by my noble friend is that a game licence would not be required. If I am wrong, I shall write to him.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, my noble friend said that he thought the shooting of rabbits required a game licence. I personally have always been assured by everyone to whom I have ever talked that that is not so. I also understand that the shooting of ground game like hares does not require a game licence. Can my noble friend confirm whether or not that is the case?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am inclined to think, perhaps wrongly, that the shooting of hares requires such a licence. However, I shall check the position and, if I am wrong, I shall write to my noble friend. I should point out to my noble friends that I knew that the Question would not be easy to answer and that I would end up feeling like a slow-flying pheasant going over a line of very accurate guns.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, with reference to the supplementary question posed by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, can my noble friend confirm the figures as regards the cost involved? If there are, give or take, 47,000 game licences at issue and, again, if they average, very conservatively, £5 per game licence, that is, crudely, £250,000. I cannot believe that it costs less than £250,000 to collect.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend's calculation about the £250,000 income is correct. However, my answer was also correct because it costs £225,000 to collect.

The Official Report
2.46 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in respect of the daily Hansards covering the debates in each of the two Houses of Parliament, they will state (a) the average price per copy in 1979 and 1992, and (b) the number of copies sold in each of those years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the price of the daily editions of the Official Report of both Houses in November 1979 was 45 pence per copy. In 1992, the daily Hansard for the House of Lords was priced at £4.20 and that for the Commons at £7.50. The average daily sale of the House of Lords Official Report in 1979 was around 4,000 copies, and in 1992 was 2,200. The corresponding figures for the House of Commons were 6,500 copies and 3,700 copies respectively.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I thank the Government for their unusually clear, accurate and unambiguous reply. However, will the Minister please explain to the House why the price of the daily reports has increased by a very considerable multiple of the rate of inflation that has taken place since the country had the fortune to elect Her Majesty's present Government in 1979? According to the figures that the noble Lord produced, the price of the House of Lords Hansard should now be far less than £2 as distinct from the £4.20 that he gave, and the price of the House of Commons Hansard should be a fraction of the £7.50 that it is today. Can the Minister explain—possibly by reference to the Next Steps prospectus—why it is that the price of those government publications should have increased by such a colossal amount that bears no relationship to the increase in the retail prices index? To date, that is 155 per cent. since 1979.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the compliment contained in the early part of his questions. However, I hope he realises that both the Government and I always try to answer Questions clearly and unambiguously. The answer to the noble Lord's supplementary question is not nearly as complicated as anything to do with Next Steps; it is simply the result of the reduction of a subsidy of £6 million in 1983, which was reduced to nil in 1992 when it was decided that the full price of the cost of the production of Hansard should be charged.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House what consultations have taken place between his department and, first, the Library Association; secondly, the Standing Conference of National and University Libraries; and, thirdly, the Council of Polytechnic Librarians (as it is still called) on the question of the effect of the price on the sales figures of Hansard? Further, what advice was his department given by them?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord what consultation process took place because, apart from anything else, it took place a few years ago. At that time, a decision was finally made to reduce the overall level of subsidy. That of course is one of the reasons why the overall circulation figures have dropped. Many libraries used to receive two or three copies. But now, because of the increase in price, they have decided they need only one.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many university libraries are not taking Hansard at all?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that of course is a decision they must make for themselves. However, my experience of university libraries indicates that in many cases they would obtain far better value for money from buying Hansard than from other publications that they buy.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Government's decision to remove the subsidy to which he referred will necessitate further factual research on my part? In the meantime, will he

491
explain what are the considerations that allowed the Government deliberately to decide they wanted the circulation of Hansard to decline? Has that anything to do with the exposure of the nakedness of the Government's policies during the periods that I have mentioned?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords. The reason was entirely financial. It was decided that Hansard should reflect its real cost of production. I explained earlier why the circulation may well have reduced. The noble Lord should realise that Members of the Opposition are equally represented in the contents of Hansard. Perhaps we should look more at the contents of Hansard rather than at its price to seek reasons for the reduction in circulation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us are concerned about this matter? Hansard is a record of parliamentary proceedings and not governmental proceedings. The widest possible distribution of Hansard should be encouraged. Is it not a fact that the costs of production of journals such as Hansard reduce as the circulation increases? Would it not be in the best interests of democracy and indeed of economy if the Government and Parliament—Parliament also has a responsibility here—were to see to it that Hansard is priced at a figure which would encourage the circulation to rise rather than to decline?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord shares with me the desire to see the maximum circulation of Hansard. For that reason, HMSO is commissioning a market research exercise during the early part of 1994 to see what potential exists for increasing sales of Hansard.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, has the noble Lord ever heard of Commander King-Hall and the efforts that he made to popularise Hansard by establishing the Hansard Society? Is there not a great deal to be said for subsidising Hansard, especially in view of the abysmal reporting of Parliament by the press, particularly of your Lordships' House?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there have been substantial changes in the reporting of Parliament over the course of the past few years. The introduction of television in particular has made Parliament's proceedings far more accessible than was once the case. It is easy for people to obtain a copy of Hansard. I have mentioned libraries and universities that already hold copies of Hansard. There is no reason why anyone should be excluded from being able to see what parliamentary procedures are all about.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that often there are disputes about matters that have sometimes been recorded erroneously in the press? The answer seems to be that if one wants to know the truth one must get hold of a copy of Hansard. There we can read the truth. In that way, one does not have to rely on newspaper or television reports.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the actual recording is carried out by Hansard, which is an arm of the House itself. The printing and publishing is carried out by HMSO, which is an entirely different organisation. HMSO is not involved in the correct interpretation of the rumblings of either House.

Royal Free Hospital: Renal Unit
2.54 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the recommendations of the London Implementation Group Renal Review that treatment for kidney patients at the Royal Free hospital should be moved to the Middlesex hospital.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the Government are still considering their response to the recommendations of the specialty reviews.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is she aware that there are hundreds of ill and worried kidney patients at the Royal Free hospital who feel that their service may be fragmented? Is she further aware that the Royal College of Surgeons feels that kidney and liver transplant units should work closely together?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am aware of the disquiet that there is in London and the worry that people have. It is the Government's intention to make a decision as soon as possible in order to dissipate those concerns. Yes, we are aware of the advice from the Royal College of Surgeons.
Baroness Robson of KiddingtonMy Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that there are some specialties that might be suitable for centralising, such as orthopaedic surgery, which on the whole necessitate one visit and one hospital stay? However, renal patients who have to attend hospital for treatment as often as three days a week or more may have to travel from the neighbourhood of the Royal Free hospital to the Middlesex hospital. What compensation will they receive for the time they lose and the expenses they incur in travelling there?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I appreciate that renal services are different from many other services. However, these are factors which will be taken into account when the Secretary of State reaches her decisions.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this matter has been outstanding for months and months? When will we be given a decision? Why in heaven's name are we transferring anything from the Royal Free hospital?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, many things have been happening during the summer. Hospitals such as the Royal Marsden and the Royal Brompton have put

493
in individual trust applications. They are out to consultation at the moment. The consultation ends for the Royal Brompton on 10th December and for the Royal Marsden on 3rd January. Consultation ended on 15th November on the merger of St. Marks with Northwick Park. I could go through all the hospitals in London explaining to your Lordships the very many moves that are taking place at the moment. Everything we do requires consultation. Those consultation dates are all different. We need all that to be completed before the Secretary of State makes her decisions.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, when the Minister takes the decision does she look first at the economic consequences of moving a unit from one hospital to another? Does the noble Baroness believe the report that I have heard as an all too frequent patient at the Royal Free hospital that economically the unit there represents value for money?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Royal Free is recognised as a well run, cost-effective hospital. The capital and resource consequences and purchasing intentions of district health authorities will be taken into account when any changes are considered. It is evident that there is now skill and expertise to treat patients locally rather than sending them to London.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that these proposals have been discussed widely throughout the London area, particularly among hospital patients? Is she also aware that the London Kidney Patients' Association, which represents many thousands of kidney patients from all over London, held a meeting on 18th August this year when it was unanimously agreed,
"that the Renal Review of Specialty Services is without reservation seriously flawed; and that if the recommendations are to be followed seven renal transplant units in London, north of the River Thames, will have their work carried out in three hospitals; and that should fears of closures of London hospitals be justified all that work will then be concentrated in one hospital, The London Hospital"?
In other words, there will be one hospital left for the whole of north London to deal with these patients. I understand that these proposals are fairly well advanced. Whatever has happened to patients' choice?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, one of the factors which is evident in London is the number of different specialist centres, not only for kidney transplants but also, for example, for coronary care. At the moment we have 11 renal units in London, yet we have only four in the rest of the shire counties. There seems to be a discrepancy. There is a problem in trying to ensure that there is enough expertise within all the units in London and that they maintain their viability.
As I have said, there are now many specialist units in other parts of the country which are doing equally good work. We are seeing few patients being referred to London. Those factors have to be considered, as well as the general fall in the population of London.
Lord Rea: My Lords, will the noble Baroness look more closely at the main argument put forward by the specialty review team in its report, which she mentioned in her first Answer, for transferring renal transplant
494
surgery from the Royal Free; namely, that University College, London, and the Middlesex have a stronger academic and scientific base? While that is true for biomedical science as a whole, is she aware that the Royal Free unit has made a very important contribution to research on renal medicine over the years? For instance, in the past three years the Royal Free unit has published 50 per cent. more papers on nephrology and renal medicine than UCL/Middlesex. That includes the three Ps—the former kidney hospitals which are now housed in the Middlesex.
Does the Minister agree that the decision of the specialty review team should be reviewed in the light of the above and of the points made by other noble Lords this afternoon about the damage that could be done by breaking up an established and carefully built up expert team?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, Ministers would not agree that the specialty reviews are seriously flawed. The people who carried out the reviews have excellent reputations. They come from other parts of the country and are not directly concerned with services in London. However, their report is just one of the pieces of information that has been submitted to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. There are other considerations, some of which I have mentioned this afternoon. They are issues concerning hospital sites, the views of local purchasers and the views of academic and research staff. It is a question of balance. I have listened very carefully to the noble Lord and to other noble Lords this afternoon.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, can the Minister give the assurance that patients' views will be taken into consideration and also such issues as space and parking?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. That is always part of the consultation when major moves are being put forward.

Foreign Factory Ships: Inspection
3.2 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
When their inspectors will complete their survey of approximately 100 foreign factory ships lying off the Shetland Islands, in view of the recent serious accidents involving three of these ships.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, an intensified programme of inspection is now under way on those vessels. Bearing in mind the problems of access, particularly in bad weather, no estimate of the completion date for the programme can be made at the moment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Thanks to the local rescue services no lives were lost in the two ships which had to be abandoned. While the vessels assist British fishermen

495
by providing a substantial market for their catches, do their standards of safety and pollution meet our requirements, and are they adequately insured?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is indeed a tribute to the skill and courage of our rescue services that no lives were lost in those extremely hazardous operations. We recognise that the commercial activities engaged in by the vessels are of great importance to our fishing industry. We expect them to meet the internationally agreed standards. Our current inspections of the ships are intended to establish to what extent they comply.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, raised the question of insurance. Are the Government pressing on eastern European governments the necessity for insurance? So far there has not been a catastrophic accident, but the relatively recent events must make the people of Shetland very worried about the possibility of a serious oil spill. If it is difficult to inspect the ships because they lie offshore and the weather is changeable, is it not all the more important that we do something about insurance for such vessels?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, there is no requirement in UK law for vessels other than oil tankers to have compulsory insurance for pollution damage. The prudent owner of a vessel normally takes out appropriate insurance cover. Until the recent incidents off Lerwick we had limited experience of uninsured vessels. The problem of insurance cover for those vessels in particular is one of the matters being given urgent consideration by the Government.
Lord Renton: My Lords, what proportion of the ships are British registered, what proportion are registered with countries of the EC, and what proportion are registered elsewhere?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not have the precise figures. I shall notify the noble Lord of them in writing if that is acceptable. However, I understand that the majority of the so-called klondyke ships are registered in eastern European countries.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Minister says that there will be intensive examination of the ships. Can he tell the House how many people of student age there may be on these ships and whether the cut of 10 per cent. in student grants announced so extraordinarily this morning by Mr. Patten will apply to such students as there may be on those ships? Will he further note that on the whole we on this side of the House prefer Budget announcements to be made in the Budget and we hope that the Government take the same view?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I rise totally puzzled by the questions addressed to me by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. I cannot give him the figure for those under a certain age which he requested. If he would like, I shall write to him.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that virtually all the crews of these vessels come from eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and
496
the Baltic states? Is he aware that two klondykers, both Russian, are now total wrecks near Lerwick and that the marine pollution control unit has done an admirable job in removing their bunker oil? Who will now be responsible for them and any nuisance which they cause?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I echo my noble friend's tribute to the marine pollution unit. The owners have abandoned the wrecks. As neither of the wrecks poses a threat to navigation no public authority has the power to remove them or to seek to recover the costs of their removal from the owners.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is it true that there are 100 factory ships? What proportion of their catches are landed in the Common Market area, and particularly in Britain? There must be some way of stopping the price of fish going up so steeply that many people in this country cannot afford it. Is it because the catches are all being syphoned off to central Europe?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. There are a great many so-called klondyke ships lying off the Shetland Islands. The number varies as the ships move in and out of the area, but the figure he quotes is not far off the mark. I do not have details of the distribution of the fish from those vessels, but I shall write to my noble friend if he wishes.

Local Government (Wales) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision with respect to local government in Wales. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. —(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Packaging: ECC Report
3.8 p.m.
Lord Lewis of Newnham Lord Lewis of Newnham rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Packaging and Packaging Waste (26th Report 1992–93, HL Paper 118).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to speak to the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper I should like to start by emphasising that one of the prime concerns of the directive was with environmental problems. The directive is addressed to problems that packaging and packaging waste create for the environment. The present solutions are leading to the distortion of a single market because of differences in national measures being employed to control packaging and packaging waste. The aim of the directive is to consider proposals that will set essential requirements for packaging which will allow free movement of goods within the Community and reduce environmental pollution.
Sub-Committee C of the Select Committee on the European Communities has carried out an inquiry into

497
the proposal for a Council directive on packaging and package waste. The report of the proposal was published in October. The government responses were received at the end of last week. I should like to thank the Minister for those replies.
It is important to recognise that any legislation concerned with packaging will affect many industrial sectors. Any industry which uses packaging in transport or storage to ensure that the final product reaches the customer in good condition—I refer to the food, drinks or electronics industry—will be affected by the directive. It is perhaps important to appreciate that packaging performs many functions, some essential and others useful. The packaging of foods, which contributes to hygiene, the avoidance of waste and convenience to the customer, is well recognised, as is the safe transport and distribution of many sensitive goods, as in the electronics industry. However, excessive packaging of some goods contributes in a very visible way to the general environmental problems associated with waste disposal.
The committee has visited Brussels, Bonn and Paris to examine schemes proposed or in place in those countries. Germany has introduced a sorting and collecting system, the Duals System Deutschland (DSD.), which I shall outline in a moment. That is providing considerable problems over waste disposal. The French are developing a collection scheme (Ecoemballage) which has similar problems to the German scheme but also significant differences which seem to be avoiding the problem over "waste" mountains.
In Belgium we were informed of the proposed eco-taxes. Other schemes in place are the Danish ban on non-returnable bottles, which makes the importation of canned drinks illegal, and the Dutch non-statutory scheme of a "packaging" covenant.
The initial proposals in the directive are for targets of a 90 per cent. recovery of packaging waste, with 60 per cent. being recycled, leaving approximately 10 per cent. for landfill. In the UK 90 per cent. of domestic waste at present goes to landfill sites. Those targets were to be attained within 10 years. Recently, however, revised proposals have been made, with a limit of 60 per cent. to 50 per cent. recovery, with 30 per cent. for recycling, and a more limited time-scale of five years. I believe that the position will then be reconsidered.
It is also proposed that provisions are made for comprehensive statistics on packaging and packaging waste. Those are to be collected and passed on to the Commission. The data base being proposed seems to the committee to be over-elaborate. It is indeed difficult to assess the packaging content of domestic waste. However, it has been assessed at approximately 25 per cent. for the UK. Waste due to packaging as a whole is only 1 per cent. of the total waste. The majority of the waste is associated with agriculture and industry and a considerable amount with the construction industry. That still leaves something of the order of 50 million tonnes of packaging waste for the Community as a whole, which is not an insignificant amount.
The present government target for 25 per cent. recycling by the year 2000 was set in 1990. However, recently the Secretary of State for the Environment has challenged leading representatives of the packaging industry by Christmas to put forward plans to recover between 50 and 75 per cent. of the UK packaging waste and also to indicate measures that will help the ailing recycling industry. Noble Lords will note the word "ailing". The measures have to include, first, a commitment by business to carry the costs of collecting and reprocessing; secondly, finding measures to increase the markets for recycled materials; and, thirdly, providing safeguards for the recycling industry for plastics and paper from foreign imports. It will be interesting to see how those challenges are met.
In their response to the report, the Government state:
"By introducing this initiative, we believe that we will be able to demonstrate, in discussions on the directive, that it is possible to reduce the environmental impact of packaging significantly without placing unreasonable burdens on industry or consumers".
Since I believe that the Belgium presidency is pressing for an agreement at the Council meeting on 3rd December, I assume that the Minister will be able to tell us the outcome of the survey.
One of the more pressing and immediate problems arises from the position in Germany. The German system, introduced in 1991, requires the producers of packaging to be responsible for the collection and recycling of the packaging waste. Incineration and landfill in Germany are not normally acceptable methods of disposal of packaging waste, which imposes a large burden on the recycling capacity within the country. The old directive refers to 90 per cent. recycling. That has clearly been a major problem. It has led to paper and plastic wastes being exported at negative prices to countries even as far away as Indonesia and South America. That threatens schemes in other countries, and in particular affects the recycling industries in those two areas. Waste mountains in both plastic and paper are now occurring in Germany.
In contrast, the slower implementation of the scheme for France, and the acceptability of incineration and incineration with energy recovery as methods of recycling, has avoided the problems which arise in Germany. In Paris we were told that the form of the waste recovery scheme must also recognise the local circumstances; the solution for Strasbourg may not be the solution for Marseilles. The French scheme, which is relatively restricted when compared with the German scheme, also adopts and utilises the local collecting schemes for waste already in operation on an economic basis. That is not the case with the German situation. Those are two points for which the committee had considerable sympathy.
One immediate problem with the proposed directive is that it does not differentiate between materials when considering recovery targets. Perhaps I may illustrate that point by citing some of the variations which can occur. Metals such as aluminium and steel have a much higher potential for recovery and recycling. Over the past four years the recycling of aluminium cans in this country has increased from 2 per cent. to 16 per cent. The capacity of the existing plant is a maximum 65 per cent. recovery assuming that the market does not

499
change. The Aluminium Federation told us that aluminium was extremely favourable for recycling as the energy saved in recycling was 95 per cent. compared with the production of virgin aluminium. However, it felt that the initial target of 90 per cent. recycling was unattainable but that the target of 60 per cent. was demanding but attainable.
It is possible to absorb all the scrap steel. Magnetic separation in domestic waste can be carried out efficiently. The committee had an opportunity to see that process in operation. However, few waste disposal sites have that facility. A magnetic separation unit is considered to pay for itself over a period of approximately two years. That suggests that there should be a wider use of the separation procedure, and perhaps encouragement to install that type of procedure.
In 1992, about 12.5 per cent. of steel cans were recycled in this country; in Germany the figure was 50 per cent. British Steel Tinplate believes that a figure of 50 per cent., the more recent target, is still too high and unlikely to be attained in the UK by the year 2000. It also points out an important factor: energy recovery and composting are not alternatives available for steel, which places an even bigger burden on recovery processes.
With glass, there is a much greater public awareness of recycling. I think that we are all aware of the bottle banks for different coloured glasses and the interesting and determined way in which people use them. It is an interesting statistic that the UK is at the bottom of the European table, with only 19 per cent. recovery of glass compared with the figure for the Netherlands of 73 per cent. That perhaps illustrates the magnitude of the potential problem; and the position has not been improved with the proposed cut next year in prices paid for cullet to local authorities by British Glass Recycling. That is clearly causing concern to local authorities, and in some instances it will remove all the income from the recycling process. Other variations in payments appear to be affecting some of the small collectors. I believe that one firm, Ochil Glass Recycling in Scotland, has reportedly gone out of business because of the changes.
The recycling of plastic packaging proves the most difficult. Approximately 8 per cent. is recycled in the UK, with plastic bottles being recycled at only less than 1 per cent. The presence of cheaper imported plastic also affects the market and possibly reflects the position in Germany. The Plastics Federation indicated that only a small fraction of plastic used in packaging in household waste was suitable for recycling due to the contamination and expense of sorting and washing such material. Perhaps I may point out that recycled plastic cannot be used for certain purposes, particularly those involving food containment. In general, there was a belief that incineration with energy recovery was the best and most preferable mode for dealing with plastic, although, as I stated previously, it is not an acceptable method of recycling in the initial directive. I am not clear whether the recent negotiations on the directive have altered the situation and would certainly appreciate the views of the Minister on that point.
At a meeting of the Environmental Council in October, Germany promised to stop exporting plastic
500
packaging waste to EC countries by Christmas. However, as I believe the Department of the Environment has indicated, that does not solve the problem; it merely postpones it. Until markets are found in Germany, we shall have mountains of recycled plastic rather than mountains of recycled plastic waste. As the price of the initial plastic waste is subsidised, the recycled material will be commercially cheaper. The prospect is then that we may be passing this on and causing problems to our own recycling industries. The German approach to the problem poses the question of whether the present German ordinance and DSD are contrary to the Treaty of Rome. I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government take a view on the legality of the system and when the Commission is expected to give its views on the point, which I believe it is also debating.
Another important product to be considered for recycling is paper and board. It represents a large percentage of the total waste, being approximately 35 per cent. The British Paper and Board Industry Federation felt that the proposed 90 per cent. target set by the initial directive for recovery was unrealistic. One important factor to remember in this area is recovering the cost in the low value of the product and the cost of transport if it involves long distances. The recycling industry will also suffer from the market distribution set by the German system, which is effectively once again subsidising its waste. The industry was set an upper target of 60 per cent., which involves only the recycling of better kinds of waste, with the suggestion of incineration and composting still playing a major part in the recovery.
One problem which the committee felt was proving a difficulty was the so-called hierarchy of waste management. That is the preference, first, for prevention followed by recovery, then recycling and finally disposal. That clearly has an immediate appeal, but it does not always necessarily correlate with the most effective environmental or energy-saving procedures. It may be a useful guide, but it does not cover all possible solutions.
Perhaps to illustrate the point I may cite two cases which we met. We were informed by the German Coffee Association that its use of aluminium and plastic lightweight packaging involved a major saving in transport, and replacement by a more readily recyclable material such as metal or glass would increase the number of lorries on the road by a factor of three, with all the concomitant energy and environmental problems associated with that.
Another example is the recycling of milk bottles, which is common practice in this country, but it requires five litres of water per bottle, which must be heated to ensure sterilisation. That makes it a feasible prospect in certain parts of the Community, but I suggest that where water is scarce it could be a difficult operation to put into practice.
Article 11 of the directive draws attention to the use of economic instruments as a method of controlling packaging and packaging waste. The use of a landfill levy to move the economic advantage from landfill to, say, incineration has been suggested in the latest report

501
of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. The landfill tax has also been given support by British Steel Tinplate and the British Paper and Board Industry Federation.
An alternative and more direct economic indicator would be perhaps a packaging tax, but the committee felt that it would have to be extremely high to affect the purchasing behaviour of consumers and would probably fall disproportionately on the poorer consumer. The committee felt that economic instruments could and should have a role to play in the management of packaging waste, but it does not necessarily have to be uniform across the Community and must recognise individual solutions consistent with avoiding discrimination between states for free movement of goods.
In summary, the committee felt that the present systems in operation have problems in effecting the operation of the single market within the Community. The German system, in particular, is causing severe problems, especially in paper and plastic recycling, producing waste mountains and leading from a rather dogmatic assessment of the relative merits of the principal methods of waste disposal, the hierarchy of waste management of recovery, recycling and landfill.
The committee suggests that there should be a more direct acknowledgement of the market's capacity to absorb waste products and a more vigorous support of the proximity principle, in which individual member states aim to deal with their own waste disposal and do not export their waste problems. From environmental considerations and the increase in the production of waste, there should be a direct attack on the reduction and minimisation of packaging, particularly on the packaging per item. At present the manufacturers and producers of packaging do not have to meet the costs of disposal and there is no economic incentive to reduce packaging. We feel very strongly that this should be corrected.
The recovery and recycling of materials vary. For aluminium and steel, as opposed to plastics, the case for recycling is clear. Other materials are intermediate in position, but cannot be recycled indefinitely. I think that that is particularly true of paper and board.
With regard to targets, we are not convinced that the same targets should be set for all materials, and we recommend that incineration with energy recovery should be considered as a recycling process, as well as other forms of recovery such as composting, to meet the directive's targets.
The limitation of landfill to 10 per cent. of the waste stream does not seem to the committee to be sensible and ignores the different geological possibilities in different countries. We suggest that targets for landfill should be set locally or nationally.
Finally, perhaps I may thank the members of Sub-Committee C. I very much appreciate their enthusiastic approach to what I think is a very important report. Perhaps I may couple that with an acknowledgement of the great help from our clerk, Mr. John Goddard, by whose efforts the study was carried out very expeditiously. I also acknowledge the considerable help of our two specialist advisers, Mr. Nigel Haigh and
502
Dr. Nicholas Handley. As noble Lords will remember, Mr. Haigh is director of the Institute for European Environmental Policy and Dr. Handley is a lecturer in economics at the University of Stirling. In conclusion, I also thank all those who gave evidence to the committee during the course of the inquiry. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Packaging and Packaging Waste (26th Report 1992–93, HL Paper 118). —(Lord Lewis of Newnham.)
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I should like to begin with a tribute to our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, whose wise and patient chairmanship took us through a convoluted and complex topic. I also pay tribute to his very comprehensive introduction, in which he covered many of the points that I intended to make, although I hope that I may be able to bring to them one or two slightly different slants.
Only 1 per cent. of all waste in this country—which includes agricultural and industrial waste—is packaging waste. But it constitutes 25 per cent. of household dustbin waste. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, said, it is subject to public education and to local methods of disposal.
Before we began the inquiry, I had two assumptions. One was that a considerable reduction could be made in the amount of packaging that was used. That matter was not directly addressed by the draft European directive. But we heard a considerable body of evidence about the importance of packaging: for hygiene; the shelf life of perishable goods; transport; and storage—and, so far as the producers and manufacturers are concerned, because it provides a convenient place for putting their advertising. Packaging is undoubtedly important for all those reasons. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, said, more could be done; for example by setting targets for the quantity of packaging in relation to the retail price of goods, and in encouraging producers to use less, and thinner, packaging.
The second assumption that I had made before we started the inquiry was that in the hierarchy of dealing with packaging waste, as the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, said, recycling and re-use was always better for the environment and made less use of raw materials and energy. That assumption was also shared by the European Commission, which said that from an environmental point of view recycling was preferable to incineration with energy recovery. Friends of the Earth also set out a hierarchy of importance whereby packaging should first be reduced, then be re-used, and then be recycled before other methods of disposal are considered.
However, paradoxically, there are occasions where efforts to recycle or re-use all packaging leads to more damage to the environment. For example, if there are only one or two recycling plants in the whole country, the energy used and the pollution caused by long-distance transport of often bulky packaging may exceed the energy and pollution costs of production from raw materials.

503
Secondly, re-usable packaging often has to be stronger and bulkier. Replacing plastic covering for food, often unre-usable because of contamination, with re-usable glass or tinplate could be environmentally more damaging. As the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, mentioned, a study was done to that effect by the German Coffee Association which shows not only that three times as many lorries would be on the roads, but also that in place of 11,000 tonnes of plastic film, one would require either 120,000 tonnes of tinplate, with all the costs of production, or 470,000 tonnes of glass. Therefore, even though those materials might be re-usable, there would be enormous costs in terms of transportation, cleaning and initial production.
There are, moreover, physical limits to some types of recycling. Paper and board, as the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, said, may be used only four or five times before the fibres become too short for further use. Paradoxically, in this case the use of the raw material may have some beneficial effects on the environment. Rapidly growing young trees, although they may be boring monocultures, and unaesthetic, may sop up more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than do mature forests.
However, some materials are highly suitable for recycling and more could be done. Aluminium in particular, which sells for something like £600 a tonne, is economically attractive to the industry. In the past four years in this country, not only has recycling of aluminium gone up from 2 per cent. to 16 per cent., but in the first six months of this year, 56 per cent. more was recycled than in the first half of last year; so the pace is accelerating. Quite clearly, quite high targets, such as, ultimately, 90 per cent. of aluminium recycling, could be set, which would have enormous benefits not only in terms of the constant re-use of the aluminium but also in terms of the reduction in bauxite mining with its environmental pollution and destruction.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, said, steel is another material which is well suited to constant recycling. But currently only 12½ per cent. of steel cans are recycled. That is another area in which public education could be more effective.
In regard to glass, the arguments for recycling are considerably less clear, partly because the costs of recycled glass are approximately the same as for glass which is produced from the raw materials. The raw materials themselves are abundant. Recycled glass is heavy to transport, with the attendant costs of lorries and their pollution. The government target of 60 per cent. is realistic; but there is, particularly in this country, the problem of recycling excess green glass as we are not a wine-producing country and it is therefore difficult to find uses for it.
In conclusion, dealing with packaging waste turned out to be much more complex than I had supposed. Different materials require different solutions and different targets. The need for different types of recycling will vary from one European country to another. Unlike Germany, we have no shortage of landfill sites. If properly managed, they need not pollute water systems, and the methane can be used for energy production. Incineration with energy recovery, which is
504
widely used in France, produces less residue and is a process that will be expanding in this country. Efforts should continue to reduce the bulk of packaging and to re-use and recycle wherever possible. But where that is not possible, the most energy-efficient and environmentally appropriate system should be used.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, a lot of waste has gone under the bridge since I introduced the Beverage Containers Bill into this House in 1981. The whole of the scene for waste disposal, dealing with waste in the best possible way, and recycling, has changed. Noble Lords did not give that Bill a Second Reading. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury—I refreshed my memory by looking at Hansard—in spite of the fact that I gave him a real plug for what was then, I thought, the best red plonk on the market, voted against it.
It is worthwhile that we should pay attention to this matter, and great tribute is due to the committee that produced the report. I am only sorry that the debate has attracted so few speakers. Indeed, it has attracted only three of the 12 members of the committee. When a debate on a report of this kind is absolutely swamped by every member of the committee having the chance to express their views, that is not a good thing. However, I would have hoped that more than three members would have taken part in today's debate.
It is a worthwhile report on a subject about which the public feel strongly. Although that feeling may be a mixture of opinions which do not stand up very often to logical examination, nevertheless on the whole we can have no doubt that we have to minimise waste and recycle as much as possible. The hierarchy of dealing with these matters; namely, to avoid packaging at all where possible and after that, to re-use that packaging in different ways which have been worked out as being basically the right order is something that we should stick to where we can. Where that hierarchy fails—some examples have been given in the report and in today's speeches—we should examine the reasons for failure. One reason given in certain areas is that the hierarchy fails because it does not take into consideration the long distance that waste has to be taken in order to be recycled. That is an absolutely fair point. No one doubts that the hierarchy has many exceptions and that we should treat every problem on its own terms.
One suggestion is that we should look in slightly different areas to solve our problems. For a solution to our problems we tend to look to Europe-wide legislation, to countrywide policies and often to very high technology. Surely, we should try to deal locally with local problems and find intermediate and suitable technology rather than large technology, dealing with every problem as it comes. It is in that area that the work of local government can be useful. From these Benches, I am particularly proud that Liberal Democrat councils almost entirely lead the field in that area. Plenty of other councils do very well, but the shining examples picked out time and again—not merely by my own party' s

505
propaganda units but by observers in general —are the Liberal Democrat councils; for instance, Sutton and Richmond.
I have a reservation about the lowest possible cost to households. That point is made on page 17 of the report. I am not sure that that is where we need mainly to attack the lowest possible cost. The lowest possible cost should be attacked where it hits very hard certain sectors. On the whole the ordinary household is able to bear the ordinary cost of dealing with waste if told what to do and encouraged to do it.
Of course the poor will find it very difficult. One of the side-effects in an economy in which the poor are getting poorer is that it becomes more difficult to do what should be done because it hits the poorest worst. That is absolutely true. Such measures do hit the poorest worst. That is another reason why the economic and social security policies of this Government should be revised. When we take new steps to deal with conservation, waste and anything which will cost more for poor households, that problem must be addressed.
There are one or two additional points to be made. First, we are short of information on the subject, despite all the work of the committee. The committee itself found that it was very short of the information that it needed. Noble Lords will remember the old military maxim: the time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted. I firmly believe that the time spent in obtaining statistics is seldom wasted. Statistics can become something to be pursued for their own sake and figures can be produced which nobody needs. But time and again in the proceedings of this House and another place, information which would help us to govern the country better and which ought to be available is not to hand because we have not got around to providing it.
Again, this is an area in which hypothecation is important. My party is examining more closely the need for some hypothecation to be brought into taxation. There appears to be a very strong case for it in this area. There is a case for taxes which are set aside to pay for improvements in particular areas and which indeed may be self-liquidating taxes in the sense that, if the product of taxation is used to help solve the problem, there will not be any more taxation in the future. Surely, that is devoutly to be wished. I know that the Treasury will resist to the last ditch hypothecation in almost any field, but I believe that it is an idea which must come. We shall have to make a breakthrough in this area as in some others.
There seem to be a number of general principles that should be applied. The first is that appropriate technology should be used at a local level. I have already commented on that. The second principle is that, although one understands the Government's position in not wanting to have compulsion where it is unnecessary, nevertheless voluntary effort by itself is not enough. To realise that one has only to look at the voluntary effort of the newspaper industry in recycling paper. I should be very interested if the Minister would tell the House what effective plan he expects to have by Christmas 1993 to meet his key objectives. Christmas 1993 is not very far off. We are embarking on the last month of the
506
year. For such an important debate we should be able to obtain some idea of the progress that has been made in that particular challenge to the Government. It may or may not prove to be useful.
The next principle is the need for help to the poor when additional burdens are put on them to deal with such a requirement. The hierarchy to deal with it is much the same as the hierarchy which has been mentioned to deal with waste disposal. The best way of dealing with problems which hit the poor is to try to ensure that the poor are not so poor in the first place.
Finally, I believe that this is an area in which we are beginning to see the need for a move from classical to ecological economics. The best solution will not necessarily be reached by looking at the pounds and pence, or even the ecu end of the sum as it is outlined in classical economics. We have to look very clearly at the overall necessity for a sustainable economy which will sustain this planet, which will not overburden it with waste and which will produce a better and saner society. As a stage along that line I commend to your Lordships' House this report, produced by a great deal of hard work and containing much interesting evidence.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Brain: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. He challenged the members of the committee to look at one or two of the points we made and I may comment on one or two of the points that he made. I thank my noble friend Lord Lewis for chairing the committee in such an excellent way, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, said. We got through a great deal of work extremely quickly. We knew that to a degree we were firing at a moving waste van—the European Commission and the presidency were trying to get the directive agreed and therefore we had to work hard.
I thank also our two expert advisers. From his wide experience, Nigel Haigh gave us a great understanding of the ecological and environmental problems of packaging waste. Our economic adviser helped us a little to understand the complex problems of the economics of packaging, pricing and other matters.
The directive is needed. Many problems in packaging waste arise from the original German directive and the subsequent French, Belgian and Dutch schemes. I am not sure that the directive is right. For example, one of the problems that we discovered was that when an article had a green spot on it, as established by the German directive, all it meant was that somebody had paid their dues to get the packaging recycled. It did not mean, as many people thought, "This packaging is ecologically acceptable and is a good green item". We discovered that the Germans and the French, because of close frontier problems, had to agree that the green dot on a French package, which was not the same as the green dot on the German package, nevertheless made it acceptable to be retailed in a German store. The need for a directive is partly economic and partly environmental.
As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, we had a number of problems with targets and statistics. We could have spent much more time doing the reconnaissance that he would have liked us to do, but we

507
would have found little in our field glasses. For example, items like paper are expressed in weight, but not as dry weight, average moisture weight or wet and soggy paper as recovered from the bin after a heavy shower. So the target is 60 per cent. or 90 per cent. of what? Calculating the amount of water allowed in the percentage is one of the problems behind the directive. That is why we feel that spending a lot of money on statistics—not necessarily viable and valid statistics—just for the sake of them should be looked at carefully and negotiated clearly in Brussels.
We felt that the system started from an exceedingly rigid scheme introduced in Germany, where, for political reasons and because "Greens" were strong in the last election, they had to ban unacceptable landfill. That was partly because they had absorbed East Germany and for many years the landfill zone for German waste was somewhat to the east of the previous frontier. Also they had environmental problems because they did not manage the landfill effectively.
Similarly, environmental pollution in the atmosphere due to poor incinerators meant that incineration was not acceptable. But one needs to look at the problem carefully. It will take 10 years to develop and install a suitable network for incinerating waste. But we have heard—I shall explain in a minute why—that plastic is difficult to recycle. Plastic is made from oil. Being oil-based, it may be a natural material to burn in order to recover the energy lost when it was originally manufactured. That is where problems arise with a rigid approach. Both I and the committee generally were in favour of flexibility. We felt that, within its own methods, a hierarchy within each country should decide which schemes were best and what the percentages should be. Therefore, flexibility is important.
I had considered giving a short illustration of a life cycle, but I shall not do so. The life cycle of each product and package—the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, gave examples of glass and paper—can be considered in relation to the energy costs of moving items around; the energy costs of the way it is packed and the capital costs. There is a great deal to be said, and one should look at it in that way.
Pollution does not arise from waste; it arises from the way that waste is handled. There is noise pollution. When glass is crushed it is noisy. We discovered that in Germany there was an absolute ban on filling bottle bank containers between noon on Saturday and noon on Monday to avoid disturbance for the German population. Those are different problems.
I am in favour of reducing packaging as packaging. However, we heard that it is important to provide packaging that is strong, that protects the food adequately and that can be sensibly used and economically designed. For example, scent is over-packaged. But it is a high value product, as was recently concluded by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and the image is important. Packaging costs are totally irrelevant to someone who is buying scent. On the other hand, they may be highly relevant for other products. Each item must be considered separately.
508
Packaging must be used sensibly. In Brussels we were told that there had been a new design for a half litre or litre plastic milk pack. The thickness had gone down from 0.7 millimetres to 0.3 millimetres—a saving of just over 50 per cent. But it was practically irrecoverable for two reasons. First, there was more contamination from the milk. Secondly, it was not possible to reduce the thickness of the printing indicating who had packaged the milk, which cows it had come from and so forth. Therefore, when plastics are recycled one ends up with thicker packaging. Indeed, recycled plastic must be thicker because the product is weaker than the original.
The pricing of packaging and of its disposal is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, and I agree with him. The normal cost of collecting packaging waste (25 per cent. of the total dustbin load) can be borne as part of the rates. However, if a directive says, "You have to sort this waste; you have to put it in different coloured bins", more lorries will be needed because it will not be possible to collect all the different coloured bins in one day; and that will increase the cost. As we heard earlier, somebody may set up a scheme on a costing basis for the recovery price of glass, paper and so forth. But we over-recover; the market demands change and the local authority or the contractor will not receive a sufficient return on the waste. Therefore, they will need to charge more.
One of the problems of the German scheme was that initially, whatever the packaging, the price was so much per kilo. The Germans discovered very quickly that they were overpricing glass; the price was about right for aluminium and steel and perhaps for paper. But, my goodness, little pieces of plastic—we saw bales piled high—are much more difficult to pick up. One has to have a highly sophisticated sorting plant employing people to make sure that one gets the right kind of plastic in the right bin and that these white foam things go in one bin and the plastic sheeting in another. One also gets butter wrapped in metalised plastic. Another example is a carton of wine. The cardboard packaging is simple but there is also a handle. If one tries to recover the handle, one needs labour. Inside the carton there is an aluminised piece of plastic—perhaps two kinds of plastic. There is a major recovery problem with the aluminium.
The Germans set out with the idea that the great German engineers could in time—they did not allow enough time—design a new plant to convert plastic back into the oil it started from. I think, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that high technology solutions are not the answer to a low technology product and a low technology problem. I support the report.
4.2 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, under this rather simple heading of Packaging and Packaging Waste is a very diverse and complex problem, as we have already heard in the debate today. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue, especially in view of the meeting of environment Ministers later this week in Europe.
Many concerns have been addressed by the committee in looking at this issue and it has adopted a

509
pragmatic approach. It is certainly a topic that needs a pragmatic approach. I should like to make one or two points arising mainly under "Opinion of the Committee", which I found particularly interesting to read. I very much agree with the committee when it says that we do not appear to have developed in the United Kingdom a culture to approach recycling in a positive way. It is an issue not just for the industry itself or for the Government in isolation. It is an issue for all of us. In itself it is difficult enough to push forward, and I certainly agree that more needs to be done.
I very much take on board the points made in paragraphs 40 to 46 of the committee's opinion where it talks about the distortion of the single market. The German ordinance has been mentioned several times, and it provides a salutary lesson. The ordinance on packaging was hailed by many countries in Europe, including this country, as possibly the benchmark for how we should deal with the tremendous amount of waste that is not recycled or reclaimed. As it has turned out, it has been a damaging ordinance not just in Germany but, as we have seen, here in the United Kingdom, too, and for the paper-making and board-making industries in particular. It has done damage to the recycling industry, small as it is, within the United Kingdom.
The ordinance was carried out against a background of being environmentally friendly and marking the way for others. I am delighted that the Germans have had second thoughts, and I agree with the direct wording in paragraph 6 of the report which says that the committee was puzzled how a country could introduce a system of waste collection with such bizarre and damaging consequences when it was devised with environmental objectives in mind. There is a lesson to be learnt here about pushing forward sometimes too quickly when it may have a profound effect not just on employment but on the economy as well.
We have to develop in the United Kingdom a culture of environmental concern. We are very backward compared with a number of other countries in Europe. We have to make changes in the way we deal with the whole issue. Indeed, one could question whether it can be dealt with by a European directive. It is such a complex issue that perhaps the directive should contain specific details of what can and cannot be done in industries which are so different and different in their ability to recycle their waste. I therefore welcome the committee's view that any replacement of the German system should be more pragmatic—the noble Lord, Lord Brain, used the term "flexible".
I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, say that the figures of 90 per cent. by weight of packaging to be removed from the waste stream in 10 years and 60 per cent. by weight of each material to be recycled are to be changed to something like 50 per cent. and 30 per cent. respectively. I had heard that that was a rumour. I had not heard that it was a fact. But if it is a fact, and if it is to happen against a five-year time cycle, it is something that industry in Britain could take on board more readily.
510
I have two main areas of concern. One is the level of 90 per cent. to 60 per cent. The other relates to my knowledge of the printing industry in particular. My previous union was very much involved with the ink manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom from the health and safety point of view of the people we represented. We made much progress, particularly in the elimination of toluene from printing inks which has a bad effect on the health of workers. That measure is not applicable over the whole of Europe, but I assure your Lordships that it is necessary for the health of people at work in printing companies. Once one is sensitised to ink containing toluene one never gets rid of that sensitivity. That kind of atmosphere can have a serious effect on one's health, particularly one's breathing.
In the draft directive there are proposals about heavy metals. If that part of the directive is carried through, the manufacture of ink in Britain will probably be impossible. I am assured that that is the case by chemists within the industry. We do not want a situation which may appear to be environmentally welcome—I certainly criticise both the printing and paper industries for their slowness in some areas in dealing with this—but which then affects the very economic well-being of the industry and is not practical to apply within it.
In conclusion, if the directive—one hopes, substantially amended—is to go through, I agree with the committee that it must have the legal basis of Article 100a. If that is the case, at least we will have similar treatment across Europe and not guidelines which some follow and some do not. That is absolutely essential and I hope that the Government will take it on board. If the directive goes through—I repeat, one hopes substantially amended—it must include legal backing.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am in particular difficulty today in addressing your Lordships on this matter. First, as opposed to all the other speakers, I am not an expert on this subject, and I shall make that abundantly clear during the course of my speech. Secondly, I believe that for the first time ever in speaking on any report of a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, I completely disagree with what the report has to say on the basic matters. I am completely unpersuaded by what it says. Of course, I rely as usual on the Minister himself to explain to me in his reply why I am mistaken. But it would be of no help to your Lordships if I were not to tell noble Lords of my views.
I am thoroughly taken aback by the remark in the Memorandum made by the Department of Trade and Industry that,
"We welcome this thorough report and concur with the bulk of its conclusions and recommendations".
They perhaps can weasel out with the word "bulk"; but basically I do not. I shall explain the economics of that.
It is not because I do not believe that waste represents an important problem. Industry, left to itself and with free choice, will produce excess packaging and will not handle waste correctly because it will be concerned only with what are called private costs and benefits. It will not take account of the impact of excess packaging on society and the economy. So there is a case for

511
intervention; but it is not clear to me. However, the adviser to the committee explains it very clearly and it is not obvious that the committee understands the matter.
In this connection, and while in an acerbic mood—and I shall continue to be—I was somewhat intrigued by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I do not know what the subject of ecological economics is. Perhaps he will explain it to me at some time. I understood that the Liberal Democrat Party believed in classical economics, and I certainly do. I would advise the noble Lord that the way to approach this problem is by using the principles of classical economics which, in this connection, mean "let us examine and endeavour to quantify the costs of the waste which will tell us approximately what it is worthwhile investing in order to avoid those costs". That is the central principle of classical economics in this and in all other problems. What is immensely damaging to the British economy and which goes back to the time of Adam Smith (dare I remind the Liberals?) is remarks of the following kind: "Let us not pay any attention to costs. These matters are so important that we just go ahead and do them". Why I am so concerned about the Department of Trade and Industry (which used to call itself the Department for Enterprise) is that in welcoming this report, they seem to have lost sight of that classical economic principle.
The main point on which I reject the committee's report is that, in its view—to quote the noble Lord, Lord Brain—this directive is needed, and the Commission has a locus in this matter. I have read the appropriate section and I do not see what the argument is. I can see no case for the Commission poking its nose into a matter which I regard as overwhelmingly one to be approached by the principle of subsidiarity—that is to say, that these are matters for the concern of the individual nation. The report says:
"There can be no doubt about the need for quick action to control the proliferation of national measures".
The report refers to "national measures" as further distorting and fragmenting the market.
As an economist. I have to say two things: the first is that there is considerable doubt whether there is any need to intervene in what individual countries are doing. That does not mean that the countries themselves should not be concerned with what they are doing. I am totally unpersuaded by the notion that individual countries acting on their own distort the market. I spent my life studying and lecturing on free market principles. This is the first time I have ever heard that packaging was a distortion of the free market. I like to learn about these things; but that is news to me. I do not see that what the individual countries are doing is a distortion. The Minister will deal with this matter definitively, but I can only react as a layman.
In reply to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, I simply do not see that this matter is in any way infringing the Treaty of Rome. If one regards the problem of waste as itself causing market damage—in other words, the argument which I put forward at the beginning that these costs are not fully taken into account—then it is in accord with the Treaty of Rome if,
512
in my judgment, a government intervenes for its own country in order to offset that damage. I do not see a Treaty of Rome problem myself, but we shall rely on the Minister to explain that to us in a few minutes.
If I reject the view that the Commission has a locus here, which I do, and if I reject the need for a directive. I could then just sit down and say that the rest of the report is a complete waste—if noble Lords will forgive a play on words—of time. But there are one or two other matters which I might as well bring out while I am in this mood, and while I am on my feet. One is the attack on the Germans. I am somewhat bewildered, but I am here to be taught something on this matter. How can what the Germans are doing be damaging to the recycling industry? That is what the report seems to be saying. I am at a loss to understand that because what the Germans are doing is raising the demand for recycling facilities by their proposals because they are subsidising that kind of activity. I would have thought that would be enormously to the advantage of the recycling industry rather than damaging it—again, on the general ground that when the demand for services goes up, that is a good thing. If the market works, what should happen then is that new people enter the recycling field because it now becomes more profitable and there is an appropriate outcome.
Speaking as a mere common or garden economist, I am totally unable to follow what the committee thinks it is up to on that matter. As I have said, I do not see how in this case an industry can suffer as the result of an increase in demand for its services. The Germans may have made a mistake in subsidising what they are doing. It may turn out to be too expensive for them, which I understand to be the case. In those circumstances, they will learn the lesson which we all do when we sometimes make a mistake: they will stop doing it. I cannot see how either there is a case for intervention here or what business it is of the Commission.
As noble Lords can see, I do not believe that this report comes remotely to grips with the problem. Perhaps because of its sensitivity to environmental matters, I believe that the committee has gone off in the wrong direction. I have a final comment to make on the expert advice which it got and on how we might approach this matter. It is true that we have excess packaging because those who do the packaging do not bear the full costs of their activities. Then, as the Government themselves say, they believe in the "polluter pays" principle. These people will then be defined as polluters.
The way in which to get the market to work properly is to impose the true costs on them. That can be done in one of two ways. The way suggested by the Committee's expert adviser is that the activity can be taxed. The other way is inversely in that one can cease to allow all packaging costs as an offset to income in order to define taxable income. It can be done either way. That seems to be the right lines on which to approach this matter rather than in terms of detailed directives, uniformity in countries and all the typical Euro-blah.
There is a difficulty. Different industries will be affected in different ways. There is at least one industry

513
about which I am very sensitive because of my membership of the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. I refer to the pharmaceutical industry, which has to have very high-class packaging. It does that partly as a sales gimmick. We can criticise that. It is also done partly as a protection for the very dangerous drugs which it is often dealing with. I hope the Minister will remind us of the present situation; but I believe that at one point the directive suggests that there would be a sort of "out" as regards the recycling of packaging which was itself dangerous. I am a little out of date now, and I am not quite clear what is the present position. It would certainly be wrong to recycle certain pharmaceutical waste packaging. That would be dangerous. My inverse point is that we have to ask ourselves, as regards industries where certain types of packaging are very important, whether we would really want to impose considerable extra costs on them.
I think that I can conclude by relying on having made my view of this matter very clear. I was tempted to say that this is a report on waste, and that the committee has made a contribution to that; but I thought that that was so nasty that I should not say anything like it, so I do not. I hope that I have made it clear to your Lordships that at least one Member of your Lordships' House is unconvinced by this report.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which I have found most interesting. I, for one, would like to congratulate the committee on behalf of the Government on producing this report.
I particularly enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, because I too come to the subject as a layman—at least, I came to it as a layman, but, having had a spell as a Minister in the Department of the Environment, which for part of the time looked after some of these areas of interest, and now being a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry, I have come to have an appreciation of the problems. I started some time ago in the same position as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, but I have come over a period of time to agree more with the viewpoint that was expressed by the committee. I suspect that the committee has had to deal with some of the problems that were raised by the noble Lord, and I agree with him that some difficult issues are involved.
If left on its own, industry could of course face up to some of the problems that have been created by the use of packaging and by packaging waste. The problem that we face in this country and the solution to it is precisely the reason that the European Community has to be involved. These are cross-border problems, especially those that have been caused by Germany, but I shall deal with that point later.
I hope that having an early debate on the report has allowed noble Lords sufficient time to consider our written response. As I said earlier, I very much enjoyed reading the committee's report. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, should be unhappy with the fact that only three members of the
514
committee are speaking today. I do not believe that that is necessarily a measure of the success of the committee. Indeed, it is sometimes useful if fewer committee members speak and if more non-members feel able to do so or come simply to listen to the proceedings.
The directive will impact on all businesses in the UK, with a particular emphasis on those involved in the packaging chain—material producers, packaging convertors, packers and fillers, and retailers—to those involved in the collection, sorting, recycling and in the recovery of energy from waste and disposal of waste.
In October, the Presidency indicated a determination to achieve political agreement on the directive at the Environment Council meeting on 2nd December. In pursuit of this, it has brought forward, and is continuing to bring forward, significant revisions to the amended Commission text of 9th September. I will give further details of that when mentioning the relevant parts of the directive. I hope that that will be useful to the House.
We share industry's and the committee's concern about market distortions and problems which have been created by the initiatives of individual member states in this area. Many of these initiatives have been promoted on the basis of environmental protection, but have had significant practical or economic, and in some cases environmentally detrimental, consequences.
I refer in particular to the German Packaging Ordinance, which most noble Lords have mentioned. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham, for his clear exposition of the limitations of the German scheme and its negative effects. It requires high rates of collection and the recycling of waste packaging and has led to the collection of far more waste than can possibly be recycled in Germany —and therein lies part of the problem but also, to some extent, some of the advantages. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would argue that it is a distinct advantage for the German consumer to be subsidising the cheap provision of recycled plastics in this country for our own recyclers to use. However, that has had a very serious effect on the infrastructure and collection industry in this country because the recycling industry prefers to buy subsidised German waste. The United Kingdom industry is not getting its raw materials at the same price as its German competition—and that has a serious, debilitating effect on British industry. In the age of the single market, it must therefore be right that the European Commission should have a role to play in seeking some sort of harmonisation of the rules that apply in dealing with recycleable waste.
Many noble Lords have asked about the roles of the Treaty of Rome and the European Commission in dealing with the German situation. We as a Government continue to press the Commission for an early decision. I understand that the Commission tried to take action on the Danish ban on the one-trip beverage containers, but the European Court of Justice ruled in favour of Denmark. However, that should not be used as an excuse for inaction in this case. The Commission must come to a decision on whether or not the German system breaks some of the fundamental principles underlying the Treaty of Rome.

515
I see an appropriate harmonising measure as one essential element in tackling and preventing distortions. However, I also recognise that the directive will not provide a short-term solution to the problems facing the UK recycling infrastructure. We have been concerned to take national measures and actions in parallel with discussions in Brussels.
The aims of the proposed directive on packaging and packaging waste are twofold: first, as a single market measure to harmonise the basis on which member states take action relating to packaging and packaging waste, in order to avoid distortion to competition and restrictions to trade and to contribute to the functioning of the internal market; and, secondly, as an environmental measure which is necessary on internal market grounds to reduce the adverse environmental impact of packaging.
The draft directive requires member states to establish national packaging waste collection systems in order to meet specified recovery and recycling targets. It requires member states to allow free circulation for packaging which meets the essential requirements of the directive and to take appropriate measures to ensure that only packaging which meets the essential requirements may be placed on the market.
The UK industry regards these harmonisation objectives as very important. The Government share that view and agree that this should be the main thrust of the directive. The directive also sets out recovery and recycling targets. We subscribe to the packaging and waste management "hierarchy" of waste prevention—re-use, recovery and safe disposal—but we recognise the vital importance of its flexible application. We would argue that recycling should not be considered to be automatically the better recovery option for all waste. We agree with the committee's conclusions on the application of the "hierarchy" in paragraph 105 of the report.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Brain, the Government subscribe to the idea of a broad waste management hierarchy. However, in each case a decision about which route to follow must be governed by the principles of using the best practicable environmental option. As stated by the noble Lord, it is important to take account of the economic and environmental costs associated with the transport of waste over long distances and the technical obstacles to repeated recycling. A high degree of flexibility is needed to take account of the differing economic, environmental and technical capabilities of the different countries and different regions. That is important and is a point on which I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. Different countries will want to do things in different ways, and the directive is about setting the minimum standards.
Our main concerns as regards the provisions of the directive have centred around the target levels, economic instruments and essential requirements with which packaging must comply in order to be allowed free circulation. Although we are considerably
516
encouraged by the flexibility being shown by the Presidency, we shall continue to seek further amendment.
Let me deal with the first of those concerns—targets. We have argued consistently that the targets for recovery and recycling set out in both the original and amended Commission proposals were unrealistic and unachievable. The noble Lord, Lord Brain, cleverly demonstrated the difficulty with targets. They fail to take account of the economic and environmental costs that would be involved in attempting to meet them. I emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that the solution is economic and environmental. I am not sure how one can divorce the two. The whole point is to find economic instruments that cost out the environmental solution.
Earlier this month, the Presidency proposed that the targets should be expressed as bands. The present proposals are based on target bands of 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. for recovery and 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. for physical recycling averaged across all materials. Within the recycling target, a minimum recycling level of 15 per cent. is proposed for individual materials (plastic, paper and board, metal, glass and composite packaging). Member states would need to set in hand action plans to achieve recycling rates within those bands within five years of implementation.
We have been heartened by the signs shown by the Commission in recent negotiations that it may be content to agree to lower targets. We are encouraged that the Presidency's targets show greater realism in three respects. First, they are significantly lower than in the original proposal and are now consistent with our own domestic proposals for producer responsibility (in other words, 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. recovery by the end of the century). Secondly, future targets are to be reviewed after five years' experience, although the proposal anticipates that review will allow the levels to be raised. Finally, we feel that the use of a band for recovery target should strengthen the internal market benefit of the directive, because it should place a limit on what individual member states may attempt.
On our second point of concern, the current wording of the Presidency text of the article on economic instruments is declaratory and permissive, and makes specific reference to consistency with the Treaty. We should be concerned at any change toward the more prescriptive proposals made by the European Parliament.
Thirdly, we are not satisfied with the provisions on "essential requirements" to which all packaging would have to conform in order to obtain a guarantee of free movement. That is a vital part of the directive for assuring the single market, and details need to be right. We are continuing to argue for justifiable requirements. We are assured that the intention is that the directive will not affect current health and safety legislation, including that on hazardous waste, and international agreements on the transport of dangerous goods. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, for the contribution she made with her detailed knowledge of

517
the printing industry. I agree with her that the directive should pay due regard to health and safety and should not prejudice it.
I shall speak briefly on the legal base. We support the directive as a harmonising measure in support of the single market. We shall endeavour to ensure that the provisions of the directive reflect that. Thus, on policy grounds, we support the use of Article 100A as the appropriate treaty base for the directive.
The statistical information requirements have been amended and reduced in the latest Presidency proposals, and we feel are now more consistent with the requirements of the directive.
Considerable concern has been expressed at possible costs of the directive, particularly at the assessment of compliance costs of over £2 billion per annum for the original Commission proposal. Estimates of compliance with the new lower targets in the Presidency proposal are informally put much lower at £100 million to £150 million per year. Much depends on the targets set for plastics and composites, where the costs of material recycling rise sharply. We shall have a much better indication when the industry brings forward its detailed proposals for producer responsibility.
We shall have to ensure that a system is in place in the UK to implement the directive. We expect the producer responsibility initiative to play a major role in that. In July, Ministers challenged those involved in the packaging chain to commit themselves to ensuring that between 50 per cent. and 75 per cent. of all packaging waste is recovered by the year 2000, by voluntary means. If the industries concerned cannot satisfy us by Christmas that they are committed to achieving the objectives, or if they persuade us that legislative backing is necessary, we shall need to consider moving towards a legislative approach to ensuring producer responsibility.
I have focused at some length on the problems that we perceive with the directive, but there are a number of clear benefits which would arise from an appropriately worded directive. Our support for a harmonising directive derives from those benefits. The alternative we should be faced with in the absence of a directive would be the likely proliferation of national schemes, each with its own requirements for packaging. Those could seriously impede the free movement of goods within the Community. The example of the Danish ban on one-trip beverage containers has vividly demonstrated that.
Earlier this year we undertook a formal consultation exercise—clearly, on the original proposal—and we have met a number of interested parties to gauge industry's views on the directive and on the Government's approach to it. In general, industry has been supportive of the approach we have taken and the need for a directive. The results of the exercise have helped greatly to identify problem areas and to inform government's negotiating position.
Particular benefits arise from the harmonisation elements of the proposal. For example, the elaboration of European standards will be particularly helpful in those areas where technical barriers to trade exist, by
518
assisting the free movement of goods; the harmonisation of marking provisions would also be useful—there would be agreed marks for agreed purposes; and, of course, one of the underlying intentions of the directive is to ensure that member states' recycling and waste management plans do not cause detrimental effects. In conclusion, all those very real benefits will give UK companies the confidence to plan ahead up to and beyond the turn of the next century.
I am grateful for having had the opportunity to reply formally to the committee's recommendations. I hope that the reply has been helpful and that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, especially, may feel differently about the committee's report than he has hitherto.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Lewis of Newnham: My Lords, I should like to reiterate the Minister's final remark about the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I shall come back to it in a moment if I may. I thank the Minister for his useful commentaries. The remark about the Treaty of Rome is one that I anticipated that he would have to make. I am somewhat disappointed about the need for a reply by Christmas since I believe that if we are to take the Minister's reply to our report, there is an urgency associated with the meeting at the end of this week. We agree with the Minister about the concern over targets. The targets that were set initially seemed to us to be unrealistic. However, it is important to recognise that targets are part of this game. If we are to play it, then it is important to have targets, but they must be set realistically. The present suggestions fall into that category.
I hesitate, although I return to it again, to talk about economics. The one area in which I find economics even more difficult to understand is that connected with the environment. Cost benefit analysis and assessment of the value of the blue sky is something that yet eludes me, although I am sure that it is well within the capacity of established economic departments in the country. I shall come back to that point if I may.
On the legal concern, the point I tried to make at the very beginning was that although there was a temptation to consider this problem as an environmental one, our general feeling was that it was covered by Article 100A. It was more concerned with harmonisation aspects. I believe that that was also the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, dealt with the hierarchical problem which worried the committee. That is associated with life cycle analysis which is the present way of considering the whole balance of energy and other valuable features involved in environmental questions. I much preferred the initial phrase which was "cradle-to-grave analysis", but that seems to have been overtaken by the more recent term. It is important in any of those considerations to recognise the importance of energy as equivalent to mass. It is an idea which surprisingly came from Einstein but it seems to have been totally ignored by the German community as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, made some important points. I was interested to hear of his early

519
incursions into some of those problems. I agree completely when he says that each of those problems must be considered on its individual merits. The proximity principle has been avoided in much of the discussion, but it is an important principle associated with waste and I am surprised that it has not been brought into our considerations to a much greater extent. My noble friend Lord Brain illustrated admirably some of the problems we investigated in this area. He illustrated how much we appreciated the advice given by our economic adviser, although it appears that it may have lacked strength in certain circles.
I was extremely interested in the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, that the German system starts with what seems to be a very high idealistic approach. Anyone who had started with that scenario would have anticipated much more successful results. I believe that the problem of the German system is that the Germans do not charge for their waste at the end of the day. Many other aspects of their system have a great deal to offer but the fact that at the end of the day the disposal of their waste involves virtually no charge whatever has been, if not the Achilles' heel, at least a feature within the system which has caused problems.
We considered the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, about heavy metals. Johnson Matthey in particular were concerned with printing problems in that area. I cannot see a simple solution although, as a chemist, I believe genuinely that there are alternative methods of obtaining printing materials rather than by using heavy metals, which may make it possible to avoid the problem. I remind your Lordships that the problem about heavy metals is that they tend to be cumulative. Therefore, a potential problem for the future is created. That is why there is a sensitivity, if not a hypersensitivity, about that situation.
The point about the legal basis has been covered. The Minister was able to point out that the figures of 60 per cent. and 30 per cent. are fact and not fiction.
What do I say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston? I should never dare to disagree with an economist, particularly a classical economist.
Lord Dormand of Easington: All the more reason to disagree!
Lord Lewis of Newnham: My main anxiety as regards the problem is that now that the plastics industry is to recycle in Germany, this country will be in the difficult situation where the market is swamped with plastic which is considerably cheaper than in the other markets. That will undoubtedly affect our plastics industry. That is the point. If we want all plastic to be recycled in Germany, that is fine. But is that essentially the economist's view of the matter?
The other problem is glass. I believe that we have a tragedy on our hands. Because of the cheapness of the glass from Germany, our glass collection will be seriously affected. Local authorities will lose money on that. Therefore, there will be no high incentive for us to start collecting glass. The whole concept of going on a Saturday or Sunday to drop bottles in a bottle bank, as my noble friend Lord Brain pointed out, will disappear. That may not be considered undesirable but it will affect
520
the whole concept of recycling as an ideal in a country such as ours. It is a subsidised position for all the commodities which are put back into the recycling process. That is the critical part of the operation. But as a layman, I hesitate to disagree with an eminent economist on the issue.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Standards Institution
4.45 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the powers and resources available to the British Standards Institution are sufficient to maintain the rising standards required in a modern society.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I ask this Question this evening for a number of reasons. The basic reason—I hardly need say it—is that standards are needed by everyone including consumers, industry and government. That reason is more important now than it was 20, 10 or even five years ago because we now live in a consumer society. It is a society in which television, radio and newspapers are constantly bringing complaints, suggestions and problems to the notice of the public; and in so doing, they involve government, local authorities, manufacturers and the service industries.
If one asks colleagues in another place about their postbags, they will tell you that they are 10 times heavier than they were a decade ago. I have personal experience of that. People who write to their MPs on such matters nowadays would not have dreamt of doing so not very long ago. It is significant that your Lordships are now sometimes the recipients of such letters. At one time that was unheard of. Therefore, an independent organisation is needed now more than ever. This country is fortunate in having the British Standards Institution. That is an expert body with more than 30 years' experience in seeking constantly to raise standards.
The BSI is not just concerned with Britain in the narrow sense. It is this country's voice in European and indeed world standardisation. It puts the point of view of industry and consumers and brings back information on changes that will affect them. When I say "them", I mean the country as a whole. Quality means good design, efficiency, cost-effectiveness—that will be a matter of particular interest to this Government—and reliability. More and more, consumers demand those benefits of the products and services which they buy. Manufacturers particularly need them if they are to succeed in fiercely competitive world markets.
Some people say, "Yes, we know all that. There is no need to preach about it". They say that competition will take care of it. Nothing could be further from the truth. In today's economies, both here and abroad, low standards are seen in shoddy and even dangerous products. Some are deliberate, brought about largely by the need to maximise profits. But others derive from innocent ignorance; ignorance of the fact that a body such as the BSI can be of immense help.
I have mentioned the products on two occasions, so perhaps at this point I should emphasise that service industries should equally be subject to standards. As one who has a particular interest in education, I was delighted to know that a primary school achieved registration early this year, the first one to do so. The report stated:
"BS 5750 procedures have sorted out administrative and planning headaches, which has resulted in teachers' time being free to get on with the main business of the school, teaching their pupils.
I shall bear that in mind when I speak on education in the future.
At all times in considering the BSI, some fundamental questions need to be asked. Are the standards which the institution sets high enough to meet the ever-growing demands of a constantly changing society; and, closely related to that question, are the resources available to it sufficient to enable it to achieve its objectives?
Let us look at some of the basic facts. From my knowledge of the BSI, it can be said that there is the total commitment of its staff allied to a high degree of expertise. They are supported by more than 26,000 committee members working in a voluntary capacity. The involvement of them all is fundamental to the work of the BSI; and its achievements, as I am sure your Lordships will know, speak for themselves. They are the human resources and one could have said much more about them had time permitted.
But, what about financial resources—an issue of obviously critical importance? The BSI is an independent, non-profit distributing organisation; and any surplus generated has, under its charter, to be reinvested to advance the objectives of that charter. It has three main sources of revenue: first, receipts from sales; secondly, membership subscriptions; and, the remainder from government funding.
Perhaps I should mention that all of the national standards bodies in the European Community and EFTA countries receive funding from their governments. In Germany the figure is 14 per cent., and in France it is 27 per cent. In its last allocation, the BSI received 15 per cent. Perhaps I should also mention that the main income source for all standards bodies in Germany, France and the UK is from sales of standards. No less than 25 per cent. of BSI's income comes from its subscription scheme, a figure very much higher than those of Germany and France. I am sure that the Minister will realise that that is largely due to the self-help efforts of BSI and very much to its credit.
When the White Paper called Standards, Quality and International Competitiveness was published in 1982, the Government matched pound for pound what BSI received from its subscribing members; but the situation has now changed. Over the past five years it has fallen from 28 per cent. of the total standards budget to 15 per cent. I have to say that I am puzzled by such a dramatic reduction. I do not believe that the Government are losing their interest in standards or that they are any less committed to them; indeed, they are represented on no less than 60 per cent. of the BSI committees.
Similarly, it cannot be argued that BSI needs less money; in fact, the opposite is the case as it requires more money. I shall give your Lordships an example of the difficulties that can arise. Producing publications on standards is an expensive operation which is sometimes met by sales. However, there are standards which are no less vital but which sell only a few copies to a limited customer base. It will be readily appreciated that they make up the majority of all standards published. However, they are no less costly to prepare. Therefore, if BSI standards were to be run on a purely commercial basis, such projects would be seriously affected. It would mean that the institution would not be able to fulfil its major role of benefiting the public interest.
It cannot be said that BSI is a "begging bowl" organisation. I believe that its record demonstrates that fact. I welcome the recent statement by the institution's energetic and dedicated chairman, Vivian Thomas. He said:
"Given the lower sales income resulting from the growing proportion of European and internationally derived standards, we intend to minimise operational cost and maximise efficiency in order to maintain our position and advance our global reputation as the preferred supplier for all of our services."
I suspect that there are words in that quotation which, again, particularly appeal to the philosophy and practice of the Government.
I am sure that BSI will demonstrate that the aforementioned are not idle words, especially when one looks at the record over the past two years or so. The time to edit and publish standards has been greatly reduced. At the same time, actual output was increased by some 80 per cent., so that it is now running at 1,200 publications a year. That is a quite remarkable achievement.
BSI does not itself write or create standards. I mentioned earlier that 26,000 representatives are involved. They are on 3,000 BSI committees and come from manufacturers, user and consumer groups, central and local government, professional bodies, trade unions and other interested parties. I mention those details because all of them arise from voluntary work. The Government and the nation benefit from a wonderful bargain. It would be entirely proper and necessary for the Government to bear that in mind when grant is being considered. However, I believe that the overall picture gives some cause for concern. I hope that the Government will look very carefully at the financial position with a view to increasing the grant-in-aid.
The 1982 White Paper remains the basis of the relationship of the Government with the BSI; but the role and effectiveness of the BSI has been reviewed by Parliament on a number of occasions since the publication of that White Paper—after all, the latter is now 13 years old. I shall mention three of those examinations. In 1984, your Lordships' Select Committee on Overseas Trade inquired into the causes and implications of the deficit in the UK's balance of trade in manufactures. The committee said it was clear that there was a considerable increase in international standardisation activity and that increased government funding was necessary if the Government's policy of maintaining and strengthening international standardisation was to be met.
Somewhat later, in 1990, the National Audit Office published a report entitled, Department of Trade and Industry: Promotion of Quality and Standards. When that report was examined by the Committee of Public Accounts, members of the committee raised what they saw to be a failure to increase in real terms the financial support available to BSI standards through the DTI grant-in-aid.
As recently as May 1993, the House of Commons Select Committee on Trade with Europe (in its second report) examined the position and made two recommendation relating, first, to the slow production of European standards and the consequential backlog of work; and, secondly, to the need for increased participation in European standards work, which it stated is the key to achieve standards acceptable to the UK. On both matters the Select Committee said that financial support was required.
The Government are fully aware of the reports to which I have briefly referred (and of other instances relating to grant-in-aid) but they do not appear to have acted upon any of the comments or recommendations made. I hope that the Minister will—indeed, I am sure that he will—refer to such matters, including grant-in-aid, in his reply.
Perhaps I should make it clear at this point that I have no personal connection in any way with BSI. My Question today, and all the remarks that I have made, arise from a conviction that the successful working of such an organisation is of the utmost importance to the country. I am simply an innocent bystander—that is, a simple but enthusiastic bystander—who wishes to see its high standards maintained and improved in fulfilling its objectives. Let us just imagine the position if there was no BSI—indeed, it really does not bear thinking about.
I hope that BSI will be able to continue its splendid work. If there appears to be a little hesitation in that remark—and there is—it is because of the ever-increasing range and workload of the organisation. I have in mind, for example, the implications of the single European market, the special problems of small businesses and the sheer size of the operation. That is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that there are now more than 3,500 firms registered which range from small businesses to multinational companies. I think, too, of the vast changes which have taken place since the publication of the White Paper in 1982. Perhaps it is time for another White Paper. In this connection, I feel that the DTI's consultation paper of June 1993 is timely and is to be welcomed. I hope the Minister will agree that the BSI's response of 24th September—I am sure he has read that—could not be more comprehensive and relevant.
One of the main requirements of government is to ensure that standards are prepared in the national interest. That national interest has three aspects: in relation to domestic policies; in support of UK firms' competitiveness in European and international markets, and last but by no means least, in the safeguarding of UK users and consumers. In asking this Question today, I believe that the BSI's objectives are largely being met; but it appears to me that the European and world
524
situation in such matters may be changing. In such circumstances, it seems that a reappraisal of the Government's role is not only necessary but of some urgency. I hope that view will be reflected in the Minister's reply today.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, has chosen a particularly unique time at which to table this Question. He does so, of course, against the background of the Department of Trade and Industry's consultation paper to which he has just referred, and against the background of what I can only call some internal differences of opinion about the operation of the British Standards Institution. I wish to touch on both those points this evening.
I do not quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, as regards his general survey of the work being done by the BSI. I, like him, pay tribute to the 22,000 to 25,000 volunteers who create, make and write the standards for no financial reward whatsoever. It is against this background that one should look at the finances of the BSI. I shall come to that in just a moment. The noble Lord also mentioned the matter of the BSI's standing both in European and in international affairs. He mentioned the French (AFNOR) and the German (DIN) standards institutions. He will agree with me that they have been created more to favour national industries than to subscribe to a heightening of general standards, particularly in engineering terms. I do not believe the noble Lord would disagree that our own standards, particularly those accepted by industry, are in the main considerably higher than those obtaining on the main Continent of Europe.
It is important that our BSI should maintain those standards. There is a problem here, in that it has a dual role. The dual role is that provided under the Royal Charter; namely, that of being the body which shall, with government funding—the grant in aid—set standards, issue and sell them. The institution has in more recent years taken another route of providing financing—although it claims that the two are kept separate—which is that of commercial activities in selling what I would have called service quality assurances.
When I was in the Department of Trade and Industry in the mid-eighties, my honourable friend Mr. John Butcher was the Minister responsible for quality in manufacturing industry and I suggest that he did a good job at that time. The department not only provides grant in aid to the BSI but also subscribes actively to the raising of standards whether in manufacturing or service industry and I do not criticise the Government for their endeavours in the area of standards and the raising of them.
The Department of Trade and Industry, on behalf of the taxpayer, subscribes about £4 million to the BSI and the institution's commercial activities contribute perhaps another £4.5 to £4.7 million. I can see no difficulty in the paymaster having a good searching look to see whether the DTI's money is being well spent and whether the department should, or indeed needs to,

525
make further contribution. I suggest that it might need to in terms of our international responsibilities on standards setting boards. I would like to see that element of the activity of the BSI kept quite separate from its run-of-the-mill commercial activity. The present position has led to the current problems—I put it no higher than that—that now rage through the higher echelons of the BSI. I absolve my noble friend Lord Keith of Castleacre, the president of the BSI, from those ragings because of course they are not the responsibility of the president but of others.
I find it extraordinarily sad that these differences should have led the chief executive to resign and that many of the members who provide the real funding should have been prevailed upon as regards expressing the view that the commercial activities should be run not as a plc organisation but more as a standard setting institution. Until that position is resolved, I would find it difficult, were I in the position of my noble friend the Minister, to give a firm decision on what stance the department should take. I hope he will resist the temptation tonight to provide a complete answer.
If the BSI is to be an institution reflecting governmental domestic policies, and indeed international policies, it should have a say in the way the organisation is run. If the BSI is to be the Government's chosen tool for setting international standards, it should take a more positive role than hitherto. If, however, the institution is to be run purely on commercial lines, subject to the vagaries of the market, the sale of its products and other such matters, then the Government need not provide it with taxpayers' money.
I refer to one example in this connection. It is the example I know best. BS 5750 is a standard of quality assurance. In the retail motor industry it was hailed as the great new standard that would improve everyone's competitiveness and profitability and would deliver better goods to the consumer. In rushed a number of organisations, not least the BSI, to teach everyone how this was to be achieved. It was suggested that costs of anything between £2,000 to £4,000 and £10,000 to £15,000 should be charged for the accreditation system for BS 5750. At the end of the day it is a self-assessment exercise. There are forms to fill in. You fill in your answers and monitor yourself against the answers that you put down. It is now not seen to be the real answer to enhancing standards within the industry.
I therefore wonder whether some of the commercial activities of BSI are in the public interest, in the taxpayers' interest or in its own interest in deriving funds to expand its own operation. There has to be a division of responsibility as regards its different activities. A Chinese wall will not do.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give due consideration to those thoughts which I have put before your Lordships this evening.
5.10 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I come to this debate with experience in an industry which many years ago was criticised for not having any standards, for poor quality and poor delivery. The
526
situation has changed considerably, thank goodness. I remember clearly the encouragement I derived when I visited factories or mills which had achieved BS 5750.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that those factories and mills did not see BS 5750 as a simple matter of assessing themselves against a check-list in order to achieve BS 5750. It was a painful process, usually taking anything up to a year, involving a great many internal resources within the company and also the introduction of strong disciplines which probably had not previously existed. When a company gained BS 5750 that gave a feeling of achievement, not merely among the management but also among the whole workforce, because one cannot achieve accreditation unless the whole of the company has played its part. Whether it is the waste at the end of the process—as we have just heard—or simply sending goods to the customer, the standards apply right the way through from production to the administrative process.
In 1982, when the Government brought forward their initiative which was the beginning of BS 5750, no one expected that it would be the runaway success that it has proved to be. There is no doubt that it has been a success. Some 22,000 organisations now have accreditation. Woe betide any individual organisation if within one year its standards, processes and methods slip to the point at which it loses its accreditation. That will have a profound effect upon that company's ability to keep its customers.
I suggest from my own experience that BS 5750 has been a success. I do not believe that that view is challenged. In marketing terms one could say that BS 5750 is the brand leader in this field.
My noble friend Lord Dormand mentioned that in 1982 the Government matched BSI funding pound for pound. That figure has now dropped to about 15 per cent. Approximately 81 per cent. of BSI's standards turnover is provided by sales and membership subscriptions. Because of BSI's role in the development of BS 5750 and because of the general impression that it is the brand leader, the lay person could be forgiven for thinking that BSI has a monopoly. It does not. There are competitors in the field. One of the strongest is a company called Lloyds, which has a long and honourable record in the certification of standards. There is also a relative newcomer. As a curtain-raiser we can see what may happen if we change our present structures fundamentally when we consider that relative newcomer, which is SGS Yardley. I wondered what SGS stood for. It was a small British company which was bought out by Société Général de Surveillance, which is a Swiss-owned company. Therefore there is competition in the field and there is an external influence within our own market. The fact that BSI is an international organisation is not unique in this field.
I suggest that BSI is a success story. It does not shout that loudly enough. Perhaps that is one of the reasons for some of its present problems. Yet no one would disagree that it has problems today. Like any business it needs to review where it is, to change its structures and to listen to what its members have to say. However, that is an insufficient argument for throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, it has to be more outward looking and

527
market oriented. It probably needs better business management, although I have no personal knowledge of that aspect.
Some 84 per cent. of BSI's work is undertaken overseas. I can recall business people—usually businessmen, because business in Britain is run mainly by men at the moment—continually saying to me that when they went to a committee a particular country, usually Germany, was trying to set the standards. Part of the success of BS 5750 is that it does not relate solely to UK standards; it was adopted largely unchanged as the European standard (EN 29000) and the international standard (ISO 9000). There we have a British success. It is an achievement which has been regarded by industry as a major step forward.
Turning now from those global markets and standards, we must not forget our own back garden. Small businesses have been complaining that BS 5750 does not relate to them. Some argue that large companies adopting the standard and being accredited are saying to them as small suppliers that they too must comply and if they do not they cannot tender for their work. That is an issue which BSI itself has taken on board. It needs to do so. However, I suggest that we should not always worship at the shrine of small business. We have many large and medium-sized businesses in Britain which are very successful and which themselves have a right to succeed and to be listened to. Therefore, I hope that when the BSI board considers the justified criticisms of small companies it does not go overboard and move from one extreme to the other but bears in mind the relative success of BS 5750.
In addition, we have to be careful in any review. In any organisation everything comes at once. We see that when governments have difficulties; they do not come in ones but several at a time. BSI is subject to the DTI review. It is right that that should take place. It also has its own internal review. I hope that the good and progressive aspects, together with the deficiencies which the organisation itself has recognised, are allowed to be dealt with internally using its own procedures. I hope that the organisation's commercial success will not be held against it. I hope that it will not be told that it can no longer do this, and that it will not be penalised for its commercial success as an organisation.
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to some of those points. No one would say that we live in a perfect world, and BSI is certainly not perfect. But it is the best we have and, as an earlier speaker asked, if we did not have it, what would we do? We have an organisation of long-standing, with good standards which are recognised internationally. I hope that what is recognised internationally as good quality will not be denigrated and changed in such a way here in Britain that the organisation itself becomes merely a skeleton and cannot function in the constructive way that it has so far.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, who is unable to be present. I have learned
528
a great deal from this important debate. We hope that the Minister will clear up a number of points. Perhaps it will be possible to have a further debate at a later date after having listened to the information that we shall receive from the Minister.
As my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington pointed out, in a world of multinational companies, with goods arriving from many countries, protection of the public cannot be achieved cheaply. Noble Lords who have spoken have an expert knowledge of the British Standards Institution. I used to be more familiar with that body; in the engineering industry its standards were considered the absolute bible. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has far more up-to-date knowledge on the subject than I have.
What is the standing of the BSI in Europe today? Does it have the same standing as before, or has there been a reduction in standing because of engineering and other advances made in other countries? Does the old British standard still have a high recognition of quality?
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made an interesting point when he said that there is a decision to he made on this question which bedevils much of modern business. Is the BSI a standards institution or should it operate as a plc? That is one of the issues that we should discuss with great care.
I have received information from the Consumers' Association. It has serious concerns about the function of BS 5750. That body accepts that product standards should be a positive guide to safety and specific performance rather than "quality", which is a subjective term. Introducing subjective criteria to standards is potentially damaging. In the role of the Consumers' Association as a testing organisation, it is difficult to identify the practical contribution of BS 5750 to product quality because the standard relates only to the quality of the systems employed by a company. That is not necessarily an indication of the quality of the product. There may be a system, but what are the checks which follow from that? Such a judgment is further hampered by there being no requirement for certification bodies to be registered with the National Accreditation Council for Certification Bodies nor any apparent uniformity among certification bodies as to the interpretation of certain aspects of the certification process. For example, there would appear to be no agreement on what proportion of a company has to pass the assessment before it can advertise itself as a BS 5750 company. That issue will need clarification from the Minister. I am not being critical of the Minister; I am seeking information.
There is also worry about the use by some companies of the certification in their advertising materials. Some imply that the standard is a mark of product safety or performance. That is not helped by the confusion created by the use of "BS" in the standard—for many years it has been associated with safety and performance of products—and the use of a symbol similar to the Kitemark to denote a "BSI registered firm", meaning that it is certified to the BS 5750 standard by BSI.
Other points may appear to noble Lords to be a little distant from the debate. I refer to the question of financing consumer associations and the BSI. How do

529
British standards equate with those in Europe? Are we being over-protective? The journal of the Consumers' Association of December 1993 raises the question of seat-belts on vehicles, an issue which is tragically current. Is there a European standard? I understand that the European Community has been slow to act as a result of disagreement among member states. Yet last year 16 passengers were killed in the UK alone in bus and coach accidents. Ten days ago there was the tragedy involving a school coach in which no seat belts were fitted. These points may seem small until a tragedy occurs. They then become front page news in our national newspapers and perhaps become over-sensationalised.
The subject of children's high chairs has been raised. The British standard is quite different from the European standard. Babies and young children are particularly vulnerable to accidents. It is especially important that they are adequately protected. Yet the new European proposals on high-chair safety will mean that they are left in greater danger because some of the UK's stringent rules will be replaced by much weaker safeguards.
Under the current draft European regulations for many types of gardening tools, in particular power tools, some European standards are higher than ours. However, I understand that others are much below the standards that we hope to attain. An important standard relates to garden hedge shears, where the stopping time for blades after the power is cut is far too long; they could still inflict damage.
We should consider such issues with considerable care. We recognise that such standards cost the Government and/or industry money. When one considers the end product, with the security that such standards can give when items are made to the standards of the British Standards Institution, the amounts are not so large that we should be unwilling to pay them.
I hope that the Government will clear up some of the points made by noble Lords who are far better versed in the subject than I am. Listening to the debate, I have become interested in some of the points raised. I hope that the subject will raise interest outside this House.
5.29 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, for giving us the opportunity of discussing this important subject today.
The British Standards Institution—commonly known as BSI —is an independent and unique body and it is not part of Government. Its prime purpose is to facilitate the preparation of standards and there are now more than 12,000 British Standards. It is a non-profit distributing organisation, formed by subscribing members and committee members, and was incorporporated by Royal Charter in 1929. There are more than 29,000 subscribing members of BSI, and over 26,000 individuals contribute to the work of over 3,000 committees, of which about 1,000 may be active at any one time. It provides the gateway for United Kingdom representation in European and international standards organisations, and I believe it is important to address
530
those points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that the BSI is the United Kingdom's main representation on the determination of European and international standards.
BSI has the role of facilitating the preparation of standards. As the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, stressed, to enable it to perform that role it has to rely on the considerable and sustained effort of the vast number of volunteers from industry and elsewhere who give their time and the resources of their companies and trade associations to serving on committees both in this country and overseas. We are well-served in this country, and I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the army of volunteers who play such a vital role in ensuring that suitable and appropriate standards are produced.
Standards are in essence simply technical descriptions of what things are, how to do things or how to make things. Standards are developed by their prospective users and others with an interest on a voluntary part-time basis. The preparation of appropriate standards is therefore very much a partnership between BSI on the one hand and industry and other interested bodies on the other.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, both raised the point that one standard which has attracted particular comment recently is the standard for quality management systems, BS 5750, which was drawn up by industry and published as a British standard by BSI in 1979. When used in appropriate circumstances and for the correct reasons, BS 5750 is a useful and progressive step towards quality. Indeed, it was a world first for the United Kingdom and it has become a successful international standard. Certification of United Kingdom firms has had a beneficial impact on the overall quality process.
Indeed, feedback from businesses of all sizes that have adopted BS 5750 indicates that the cost-benefits of improved internal efficiency and of not having continually to meet differing quality requirements generally more than compensates for the initial costs.
The Government are aware, however, of anxieties about the accessibility of the standard and the need for care in implementation, as has been raised by your Lordships this evening, particularly in the case of smaller businesses. The Government, BSI and the certification bodies themselves are treating those worries seriously. BSI has set up a policy committee for small businesses whose first priority task has been to consider those matters and to recommend ways in which the benefits of BS 5750 can be made as accessible and attainable as possible to all organisations, irrespective of size.
In addition, the National Accreditation Council for Certification Bodies, in conjunction with the Association of British Certification Bodies, has set up a working party to consider problems identified by small firms. The two groups have been working closely together and the Government will look closely at the recommendations of both committees, when they are available, to determine whether action is required on our part.

531
Since 1982, BSI's relationship with the Government has been governed by a memorandum of understanding, drawn up following the White Paper: Standards, Quality and International Competitiveness. BSI is recognised as the national standards body and for some years now the Government have supported its standards writing operations with a grant-in-aid. However, the main direct funding for BSI's standards activities comes from the subscriptions paid by its members and the sales of standards and other information services provided by the organisation.
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth raised the point that BSI also has separate divisions for testing and certification activities which operate in a commercial environment. Those activities receive no government funding and are not subsidised in any way by BSI's standards-writing activities. Although the Government are not responsible for the corporate structure of BSI as a Royal Charter body, we take note of the anxieties expressed on the issue.
The Government recognise the importance of the work of standards writing and its contribution to the maintenance and improvement of competitiveness. It is for that reason that we are providing substantial funds towards the preparation of standards. For 1993–94 the Government are contributing a grant-in-aid of £4.5 million to the income of BSI standards, and a further £2.8 million in support for standards-making purposes.
As raised by many noble Lords in the debate this evening, the grant-in-aid has declined as a proportion of total income to about 15 per cent., as sales income and subscriptions have grown. The Government are only one contributor among many to BSI and there may be more effective ways of channelling public funds into the overall process of preparing standards. As I mentioned, the Government have decided as part of their review to look at the arrangements for funding. To address the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, I should add that the income which BSI received from its quality assurance businesses has grown significantly. But in deciding upon the future arrangements for government funding, we shall be taking careful note of the view that it would be inappropriate to use this as a support for the standards-making activities.
As I have mentioned, industry is the largest contributor to the preparation of standards, both directly to the income of BSI through subscriptions and purchases of standards and related services, and through the very important provision of committee members. That is only right, as industry is the prime beneficiary of standards. The contribution of industry cannot be underestimated and we are happy to acknowledge that.
As has been stated, much has changed since the Government's memorandum of understanding with BSI in 1982. First, the standards published by BSI are now predominantly European and international; secondly, BSI's income from its quality assurance and testing businesses is now substantial. In 1982, BSI's work predominantly related to national standards work; by 1987 this had fallen to just below 50 per cent.; but today it is down to about 15 per cent. That trend is expected
532
to continue. Thus, about 85 per cent. of the work of BSI is directed in support of European and other international standards work.
To address further points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, on his anxiety about British standards being overtaken by European and international standards, it is worth adding that the UK participates in the European standards-writing committees, as well as the EC Council decisions and has every opportunity to ensure that the standards are not disadvantageous to industrial interests, particularly within the UK.
It is widely recognised that differing national standards can impede the free movement of goods between member states. The development of common European standards has consequently become an essential part of the removal of technical barriers to trade. Common standards throughout Europe will help our industry to compete more effectively. They will make it easier to sell products in other European markets and will reduce costs, since. it will be necessary to manufacture to only one agreed standard rather than numerous different national standards.
The changing role of BSI in the world of standards-making made it appropriate that the Government should review the contribution they make to the process and to initiate a wider debate on the value of standards. In June this year, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade announced a consultation exercise on future United Kingdom resourcing of the preparation of standards.
The review sought views on the way in which standards should be prepared in the United Kingdom, Europe and internationally; the type of standards needed to enhance competitiveness; the link between quality systems standards, product standards and quality; and the need for government funding and the form that such funding should take.
We invited comments from a wide range of industry and other interested parties. As a result, the Government have received over 400 responses to the consultation from a wide range of companies—from blue chip companies to small and medium-sized ones; from trade and professional associations; and from other interested bodies and individuals. The overwhelming message from the responses was one of support for the continued role of BSI as the national standards body. The funding which government provide to BSI was seen by many as important in maintaining BSI's independence, as well as being a necessary recognition of the contribution of standards to the wider public interest. Those views will of course be taken into account when we consider whether, how and to what extent the Government should make a financial contribution in the future.
While supporting BSI's continued role, industry responses in particular have provided some useful insights into areas where BSI can further improve its service to its members. Industry has commented that economic pressures clearly require a sharper focus on the management of programmes and on decisions about priorities and resource planning by BSI and by the European and international standards organisations. That also suggests a need to target Financial support—especially perhaps towards standards required

533
for the single market—and a possible need for more direct support to industrial participants in overseas committees. Indeed, it is only right to acknowledge that BSI constantly keeps under review the scope to enhance its efficiency. Furthermore, it is already taking steps to improve its efficiency and its service to its members. It is undertaking a major reorganisation of its internal management, as described by my noble friend Lord Lucas, with the prime aim of ensuring that it can provide an efficient and effective service to represent the needs of the United Kingdom in negotiations towards European and other international standards. As part of that reorganisation it is also streamlining the higher level committee structure better to enable it to deliver the kind of programme management which industry and others expect.
We are aware that some concern has been expressed about the effect of these changes and whether they indicate an organisation which, rather than consulting its members, is becoming more centralised. However, that is not BSI's intention and the new committee structure is intended to facilitate and improve real and effective input from industry and others to the programme management and priority setting which are so essential. The department naturally supports those aims and sees no reason why BSI's organisational changes should not be a significant step forward.
All organisations need to adapt to changing demands. I should like to take this opportunity to encourage industry and others to work with BSI to ensure that, as the organisation moves into the 21st century, it is well equipped to meet the challenges ahead.
The Government are now considering carefully the results of their consultation and discussions with BSI. One area for particular attention will be to ensure that there is as much input as possible from industry when decisions are made on priorities and resources, including the use of any future government funds. We shall of course announce our conclusions as soon as possible.
Finally, may I say that BSI is a national asset of which we can rightly be proud. It is already recognised
534
as a world leader among national standards-making bodies, and many other countries around the world consult it for its expertise. To maintain that position it must constantly be ready to adapt and develop. By managing change well it can enjoy continuing success and contribute significant benefits to the wealth of the nation. It is a key component in the United Kingdom's competitiveness.
Like many organisations and businesses, BSI has had to look long and hard at its activities and how best it can deliver the needs of its members and the country as a whole. We are confident that it is rising to the challenge of providing an efficient and cost-effective service which can best meet the needs of industry and others. With the continued assistance and good will of industry in particular it will continue to have the resources to carry out its important role of ensuring that the appropriate standards which are required in today's world are available.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, will he be kind enough to try to give some more accurate information on the Government's statement on the result of the consultations? He very properly placed importance, as I did, on that consultation, and we are grateful for the information that he has given. But he said that he would give us the information on the Government's decision "as soon as possible". Can he tell us whether that is likely to be in one month, two months or six months, and also in what form the Government's decision and findings will be made known to the House?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments, but I cannot go any further to satisfy him than to say that we shall announce our conclusions as soon as possible. I do not believe that I can be any more specific either about the form that the publication of those conclusions will take or about the timing.
House adjourned at a quarter before six o'clock.