Lords Sitting of 25 July 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Health Education Authority: Future
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to announce their decisions on the future of the Health Education Authority.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the Government's decision will be announced once we have completed our consideration of the report of the review of the Health Education Authority carried out by Mr. John Lee and his team.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that while the delay continues much of the work of the Health Education Authority is being paralysed? I know that there are several views in the House about the nature of the work of the authority. However, does the Minister agree that it is very unfortunate that while the report remains unpublished, many very well-established organisations—for example, the Family Planning Association—are having great difficulty continuing their very important public work? Surely it is time for some kind of decision to be taken.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we want to reach a decision as soon as possible. In the meantime, the Health Education Authority is taking forward The Health of the Nation strategy. The authority is represented on all the key area working groups and task forces and much of its activity is linked to the strategy. For example, it is running a national public education campaign on skin cancer and is taking the lead in the implementation of Health at Work in the NHS programme on behalf of the NHS executive.
Lord Rea: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Health Education Authority spends some £5 million to £6 million a year persuading people not to smoke and helping smokers to give up the habit, thus helping to achieve the aims stated by the Government in their White Paper The Health of the Nation? Would that task not be much easier if considerably more than 10 times that amount were not being spent by the tobacco industry with precisely the opposite aim in view, namely to attract people to smoking? At the next parliamentary opportunity, will the Government allow their Back-Benchers a free vote on the question of banning tobacco advertising?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the House examined that subject in great detail during consideration of the criminal justice Bill. Noble Lords
516
made their views quite plain. The Government have set aside £12 million for a campaign to reduce smoking over the next three years.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, whatever happens to the Health Education Authority, will the Minister encourage better co-operation and communication with voluntary bodies, some of which are concerned that their views have not been taken into consideration?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. We have to work with voluntary organisations and other non-governmental organisations. Indeed, the Health Education Authority has tried to do that. It is a difficult area. We would ensure that, whatever the future holds, any new organisation with responsibility for promoting health and preventing disease follows that line.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Health Education Authority has had great success in a very wide range of areas: for instance, in bringing to public notice the risks of sunbathing; in persuading parents to get their children immunised against all the childhood diseases; in getting information to the public about the new HIV vaccine so that 92 per cent. of new-born babies have that vaccine within six weeks; and in publishing the best book on pregnancy available, possessed by eight out of 10 new mothers?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. I take this opportunity of thanking her and other non-executive members of the HEA for the work that they do. The HEA has had some notable successes. My noble friend has outlined some of them.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister accept that we welcome the fact that the report is to be published? Will it be published during, or after, the Recess? Does she recall that the whole issue in relation to the HEA arose as the result of the publication of an alleged sex education booklet? A very similar publication is being advertised as "the book the Government tried to ban." Will those matters be dealt with in the report?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, over the past fortnight I have been aware of the issues surrounding job insecurity. I would wish that the HEA staff have their futures resolved as soon as possible. We shall wish to make an announcement as quickly as we can. I appreciate the implications of doing so during the Recess. However, if the right decision is to go ahead, we would want to do so. As to the sex material issued with the support of the HEA, we have had some very long and detailed debates on those issues. I do not wish to go into them again today.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that what she has said in answer to all the questions is hardly what one would call a ringing

517
endorsement of confidence in the HEA? If the Government intend to abolish the authority, why do they not just say so?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we review all organisations within the National Health Service from time to time. This organisation has been reviewed. The results of that review will be made known to your Lordships as soon as possible.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, if change is contemplated in the future of the HEA, will the Minister consider consultation with all the health service organisations with which she has good relations at the moment?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot help the noble Lord by telling him exactly what is in the report. All I can say is that the review has been undertaken and that we shall make the results known as soon as possible.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many people believe that the Health Education Authority has been far too busy lecturing and hectoring people over a long period of time and at great expense? If the authority is retained, will she ensure that its members are not politically correct "yes" men and women but people who are prepared to challenge some of the rubbish that it puts out?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there has been concern, I believe, that on some controversial publications the authority was not consulted. That is what prompted the action taken by Ministers in withdrawing The Pocket Guide to Sex.

Lloyd's
2.39 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will replace the system of self-regulation at Lloyd's with one of independent supervision.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the Government have no plans to intervene in the market to change the regulatory arrangements which were approved by Parliament in 1982 by private Bill procedure. Lloyd's new management has overhauled its self-regulation arrangements within that legal framework and the Government consider this to be the best way forward for the regulation of the Lloyd's market.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I did not table this Question as a plea on behalf of wounded Names. It is an attempt to explore the Government's mind as to what will be the likely impact on the City of London and on the revenue. Also, if he can go so far, can the
518
Minister give a clue as to the Government's thinking on the effect of decisions in the American courts upon the insurance industry, which could be catastrophic?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend asked me a number of questions. With regard to the general issue, in the UK insurance industry as a whole overseas receipts over the past 10 years are very positive despite the difficulties that the Lloyd's insurance market in particular has had not only in this country but also abroad, as my noble friend rightly pointed out. The problem is that insurers are legally bound to pay claims which the courts—including the courts in the United States—have determined to be valid. Any insurer who repudiates such claims would quickly find that it had no customers, apart from being held in contempt of court. It is a difficult issue. But, looked at in the round, the whole insurance industry of the United Kingdom is still a positive asset and a great overseas earner.
Lord Desai: My Lords, does the Minister agree that self-regulation, which failed in the personal investment sector, has rightly been put by the Government to autonomous supervision in the PIA? Does he feel that it is time that the same logic applied to the Lloyd's business as well? Should not we abandon self-regulation and have some proper supervision?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Neill Committee examined whether the protection given to names was comparable with that envisaged under, say, the Financial Services Act. Recommendations were made to bring the protection up to the standard expected. Lloyd's has implemented every recommendation addressed to it. There is a considerable difference between investment and insurance. Undoubtedly, anyone who goes into insurance without appreciating that it is a risky business has been badly advised. After all, that is why we insure, even if it is against rain on the school fete day.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that the one element of regulation for which the Government are still responsible in respect of Lloyd's is determining whether it is solvent? Is he aware that that exercise is about to be carried out next month? In view of the widespread suspicions and doubts that exist, will he assure the House that the Department of Trade and Industry will take some independent financial advice in determining whether Lloyd's is solvent rather than relying on advice from Lloyd's itself? Furthermore, given that my noble friend has just told us what a good thing the insurance industry has been over the years, is he aware that over the three years from 1991–92 to 1993–94, the taxpayer has had to pay back £876 million of tax revenue against Lloyd's losses? Does he appreciate that for the previous nine years—it is not just a matter of a short time—the net tax deficit is £185 million? Does he accept that there is therefore a rather wider interest in this Question than just for members of Lloyd's and the DTI?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with regard to the latter part of my noble friend's question, I drew attention to the total insurance market in the

519
United Kingdom, whereas he has drawn attention to the specific problems of Lloyd's. Undoubtedly, over the past few years, for a variety of reasons, especially in the United States, claims have been considerable. There have been a number of natural disasters as well. Many people have claimed back tax on their losses. But, overall, as I said, the United Kingdom still greatly benefits from insurance both at home and abroad.
As for the first part of my noble friend's question, I can assure him that the Department of Trade and Industry will look carefully at the report, which I understand will be published next month. We have no reason to believe that Lloyd's is insolvent. It continues to pay all valid claims. But the report which is out next month will be looked at carefully.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that in retrospect it would have been far better if the Government had taken the advice of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel in the course of the passage of the Financial Services Bill?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not sure that the Government would always be wise to take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. Occasionally, perhaps they might do so, but not necessarily always. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, did not tell me what that advice was. Perhaps I may remind him of the Answer I gave some moments ago about the Financial Services Act. We believe that the Financial Services Act is about investment whereas the business of Lloyd's is about insurance. As I explained, that carries a considerable element of risk.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware so far as Lloyd's is concerned—I speak as one of the recent walking wounded—that Lloyd's has tradition and experience behind it? Do not the people who join it know perfectly well the commitments that they are taking on when they do so? Will he accept that, from my experience in other spheres, I cannot see that central control could be anything like as good as internal control by the people who know what Lloyd's is all about?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for underlining the point that those people who become names at Lloyd's are very well aware of the fact that they are entering a risk business from which, naturally, they hope to make profits but on which occasionally—in this case unfortunately it has happened over the past three years—they make losses.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the trouble with the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is that it would be tantamount to shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted with its saddlebags stuffed full of gold bullion?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not sure that I would go quite so far as the noble Lord. Certainly, we believe that the changes which have taken
520
place in recent years to improve the regulatory system at Lloyd's will mean that the situations which occurred in the early and mid-1980s will not occur again.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree with me that the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, sought to ensure the future of those activities which at the moment are conducted under the Lloyd's umbrella and that it was not to look at the past of those names who may or may not have lost money? The Government may or may not have been wise not to accept my advice, but does the noble Lord appreciate that Lloyd's is a society and not a trading organisation? Will he accept that it is a society of members who may or may not trade under the Lloyd's umbrella? Given the mess—we would all agree that there has been a mess, I think—would it be better for the Government even now to consider whether Lloyd's, as a society, is right for the next century to protect all the activities which, as the noble Lord and I agree, are important for the financial services and economy of the country; or does he fuel that Lloyd's is an anachronism, in which case do the Government have long-term plans to put the insurance activities of Lloyd's on a proper basis?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I explained some moments ago, we believe that it is up to Lloyd's to maintain and improve the standards of its regulatory systems. It has recently established separate regulatory and market boards of the council. As I mentioned earlier, the recommendations of the Neill Committee in 1986 and 1987 to bring protection up to the standards expected have been implemented.
The Earl of Harrowby: My Lords, will the Minister accept that I do not agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said? Does he agree that the most useful thing that he could do at the moment would be to support Lloyd's in trying to curb the excesses of the American courts? Is not that the vital short-term issue?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the problem of the huge settlements being awarded in American courts goes a good deal wider than being just a problem for Lloyd's itself. The whole insurance industry both in this country and in America is gravely concerned about those excessive awards. I believe that they are a very real problem. The insurance industry as a whole will simply have to look to the courts in America to be perhaps more realistic.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact that, whatever changes in regime there may be, it is only fair to admit that those who are at present in charge of Lloyd's affairs are doing their very best and doing a great deal better than any of their predecessors?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. It underlines the point I was trying to make earlier that in fact the position has greatly improved since the early 1980s, when many of the problems that we are discussing arose.

National Health Service
2.50 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will set up a Royal Commission to investigate the operation of the National Health Service.
Baroness Cumberlege: No, my Lords.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, that Answer is disappointing. Is the noble Baroness aware that the National Health Service is under severe criticism not only from the doctors and nurses, but also from the many others who work in the service including those dentists who still remain within it? Is she further aware that there has been criticism from the health service ombudsman; and even Anatole Kaletsky does not believe that the Government are right in operating a market system within the National Health Service? Does not the noble Baroness accept that the people of this country are confused? They deserve a full-scale inquiry whether by the means I suggest or any other means to ensure that they can be confident that the National Health Service is being run properly.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, one must see from where the criticism arises. It is interesting to note that the recent OECD economic survey said that recent national attitude surveys suggest some increase in satisfaction with the way in which the NHS is run, both among recent users of the service and among the population as a whole. The same surveys also point to a decline in dissatisfaction with specific aspects of NHS hospital services since the late 1980s. The point of a Royal Commission is that it must deal with specific problems. The government reforms to the National Health Service are not a problem; they are a success.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as the noble Baroness does not feel that such a Royal Commission would be useful, will the Government consider setting up a commission with a much wider remit to look at the disturbing difference in health and mortality between the various social classes? The most under-privileged experience the worst health and make the most impact on the National Health Service. Since the Black Report of 1980, information has steadily accumulated which reveals the primary importance of this great and increasing difference between the health in different social classes in this country.
Baroness Cumberlege: No, my Lords.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the problem with the health service is the unlimited demand of improving medical science? Not only in this country but also throughout the world there are only limited resources available.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. Every year we treat more and more patients and we know that more and more patients want
522
treatment as the techniques develop that enable us to do the things that we would not have dreamt of doing 10 or 20 years ago.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that one matter into which a Royal Commission could look is the question of research? Is she further aware that when, last Thursday, I asked her about the fact that five distinguished genetic researchers were leaving this country to go abroad because of the troubles and difficulties they were experiencing with the NHS, the noble Baroness—I do not blame her because the question was at short notice—gave the impression that they were leaving to go to other jobs and that it was in the order of things for such distinguished people to move about the world? Has the noble Baroness seen the fuller report in The Times of the following day which said:
"Genetic researcher blames reforms for NHS exodus"?
Another distinguished professor said,
"What the Government is doing to the NHS is suicidal … They are repudiating its research base".
Will the noble Baroness now put the matter right?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, two reviews are being conducted. One has been published and that was carried out particularly for the postgraduate special health authorities of London. It was chaired by Sir Michael Thompson and recommended a programme for research to support successor NHS trusts—that is, successors to the special health authorities—of £200 million a year. Another much wider review is taking place under the chairmanship of Professor Cutler and that will be published in due course.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in the light of the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will the noble Baroness look at the debates on the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and on the Tomlinson Report? Will she take note that the view was then expressed that concentration on hospitals as units for "teaching patients" was leading to ignoring their interest as centres for teaching and research? Does the Minister feel that those fears were justified?
Baroness Cumberlege: No, my Lords.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, is it not clear from the exchanges this afternoon that the force of my noble friend's Question is exactly right? We need a national inquiry into what is happening in the health service. There are clearly many varied views on the matter. Perhaps I may briefly quote from a leading academic, who said:
"What is required is a thorough policy audit designed to evaluate the effects of the reforms on the main objectives of the NHS: efficiency, effectiveness, equity, comprehensiveness, acceptability".
That is surely what we need.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the reforms are very new; they are just getting under way. Already we are seeing some interesting results from those reforms. Trust hospitals are treating more patients than others. They are leading the way. GP fund holders have been praised by many organisations, including the OECD. We are seeing the health of the nation improved through

523
The Health of the Nation strategy. It would be a waste of time and money to review the reforms when we are already seeing such progress being made.

Water Companies: Consumer Protection
2.58 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further action they propose to protect the consumer from possible exploitation by privatised water companies.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the Government consider that the existing system of regulation already provides effective protection for the consumer. The Director General of Water Services has a statutory duty to protect the interests of water and sewerage customers in respect of both charges and quality of service.
Lord Jay: My Lords, when the Government handed over the water boards to the French companies, did they expect private monopolies to behave other than as private monopolies always do? Since privatisation bills to the domestic consumer have risen by over 60 per cent.; salaries of top executives in these companies have risen by 300 or 400 per cent.; share prices have risen by 99 per cent.; and on top of all that dividends have risen by 63 per cent. Can the Minister explain how that huge increase in dividends can help us towards de-pollution and cleaner water?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, it is a complex problem. In what is considered to be practically a monopoly we put in a director to overlook the situation. Mr. Byatt has been reviewing the values of "K" for the next 10 years after a period of five years since privatisation. It is important to realise that tremendous investment was needed which had been neglected by numerous governments for decades.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I welcome the noble Viscount to his new job and congratulate him on his appointment. In doing so, may I ask whether he is aware that since privatisation there has been a 48 per cent. increase in domestic disconnections, a 67 per cent. increase in consumers' bills, a 125 per cent. increase in water companies' profits and a 133 per cent. increase in the pay of chairmen of water companies? Does he approve of those figures?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord is kind to welcome me to the Dispatch Box, but then he seeks to destroy my case. I can answer only by saying that enormous investment was needed because many people are interested in the environmental improvements required. Although people do not like the drinking water and bathing water directives, they like drinking water and bathing water to be clean. Those things have to be paid for. The companies must be
524
profitable if they are to raise the funds, which they did originally on a prospectus to undertake investment in the improvements which the customers demand from them.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that, whereas consumers of all the other privatised utilities have actually benefited from better service and better value since privatisation, that is not the case with the water companies and that the under-regulation, or the apparent under-regulation, is bordering almost on the outrageous? Will my noble friend assure me that there is no complacency about that?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend should be aware that the director general, Mr. Byatt, has undertaken a periodic review after five years, rather than the review which was set in place on privatisation which would only have taken place after 10 years, because he is committed to making certain that the customer has; a fair deal. He is there to promote efficiency and economy. It is with that in mind that he is going to announce in a very short time his new annual price limits and I think that people may be pleased by the results.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does the Minister agree—
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I think that perhaps we have reached our time.

University of London Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee Report
3.2 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move that the third report from the Select Committee be agreed to.
It might be helpful to the House if I were to say a few words in explanation of this brief report. This will be the second year in which the House has published an annual report and accounts. Last year's report was welcomed for its comprehensive account of the work of the House, and the financial details were found useful in evaluating how we are striving, successfully I believe, to give value for money. This year's report and accounts will be found to be a worthwhile improvement on last year's pioneering effort and I hope that all Members of the House will be glad to receive a copy when it is distributed shortly before the House resumes in October.
The Parliamentary Data and Video Network has been approved by the House of Commons as well as the Offices Committee and the relevant committees and sub-committees of this House. The network will supply a variety of information services; for example, POLIS— the parliamentary on-line information system—the text of Hansard and many other items of data. In addition there is what is known as the "clean feed". Some of

525
your Lordships may find this a rather curious if not misleading expression so I hope I may be forgiven by those who do know if I explain briefly what is involved.
It has become possible with the televising of Parliament to transmit the proceedings of each House live and unedited by means of clean television feed to all parts of the parliamentary estate as well as to various media and other outlets. Thus it will be possible for your Lordships to watch on television in your offices or other locations the proceedings of the House as they take place. By a large majority the Offices Committee endorsed the provision of clean feed as part of the network, although I have to say that some fears were expressed that the clean feed might reduce attendance in the Chamber and cause inconvenience to those who share offices.
A considerable amount of work to improve access for disabled persons will include the provision of ramps and handrails at important points. The other items of the report are useful measures which will improve facilities and the level of service to your Lordships.
Moved, That the third report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 73).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. Annual Report and Accounts
The Committee has considered and approved a draft Annual Report and Accounts in respect of the financial year 1993–94. The Report and Accounts will be published and circulated in October.
2. Parliamentary Data and Video Network
The Committee has approved the creation of a Parliamentary Data and Video Network (PDVN), and has agreed that the television "clean feed" of proceedings in the Chamber should be provided on the Network, as and when cabling permits.
3. Access and facilities for disabled persons
The Committee has approved a programme of works to improve access and facilities for disabled persons.
4. Peers' Cloakroom
The Committee has agreed to proposals for refurbishment in and around the Peers' Cloakroom which will take place during the summer recess 1994.
5. House of Lords Mail Room
The Committee has agreed to proposals to enlarge and reorganise the House of Lords Mail Room in order to improve efficiency and quality of service. As a consequence, certain telephone booths will be removed; but replacement telephones will be located nearby.
6. Annual Report on Security
The Committee has considered the Head of Security's annual report for 1993–94 and has taken note with approval of measures to improve efficiency and economy.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I should like to thank the Lord Chairman and the committee for the work which has been put into this report and to say that I was surprised when in discussing the clean feed the Lord Chairman said "by a large majority". I thought that the committee was an example to us all of smooth, harmonious, united working and I am sure that that is a very temporary aberration in the sagacity which is distilled. I have good news for the Lord Chairman because I have been a little concerned about the ugly rumour which I have heard in the House that these
526
reports are always presented at the end of the Session in order to minimise discussion and so that they can be virtually smuggled through. I am going to help the Lord Chairman rebut that by plotting out the dates of all these reports over the past few years and their presentation. I shall then be able to show the House that there is absolutely nothing in the rumour.
I wish to make a few points about the latter part of the report. In paragraph 4, on the Peers' Cloakroom, the report states:
"The Committee has agreed to proposals for refurbishment",.
Whose proposals are they? I have to tell your Lordships that I am used to living in fairly reasonable accommodation and when I go around the cloakroom I really cannot see what is wrong with it and what requires to be done. I should like to know just who has proposed that it be refurbished and also—I almost apologise for mentioning this but I am one of those old fashioned people who is concerned about the spending of public money—what is the estimated cost of the refurbishment.
Similarly, in paragraph 5, on the House of Lords Mail Room, the report states:
"The Committee has agreed to proposals to enlarge and reorganise the House of Lords Mail Room in order to improve efficiency and quality of service".
Again I should like to know whose proposals these are and what is the projected cost. I should also like to say that when we talk about improving efficiency and quality of service I hope that there is no implicit criticism of the staff here because I also find the staff most helpful and anxious to oblige in every respect. So I hope that the Lord Chairman will assure us on those points.
With regard to paragraph 6, on security, I do not think it is helpful in this House ever to go into detail about matters of security—they should be pursued in other ways. However, I should like to mention one matter because it is one of absolute public knowledge. I refer to the turnstiles which were installed at the entrance to the Palace from Westminster tube station. I should like to know what the initial cost was. As Members will know, they broke down within weeks of being installed and I was informed that the breakdown was due to the wearing out of an essential part. What kind of design was this? Did the manufacturers bear the cost of repairing it? Noble Lords will know that there was a further breakdown. Just what kind of cost is being borne here? What are the manufacturers carrying themselves? How much longer will we have to put up with the inefficiency there? I very much doubt, in terms of security, whether the turnstiles are an improvement.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, on one point. I refer to the clean feed. I would find it somewhat surprising if in this building, where those who come here fairly frequently may find that they are in a room with four or five other people, there were not some method of consideration as to whether clean feed is desired. I hope that the Lord Chairman will be able to say to us that before he proceeds with clean feed he will ascertain from all the Members of your Lordships' House who come here

527
regularly whether they desire clean feed. It may be that the majority of the Offices Committee desires it. Indeed, if everyone had a single room, it would be highly desirable. But it will have the effect—there is no argument about it: one has seen it in the other place— of reducing the attendance in the Chamber. Secondly, it will be the source of great annoyance to perhaps a majority of people in one room when two of their colleagues want it on and three of them do not. Are they meant to take a vote each time on a majority? I ask the Lord Chairman to have a further look at this matter before it is foisted on the House.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I agree with the previous speakers in what they say about clean feed. I voiced those objections at the committee of which I am a member. I assure my noble friend Lord Cocks that usually votes are not taken at these meetings, but I believe that a general acceptance bar one was indicated. There is no question but that clean feed could cause great problems because we in this House, unlike most Members of another place, have to endure slum conditions. I call them "slum conditions" advisedly because the description applies only to those who have a room at all. In many cases they are slum conditions. There are six or sometimes seven people sharing a room. There is one cabinet. Even Front Benchers are working in cramped conditions. On top of that, to have foisted on them a decision-making process as to whether we should have clean feed to see what is going on in your Lordships' House is adding insult to injury. Also, it may very well persuade some Members of your Lordships' House, who would otherwise be in the Chamber listening to the debate or who perhaps suddenly wished to take part in it, not to do so.
Although the recommendation in the committee report is that the clean feed proposition should go ahead, I still believe that there is time to reconsider. I understand that it will be many months or years before the system is universally available throughout your Lordships' House. I hope that noble Lords who feel concerned about the matter will voice that concern and that the committee will be able to have another look at it before it is finally inflicted on your Lordships.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, perhaps I may first deal with points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, other than that of the clean feed, a subject which ran through other interventions. As regards timing, the noble Lord seems to have the deepest suspicion that we have brought forward the report as we are about to break for the Summer Recess. The timing of the report is dictated entirely by the timing of the financial year, which concludes at the end of March. The auditors then move in; finally they get close to producing their report. It has not yet been cleared in every instance. That is why the report cannot be published with the accounts this day. That will happen within the next few days. The accounts will be distributed to your Lordships. The noble Lord was rather suggesting that there is something sneaky about the timing of the event; there is nothing in that.
528
The cloakroom and its maintenance are part and parcel of a 10-year rolling programme. Under the auspices of the Property Services Agency the Palace of Westminster was seriously neglected. We have am accumulation of work which urgently needs to be done. All the sub-committees have agreed that the faster we get on with the work the cheaper it will probably turn out than if we postpone it. There is maintenance to be done that is not necessarily visible to the naked eye. It has to be carried out at some stage. The work to be done this year in the cloakroom is the cleaning and repointing of the stone. There is need for rewiring; the engineering services, in line with conservation policy, require attention. There is also the question of improved lighting and essential emergency lighting in the part of the building which leads to Chancellor's Court. A certain amount of duct casing and panelling needs to be attended to. The total cost will be in the neighbourhood of £46,000.
The noble Lord asked about the Westminster subway. That presented a considerable problem which was not entirely due to the equipment manufacturers, but due largely to the fact that the cards we all carry do not always operate efficiently. The total cost of the original contract was £133,000, the share of this House was £53,000. As the noble Lord is perhaps aware, we split a joint venture such as this 60:40 with another place.
The reorganisation of the mail room is due to a fact of which I believe every single Peer in this House is aware; namely, that the quantity of mail which descends on us all has increased enormously over recent years. Physically, the room is unable to cope with the volume of mail. Therefore, reluctantly, we have to lose the telephone boxes which are immediately adjacent to it. However, two more boxes are to be provided immediately opposite. As the result of a survey it was shown that the three boxes on the other side of the Peers' Lobby are frequently not fully used.
I believe that that deals with the points which the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, raised other than the matter of the clean feed. As the other noble Lords, Lord Stoddart of Swindon and the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, have mentioned, that was a matter which concerned all the sub-committees and the Offices Committee when brought to it. There is no question that clean feed could have the effect of reducing the need for our presence in the Chamber. But the parliamentary data and video network, as everyone agrees, should be installed. It would be putting our thumb in the dyke if we were to decline to add clean feed to that network. It is to be available. Another place has decided it wants it; therefore it is to be supplied there. It would be standing in the way of progress if we were to decline to have it available to us.
The second point raised by the two noble Lords concerns those—practically all of us—who share rooms. It would be an added inconvenience if some want to watch it and others do not. That applies to the parliamentary data and video network which will contain all sorts of services, some of direct use to the work we all do in the House, but also other services such as the broadcasting channels. Certain of your Lordships may occasionally wish to find out what is

529
going on at Turnberry or Goodwood or some other such place —briefly of course—before reverting to your duties. Presumably, it will be a matter to be decided by those who share the room. I feel certain that your Lordships will find a way forward without too much trouble. I hope that I have dealt with the questions which have been raised.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Union (Accessions) Bill
3.17 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill now be read a second time. I am introducing the Bill today in the absence of my noble friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. My noble friend Lady Chalker regrets that she is unable to attend. She is at present visiting Uganda and hoping also to go to Rwanda. I hope that the House will understand her absence and will accept me in her place.
The Bill follows from the treaty of accession between the EU and Norway, Austria, Finland and Sweden which was signed in Corfu a month ago. Its purpose is to ensure that Britain is able to honour the obligations given in that treaty. Its passage is essential if we are to ratify the accession treaty and allow those four countries to accede to the European Union.
The Bill gives effect to the treaty in UK law by adding it to the list of Community treaties in Section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. In addition, Clause 2 of the Bill approves the accession treaty for the purposes of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978. That is necessary because the treaty gives new powers to the European Parliament in one minor respect. It provides for the European Parliament to verify the credentials of representatives elected in the applicant states between signature of the treaty and its entry into force.
The length of the Bill hardly reflects the political and economic importance of the enlargement of the European Union with which it is concerned. Enlargement to include these four EFTAn applicants will be an important step on the way to a European Union which embraces the whole of Europe rather than just half of it. EFTAn accession will help to bring about a European Union which is open, diverse and outward-looking.
Britain has played an important role in this enlargement. It was during the British presidency two years ago that the decision was taken to open negotiations with Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden. Two months after the Edinburgh Council, Finland, Sweden and Austria started accession negotiations. Norway joined them shortly afterwards.
Little more than a year later the negotiations have been completed in record time and we are only a few months away from welcoming the four countries into the European Union. Concluding the negotiations in such a short time was not easy. It would not have been possible had not those four old friends been exceptionally well qualified for European Union
530
membership. All are prosperous, stable democratic countries, experienced in international co-operation. In particular, all are already members of the single market through their membership of the European Economic Area. Nevertheless, there were many difficult issues to be resolved. Both sides had important interests to protect and it was not always easy to find a balance. But a deal was eventually struck. I believe it was a good deal for Britain, for the applicants and for the Union.
Let me explain some of the more important features of the agreement. Agreement on the budgetary consequences of accession was reached only at the very end of the negotiations. Three of the four applicants will be net contributors to the Community budget. Finland's contribution is expected to be around the same level as its receipts.
The difference between the new applicants' net contributions and their cost to the Community will be available to reduce the contributions of existing member states to the Community budget. In the case of the UK, this benefit should be around £300 million over the first six years of accession.
The limits on expenditure imposed by the Community's own resources ceiling will remain. Nothing in the accession agreements can change that.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Viscount for giving way. When he says "£300 million", does he mean £300 million over six years or £300 million per annum for six years?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the £300 million is spread over the first six years of accession.
Each successive enlargement of the Community has seen difficult negotiations on agriculture. These accession negotiations were no different. Three of the four applicants—Norway, Finland and Austria—have significantly higher levels of agricultural support than is provided by the CAP. Arrangements had to be agreed for the transition to Community levels of support after accession.
In previous enlargements the transition to the CAP has been managed through price compensation at borders. But the single market has seen the abolition of border controls within the EU. A solution was therefore agreed which avoided the need for border controls between the new and existing member states. Austria, Norway and Finland will adopt the basic mechanisms of the CAP immediately on accession and their agricultural prices will be aligned with those in the Community. The new member states will be authorised to compensate farmers for the loss of income this price alignment will cause them in the first four years after accession. These compensatory payments will be partly funded from the Community budget and will be degressive over the four-year period.
The EU's contribution to the cost of these transitional payments to farmers will be more than offset by the contributions that the new member states will make to the Community budget. Because three of the four applicants will reduce levels of support on accession, the amount of agricultural protection in Europe will fall. Britain's agricultural exporters will be free to take advantage of the newly opened EFTAn markets.

531
Fisheries was one of the most difficult areas of the accession negotiations with Norway and among the last to be settled. At one stage, it seemed that negotiations with Norway might stall altogether over the issue. The Spanish demanded extra Norwegian fish as the price of agreeing to enlargement and the Norwegians resolutely refused to give up a single fish. But after long and hard negotiations, the deadlock was broken and a deal acceptable to both sides finally struck.
The agreement with Norway on fisheries will benefit British fishermen. The agreement reaffirmed what is known as "relative stability" as the foundation for the allocation of fishing opportunities between member states and consolidated all British quotas on an unchanged basis. British fishermen have gained flexibility to fish western mackerel in Norwegian waters for the first time. We should also gain an extra 2,674 tonnes of north east Arctic cod by 1997 if this stock develops as predicted.
It was important to us that the post-enlargement arrangements for qualified majority voting should be acceptable. We wanted to ensure that there would be a fundamental review of the system of qualified majority voting at the 1996 intergovernmental conference. This was agreed. The conference will need to devise a formula that more closely reflects population levels in member states but ensures that the rights of minorities are properly safeguarded. In the meantime we insisted on a legally binding arrangement, known as the Ioannina Compromise, which requires the presidency and the Commission to take "any initiative necessary" to reach a solution supported by member states with at least 68 votes. As part of the negotiations which led to this, we obtained assurances from the Commission concerning the handling of the social programme. These have already proved their worth.
I want to focus now on the benefits to Britain and to Europe of the accession of the four countries. As net contributors to the Community budget, Norway, Sweden and Austria will share our interest in budget discipline and in value for money. Like us, they will want to ensure that Community funds are used efficiently.
All four countries will join those in the EU arguing for a market-oriented, free-trading Europe rather than the protectionist, fortress Europe approach that we have fought against.
We can also expect the four countries to support us in arguing for the vigorous application of subsidiarity throughout the Community. Like us, they believe that the European Union should be a union of diverse nation states, each preserving its own traditions and identity.
Finally, the enlargement of the Community by four countries with strong records of contributing to peacekeeping and generous aid programmes will increase its international standing and influence. All have useful experience to bring.
The benefits to the UK of EFT An accession are clear. I hope that the benefits of European Union membership are clear also to the people of the applicant countries. Certainly, they are to the Austrian people, who voted overwhelmingly on 12th June to accept EU membership. I welcome that decision. The remaining three referenda
532
will be held in the autumn. Obviously, I hope that the Finns, the Swedes and the Norwegians will vote to join us.
The accession of the four countries is clearly in the interests of both Britain and Europe. But. it is more than that. We can already see beyond this enlargement to the next. A number of countries have already applied.— Turkey, Malta, Cyprus, Poland, Hungary and Switzerland. Other central European countries are planning to do so. Overcoming the economic divide that still exists between East and West and embracing the whole of Europe will be the next and greatest challenge that the European Union has to face. EFTAn accession will be the first step towards achieving that. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Viscount Ullswater.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for that clear exposition. Perhaps I may echo the welcome from my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel to the noble Viscount in his new responsibilities. I gather from what he said that those responsibilities will not include speaking regularly on European affairs, but perhaps I may welcome him at least pro tanto to the exclusive club of those who interest themselves in these matters.
On the principle of the Bill there is no dissent from these Benches—perhaps I should say more properly from this Bench. Perhaps I may say at once that the views of my noble friend Lord Stoddart are well informed. They have been held consistently throughout. They are passionately held. But I believe that even he will recognise that they are not necessarily representative of the mainstream of Labour thinking on these matters. If we can agree on that, I am sure that my noble friend will make his own contribution to the debate.
I say "we" welcome the principle of the Bill because we welcome the accession to the European Union of the four countries listed there. We would be inconsistent if we adopted any other view. We in the Labour Party have done all that we could to bring it about. It was an element in our manifesto in the European elections; a policy statement including that commitment was endorsed by conference last year; and the Socialist group in the European Parliament has urged it.
For many of us this new chapter will evoke an element of retrospection in addition to what, if I may coin a word, would be "prospection" by way of testimony or confession, as appropriate. I was one of the 69 Labour Members who in another place in 1971 voted with the Heath Government to endorse Britain's accession to the EEC in opposition to what was then, admittedly, a majority of my own party and a vociferous minority of Conservatives. I campaigned for an affirmative result in the referendum of 1975. So I can claim to have been a Christian before Constantine. But that has not precluded something of a love-hate relationship with the European Union.

533
In those early days I saw the unity of Europe as an end to centuries of warfare and to the mutually destructive plotting and bullying of European nationalism and the beginning of a new era of building together for a common future. I say, and I know that some of my noble friends will echo it, that we have seen a number of things happening since then which have not seemed to me to stem from that recognition of our common humanity. Spending vast sums accumulating food mountains, while every television programme showed pictures of starving people in Africa and Bangladesh, was not the best way of establishing a commitment to internationalism. The attitude of Europe to its guestworkers did not seem always to be opening a doorway on the rest of the world. There have been times when we were in danger not of manufacturing a supranational ideal but of creating one more tunnel-visioned nationalism. The emphasis appeared to be on exclusivity, and I know that that was one of the reasons why some of my colleagues in the Labour Party were hesitant about the vision of Europe.
It is good to see the Union now looking outward, no longer a framework for excluding the world outside but inviting applications for membership from those of good will. That is my first reason for welcoming the accession of the new member states to the European Union.
My second reason is this. At the time when the EEC (as it then was) appeared intent on building a wall around itself, some of its member states were having difficulty in raising their eyes above their own garden walls. Having shared the dream of a more open and generous Europe, I was involved in some of the issues which came before the European Court and I was a member in the other place of the Select Committee on European Legislation. I saw those nation states which claimed to have buried their past rivalries still as intent on scooping more than their share of the kitty as ever they did in the days of Metternich. And I came to realise that national governments who have come together in consequence of a vision are not somehow translated to a new level of sainthood. I have said, as I believe my noble friend Lord Stoddart will recognise, some harsh things at various times in the past.
But I saw on reflection that it did not follow that the architects of European unity were wrong. Working, however selfishly, within a framework of rules and litigation is a more civilised way of proceeding than participating in anarchy, where there are no constraints. And it is better for people to cheat one another than to shoot one another. What we can do is to work towards agreement on changing some of the rules. The CAP as it now is is indefensible against any context of logic and common sense.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Hear, hear!
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, of course my noble friend accepts that; I have said it at least as vociferously as he has, although not always with the same degree of information.
We in Britain have to shoulder much of the blame. When it was being worked out, we absented ourselves from the table. It was being said in this country that we
534
did not wish to be subjected to the CAP. But we now know, as I hope Norway, Sweden and Finland will recognise, and as Austria has already recognised, that, inside or outside, you cannot insulate yourself from a policy adopted by your neighbours simply by staying away. All you achieve is to make sure that your concerns are not taken into account and your voice is not heard. Until now we have had to live with the consequences of that. We could not ask for a complete renegotiation of the CAP to accommodate a Johnny-come-lately. But, as the noble Viscount indicated a few moments ago, with the expansion of the European Union and the inclusion of further members, each with its own characteristic agriculture and its own concerns, there is an increasing likelihood that some of those things may be looked at again. An expanding Europe is less likely to be a fossilised Europe.
I add just two comments. First, I hope that we will not follow the outdated examples of the past, with each country concerned only to maximise its own interests at the expense of its neighbours, but that we will genuinely seek rules which are fairer to everyone and more likely to ensure the general prosperity. And, secondly, we in Britain are more likely to carry weight in any negotiations if we are perceived as committed to a prosperous union, and not as the reluctant and surly odd one out.
The third reason why I welcome the expansion of the Union is that I disagree with those who speak of a choice between widening and deepening the Union. I believe that a widening of the Union will lead to a closer binding together of its members. It will not be possible indefinitely to match each new accession with the appointment of a new Commissioner or there will be more Commissioners than there are functions. And without the pretence of a national representative on the Commission it will need to be made more accountable to the European Parliament.
It has always surprised me that those colleagues in this country who have been most anxious about the powers of the European bureaucracy have been the most reluctant to see it controlled effectively by an elected body. Furthermore, I believe that, with the growth of membership, the Council of Ministers will undergo something of a metamorphosis, perhaps to be more transparent and, who knows, to evolve into something approaching a senate, there to protect the interests of member states and to maintain a vigil for subsidiarity but not to ensure that the whole traffic proceeds at the speed of the slowest vehicle.
None of that alarms me. It will not deliver us into slavery. It will mean that the British people will participate in decision-making at a further level in addition to decision-making at national level and at one or more levels of local government.
I find it puzzling when the word "federal" is used to connote an unacceptable level of centralism. It means no such thing. It means simply that there is a clear and mutually agreed division of powers between individual members and the central authority. What proportion of those powers should be exercisable by the common authority and what proportion by the individual national authorities is a matter for negotiation and agreement.

535
But what is important is that such decision-making powers as are entrusted to the institutions of the Union should be exercised effectively, preferably with the minimum of uncertainty and without the need for constant, repetitive and time-consuming litigation before the European Court. And I believe that that process will be encouraged by the accession of new members.
The fourth reason—and your Lordships may be relieved to learn that it is the last which I propose to ventilate today —why I welcome the accession of new members is that I believe it will encourage in the world outside the values at the heart of that vision which informed the Founding Fathers of Europe. They recognised that any form of unity would be acceptable only if it enlarged the opportunities of the constituent peoples and not if it sought to constrain them. Membership was not to be conditional on the domestic economic or social philosophies of member states, except in so far as they impinged on fair competition. But they were clear in their generation that the Union was to serve as a bulwark against regimes of the kind which Europe had experienced in the war years. It was to be a union of democracies.
For those who aspire to membership there is an inducement to practise democracy, and in our generation to practise a respect for human rights. In relation to the four countries listed in the Bill, it does not generally matter because they are democracies in any event and there is no question mark over their capacity to fit into a democratic pattern, nor over their standards of human rights. That has not always been the case with potential members. In earlier, more unhappy days, Spain and Greece would clearly not have qualified for membership. There are those potential members I hope will not qualify without some improvement in their standards. There are elements within some of the countries in Eastern Europe who would be reluctant to see those standards established there. And they may seek to use the economic grievances of their electors to induce them to look to fascism as an answer.
It will be no bad thing if it becomes clear that those practices would not ensure their countries a welcome among the community of nations, nor acquire for them the benefits of membership of the European Union.
Perhaps I may repeat once more, at the risk of being tiresome, that the European Union and its predecessors were born from a vision, a dream, of men such as Robert Schuman, Alcide De Gasperi, Matteo Lombardo and Altiero Spinelli. Their vocabulary lacked words like "directive", "negotiating mandate" and "veto".
It is inevitable that those who have to make it work, day after day, compromise after compromise, working group after dreary working group, will sometimes lose sight of those ideals and see the whole thing as a market place where you do a deal, you make a bit or lose a bit, and you may get away with a piece of sharp practice. Even the compatriots of De Gasperi and Spinelli have been known on occasion to lack their vision of community. New members, coming in fresh after a clear decision to join, may just possibly catch a glimpse of
536
that early vision and may remind us of those ideals. I believe that that is the strongest reason of all for welcoming an expanding Union.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I too welcome the noble Viscount to his new position and thank him for his introduction of the Bill. I wish to make only two points about the two speeches that we have heard. I was surprised that the Minister did not mention the IGC of 1996, which will be the focus of our attention in the coming years. I hope that in winding up he will redress that omission. Secondly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, spoke about national representatives on the commission. Surely that is mistaken. Surely it is the case that commissioners, directly they become commissioners, must swear an oath that they will be commissioners not to their nation but to the commission as a whole.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. If I said that, I must have been more than usually incoherent. I meant to imply that they are perceived as national representatives.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his correction. They should not be perceived as national representatives and perhaps our interchange has helped to destroy that perception.
In 1992 the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and I had the honour of serving on Subcommittee A under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, which undertook an inquiry into enlargement. Some of its conclusions are set out in paragraph 184 of its report. It states:
"The advantages to the Community and to Europe as a whole of enlargement are undeniable and this enlargement must not and need not threaten the effectiveness of the Community… The inclusion of EFTA countries and their acceptance of the CFSP [common, foreign and security policy] pillar will add both to the Community's economic strength and its influence in the world… The consolidation of free democracies and market economies in Central and Eastern Europe call urgently for progress in the relations of those countries with the Community… The problem is not whether there should be enlargement, but how and how quickly, and what adjustments should be made in the Community's institutions and procedures".
There is not a word in that which I would alter. I draw particular attention to the conclusion, which raises three crucial questions. First, how are the European Union's institutions to be adapted to accommodate the countries from EFTA? Secondly, how are they to be adapted to leave room for the further enlargement of the Visegrad countries, which are on the agenda? Thirdly, how far and how fast can enlargement go? Those ate the crucial questions to which this Bill gives rise.
In this country attitudes to enlargement have been of two kinds. First, enlargement was seen as a means of diluting the pressure for political integration. It was seen as a way back to a free trade area. That appeared on occasions to be the attitude of the British Government, but as their attitude on these matters has been consistently ambiguous and hard to define one cannot say whether it was generally their attitude or that it

537
sometimes was and sometimes was not. It was certainly the attitude of many Euro-sceptics and it was certainly how the British posture was seen on the Continent.
That interpretation was reinforced by the suggestion emanating from British sources that in some way the EFTA countries would be on our side in disputes, in political debates within the Commission and, in particular, as regards political integration. I believe that that was suggested by the noble Viscount. The latter was a characteristic British misunderstanding of what their attitude was, as was shown in the course of the negotiations. After all, they had decided to leave a free trade area and they were not going to do so in order to join another. The same is abundantly true of the Visegrad countries, which were to some extent daunted by the economic provisions of the European Union but which welcomed the idea of returning to a political Europe which would save them from a fate that they had so often suffered, as they saw it, of being a satellite of either Germany or Russia.
The second attitude is that enlargement carries with it the need for a radical and thorough revision of the Community's institutions and of its decision-making process. That has long been argued from these Benches. What is appropriate for six nations is very different from that which is appropriate for 12 and becomes quite impossible when dealing with 16.
As Sir Leon Brittan said in his book:
"The Union is already hard enough to manage as it is … It will prove harder still as three or four more applicants join … If we go beyond that without revising the way we take collective decisions, the wheels of the Union will grind to a halt".
Hence the importance of the 1996 IGC. That will be a major constitutional convention, if those words and that language do not scare the wits out of the Government. That is what it should be and that is what it will be, whatever Her Majesty's Government may think or want. That is confirmed again by Sir Leon Brittan in his book when he says:
"Europe must start preparing the ground for those inter-governmental talks immediately … We must learn from experience and focus immediately on the changes needed to accompany enlargement as the central point around which all other questions will turn at the 1996 conference".
For that reason I was surprised—and I repeat that—I was surprised that the conference hardly figured in the noble Viscount's introduction of the Bill. That is the heart of the matter and that is what we shall be discussing between now and 1996.
What will be the agenda of that conference? That was outlined in the Corfu Council on 24th-25th June at which a Reflection Group was established to prepare the IGC's agenda. The Reflection Group has an interesting composition. It is to be composed of a chairman appointed by the Spanish Government and the representatives of Ministers of foreign affairs. I take it that those representatives will be civil servants rather than Ministers, but the noble Viscount will correct me if I am wrong. It will be composed also of the president of the Commission and two members of the European Parliament. The latter was opposed by the British Government. I take it that they would have preferred the Reflection Group preparing the agenda for the IGC to
538
be composed of national civil servants, one member of the Commission and one appointed by the Spanish Government, with no democratic representation at all. The British Government inveigh against the bureaucracy and lack of transparency at Brussels and yet they oppose the appointment of two democratically elected members of the European Parliament. They really are a very odd lot.
That is the situation. That group of people will examine the proposals for the reform of the institutions of the Community. There have been German proposals, Franco-German proposals and European Parliamentary proposals as to what the agenda and the reforms should be. There has been discussion with regard to the controversy between the large and small countries and how to achieve a balance: the size of the Commission; the role of the council; the nature of the presidency; the powers of the European Parliament; the application of subsidiarity; and linguistic problems. For example, the European Union now has 1,000 translators and it will need 60 more for each new country. That is the kind of problem which enlargement throws up and which must be dealt with in 1996.
All those proposals have been made but, as far as I know, there has been no British proposal. The noble Viscount will correct me if I am wrong about that. Have the Government no ideas or views on that matter? If they have views, what are they and when will they be made public? Or are we to repeat the mistake of Maastricht on which the debate took place after the treaty had been signed rather than before it? I hope very much that we shall not do that.
It seems to me that on this occasion there must be a preliminary debate on the nature of the changes to the institutions of the Community which 1996 will usher in. Those changes should be debated fully in this country on the basis of a government White or Green Paper setting forth proposals which we should be able to discuss in this Parliament. Will that happen? I gave the noble Viscount notice of that question. Is there to be a White Paper and, if so, when?
With regard to further enlargement, the Corfu council announced in the presidential report that it would welcome the accession of countries from Central and Eastern Europe. That is an extremely important and significant statement. The position of the Visegrad countries is clear. One of the most crucial political challenges of today is that we endorse, consolidate and confirm the political and economic reforms that are taking place in those countries. In my view, we can do that best by incorporating those countries as quickly as possible within the Community and by ensuring the security of their boundaries.
Therefore, I was rather disappointed by the sentence of the Corfu council which stated:
"The institutional conditions for ensuring the proper functioning of the Union must be created at the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference, which for that reason must take place before accession negotiations begin".
That means that far from accelerating negotiations with regard to accession of the Visegrad countries, the Corfu council has postponed them. I cannot help but regard that as a retrograde step.

539
While I believe most firmly and strongly that rapid accession of those Central European countries to the Community is a primary and extremely important political step which we are wise to take, further enlargement needs careful consideration. I am wary of going too far too fast. I am wary of exciting expectations in such countries as Bulgaria and Romania of early accession. We must take into account what I can only describe as the digestive capacity of the Community: its ability to absorb other countries, other traditions and cultures. We should learn the lessons of Greece which has hardly proved to be an easy partner, partly because of its totally different traditions and partly because of the absence of an administrative infrastructure necessary for a country to fulfil the conditions of membership of the European Union. Therefore, while I press for acceleration in the case of the Visegrad countries, I should advise caution in the case of those other countries.
Finally, I regret that this debate on an extremely important subject, which will dominate our discussions in this country over the next few years until 1996, should have been slipped in rather late last week. That has meant that many noble Lords who would have liked to have taken part in the debate are not able to do so. I regret that that took place at such short notice. The noble Viscount will notice how few noble Lords on his Benches are taking part in the debate. That is surely not because they are not interested but because notice was so short. I believe that that is regrettable.
4 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, perhaps I may first, from these Benches, also extend congratulations to the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, on his appointment.
I believe that nearly all of us would agree that friendship and respect between nations, and the citizens of those nations, are not in any way dependent upon the existence of a close political and bureaucratic alliance between the nations concerned. Indeed, the opposite may be the case. Political infighting often destroys good will.
There are many people in continental EC countries, some of whom I have met, who believe that you have a moral duty to favour fellow EC countries and their nationals over others; for example, that it is not communautaire to take the side of Macedonia against Greece or the side of New Zealand against France in, for instance, the "Rainbow Warrior" incident. But here we—and by "we" I include most Euro-enthusiasts as well as Euro-sceptics—do not, I believe, feel under any moral obligation to prefer the Germans to the Swiss, the French to the New Zealanders, the Belgians to the Poles, the Danes to the Norwegians, the Greeks to the Turks or the Luxembourgers to the Americans merely because the first named of each pair are EC or, if you prefer, EU citizens and the second named are not.
The affection and respect that we have for the applicant nations and their people and the ties of history, geography and, in some cases, of distant kinship that bind us to them, antedate the formation of the EC by decades, if not centuries. It follows that any reservations
540
that may be expressed about whether the accession of those four countries is good for them, or for us, in no way invalidate that affection and respect.
Bearing in mind the fact that those countries, like us, are already members of the European Economic Area, in which of course we have free movement of goods, services and people, the decision about whether it is right to join the EC must be evaluated on purely pragmatic grounds. That is what is actually happening at present in Austria, Norway, Sweden and Finland. Emotionally, there seems to be no overwhelming enthusiasm to join the Community in any of the applicant countries—and I stress the word "emotionally"—yet in one of the four countries there is a well-justified fear of Russian military might which is, perhaps, not threatening in the short term but is certainly so in the medium and long term. In another of the four, there exists the fear of German economic muscle and the possibility of attendant economic bullying. For those very practical reasons their electorates are likely to vote "yes" as the lesser of two evils as they perceive it; indeed, one of them has already done so. The other two countries face no such threats, which is why the outcome of their respective referendums is much more in the balance.
It may seem almost academic to ask whether the accession of those four countries will be good for us here in the United Kingdom, given that the exercise of ruthless Palmerstonian national self-interest would not be realistically possible in this case. Since, therefore, it is certain—that is, as certain as one can be—that the Bill will be enacted, some may argue: why stir things up? However, I would contend that reality should always be faced up to.
The Prime Minister and the Government contend that accession would be good for Britain. One wonders why. At least two of the countries concerned—and I do not need to spell them out—are permeated by a deeply Left-wing ethos which the occasional election of a non-Socialist government does nothing to dissipate. Allied to that, they are politically correct to a degree unknown outside North America or pails of urban Australia. Moreover, at least three of the countries are obsessively green in the political sense and, therefore, expensively so.
None of that matters in the slightest to us at present: it is entirely their own affair; they are independent countries. But once they join a Community which gives them the power (in conjunction with others) to impose those patterns of behaviour upon us, it will matter very much indeed. Against that, it is claimed that the applicant nations, like all right-thinking people, oppose corruption and fraud in the Community and the paying of illegal subsidies to national airlines, and so on. Whether adding their voices to the chorus of disapproval would make any practical difference remains to be seen. It is also claimed that the United Kingdom would save on its budgetary contributions. Well, we have heard that sort of thing before: I wonder whether we might be in for some sort of disappointment.
There is also the not inconsiderable matter of the effective weakening of our national veto under the adjusted qualified majority voting system. However,

541
when all is said and done the die is cast. We can only hope and pray that the countries concerned make the right decisions both for their sake and ours. When I say the "right decisions", I mean not only as regards their referendums but also subsequently, should they decide to join the Community.
Let us not forget that a good neighbour is the one who gives help when it is needed but is otherwise discreet and minds his or her own business. In contrast, a bad neighbour, by common consent, is the one who is prying, interfering and bossy. So many features of the EC as it operates at present seem expressly designed to stir up animosity between neighbours rather than fostering friendship between them.
In his opening speech, the noble Viscount claimed that all four applicant countries favour the maximum degree of subsidiarity. Of course, one is pleased to hear that. If the accession of some or all of those countries were to coincide with a really substantial return of powers to nation states in every field other than those with a genuinely supra-national, cross-Community aspect, the future would look a lot rosier. But the operative word is "if".
4.7 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, this afternoon's debate on the Second Reading of the Bill reminds us that the accession of the countries concerned concluded in the conference at Corfu. We were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that a reflection group was formed on the island which, so to speak, would think out further developments and take a general resume of the events of the past few years so as to arrive at an assessment on reflection—which is an intellectual process requiring leisure—of what ought to be done next.
I would commend that to your Lordships this afternoon. In other words, perhaps we ought also to reflect at the same time as those august thinking sessions are taking place. It is wise that we take stock. In saying so, perhaps I should stress to the noble Viscount immediately that, speaking at any rate for myself and my friends in various parts of the House, I would not dream of opposing the Second Reading of the Bill, although I may have some observations to make in Committee.
It seems to me that we have made a large number of presumptions. In particular, member states have done so in setting forth how they propose to enlarge the Community and to think out the various institutional changes that they may believe are necessary. One of those presumptions—which I venture to suggest many noble Lords in all parts of the House have made—is that since 1972 at any rate the Community has prospered; that the Community has in fact delivered and that it has been a success. That thought obtrudes itself into all government thinking. That is taken for granted. It has almost become self-perpetuating: how successful the whole thing has been!
542
Indeed, the right honourable gentleman the Foreign Secretary, talking in another place on 11th July last, referred to the Single European Act in 1986. He said that it,
"marked a new stage in the development of the Community. Its businesses were gradually able to operate on a truly European scale for Europe-wide growth and prosperity".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/94; col. 688.]
He also said at col. 687 of Hansard:
"We should not treat our success in the European Union as a commodity that we hoard to ourselves".
He gave that as a reason for extending membership of the Community to these four new members.
What constitutes prosperity? What constitutes progress? Let us pause a little and think about it. Is it the success of politicians or of bureaucrats in achieving targets? Does it consist of the volume of legislation or regulations issued? Does it consist of the colossal number of conferences that are held from time to time throughout Europe? If the success of the European Community were to be measured by the tonnes of computer tape and the tonnes and tonnes of paper that emanate from it and the acres and acres of space occupied by politicians, civil servants, bureaucrats and their supporters, boy oh boy, we should all be a resounding success in Europe at this time. We should have krugerrands almost oozing out of our back pockets. If we were to measure success by the self-adulation which I am afraid is widely prevalent among those who seek to portray themselves as the leaders of Europe or as the heads of the bureaucracy, and, I repeat, if prosperity is to be determined on those lines, we have been very wealthy indeed since 1972. But what is prosperity? Prosperity surely means a growth in the material and spiritual wealth of the people, not of paper.
Now what has happened in Europe? This has to be faced by those who do not want to hear it; and probably it will go in one ear and out of the other even as I utter it. But economic performance in Europe has been far below that in Japan and in the United States. Unemployment is running at a level which it will be impossible to reduce unless in Europe output vastly in excess of what is anticipated is achieved. Unemployment is currently 20 million.
Our share of world trade in Europe as a whole has steadily diminished. The French may say that that is a sign of success. But even speaking from within the restricted profession of accountancy, I can tell them that it is not: it is a sign of failure. But until people realise that, there can be no way of determining just how we are to proceed in Europe.
Of course the effects of that have been seen in the United Kingdom itself. Is it success, from the United Kingdom standpoint vis-à-vis the European Community, that in the past 12 years we should have suffered a £70 billion trade deficit with the remaining sections of the Community? Is that success so far as we are concerned? I would not have thought so. Is it a success that we still have a level of unemployment twice what it was in 1979? Is it a success as regards our participation in Europe that we now have poverty levels greater than they have ever been? Is it a success that since 1979 the top 10 per cent. of the population should have had their

543
incomes increased by 62 per cent. whereas the poorest 10 per cent. have suffered a decrease of 17 per cent.? Is that a success; or if it is, is it a civilised success?
Is it a success that our investment in industry is running at even lower levels than it was in 1979? Is that a success for Europe and the United Kingdom as a whole? Is it a success that we should today be screeching about competitiveness due to the fact that the freedom of movement of capital has resulted in vast sums being invested, not necessarily in Europe or even in the United Kingdom, but in the Pacific Rim countries, whose labour costs are but a fraction of our own? The answer we are given there is that we have to improve our competitiveness.
I raise these points because it is wise that we should not have this auto-intoxication with some notion of success which is only in the minds of interested politicians and bureaucrats, and some bankers and some financiers, but which bears no relation to fact. I am not saying for one moment that all these things are due to the operation of the common market. I am not trying to blame anyone for the steps that were taken to bring the nations of Europe together. I am not complaining about that in the slightest. There is much to be said for developing co-operation among all the member states in Europe in promoting commerce, trying to remove restrictions and doing all of those things.
Where then have we gone wrong? We have gone wrong precisely because we trusted certain others. When the Treaty of Rome was devised earlier on, and when we joined in 1972, we assumed that bureaucrats, who are quite necessary—the Commission and so on—were going to behave in a manner which would encourage the increase of total wealth in Europe. It was quite proper that we should assume that. We assumed it in good faith. We assumed that all bureaucrats acted in good faith. Where we made the mistake was that we did not make the bodies concerned accountable to anyone at all. We did not make the Commission accountable to anyone. We did not make, in the initial stage, the European Assembly accountable to anyone. Indeed the European Parliament—as it eventually called itself and to which we conceded—is still not accountable to anyone.
Anyone who thinks that the European Parliament—in which, as regards Germany for example, one Member of Parliament represents every 800,000 people, or as regards the United Kingdom there is one to every 500,000 people, as compared with one to 60,000 people in the small state of Luxembourg —is accountable to anyone is mistaken. That is a lot of nonsense. In the United Kingdom there is accountability because we have constituents, albeit 500,000 of them, and so has the Republic of Ireland. However, in the rest of the Community the Members of Parliament who are meeting in Strasbourg, Brussels or Luxembourg, or in various other venues, are not accountable to anybody because they are chosen from a list. They are responsible to nobody. In some cases—but not every case—they are political hacks, selected in back rooms by party organisations. Until we realise that we shall get nowhere at all.
544
Bureaucrats who have power but who lack accountability will play merry hell with any organisation. And so they have with the Commission itself. I shall give some examples.
All that the qualified majority ruling has done is to make quite sure that the Commission, by its manoeuvring, can get anything it wants pushed through by means of sufficient inducements given by it personally to a certain number of states. It sets one member state against another.
A concrete example of that is the European budget, to which this country pays £2 billion net after all abatements and receipts. The Council of Ministers has no control whatsoever over the budget. The budget is decided by reason of a limitation in the earlier part of an inter-institutional agreement. Once that has been agreed, all discussion on the European budget is coincidental. If the noble Viscount says to me, as I hope; he will if I am wrong, that the United Kingdom could go along to the next meeting of ECOFIN or the budget council and propose reductions of £100 million or £500 million, I shall tell him that he is wrong. He knows that I am right. The Government have no power. The budget has been sewn up by the Commission. And we should not forget that we pay more than £2 billion a year towards that budget.
Those are the issues which have to be addressed in quiet reflection, or as a group, over the period before the 1996 budget. We have to consider how the powers of the Commission and the existing Parliament can be brought into conformity with the elementary requirements of democracy and accountability. That is the total problem. I have no reason to suppose that it cannot be done. We have an inferiority complex about this at the highest political level in our own country.
I observe that, notwithstanding our support for M. Santer as the new commissioner, he was; not averse, even before he was appointed, to attacking the United Kingdom without so far as I can see any demur from the British Government. In fact if noble Lords listen as I do, and as they must occasionally, to their own Prime Minister when he has broadcast in the morning they will have found that on at least two occasions last week he made the psychological slip of referring to the President of the Commission as the President of the European Union. That is psychologically very interesting indeed.
Until we begin to assert ourselves a little, without necessarily being offensive—and noble Lords know me; I am always as gentle as I can be on these occasions in spite of my enthusiasm—and unless we stand up for ourselves as men, where are we?
My noble and learned friend implied in his opening remarks that somehow I was out of phase with my party. As noble Lords know, I am all for cementing the coalition that has emerged between the Government and my own party in connection with this matter. However, I am bound to draw the attention of the House, and particularly the attention of my own Front Bench, to a statement made by the Front Bench foreign affairs spokesman in the Shadow Cabinet in the other place on 11th July. He said:
"Let me state clearly and unequivocally that we stand for a Europe of nation states".

545
I agree. He continued:
"We do not support a federal Europe, as the right hon. Gentleman wrongly asserted many times and the Conservative central office hand-outs lied time and time again during the European election campaign. Nor do we have any intention of abandoning Britain's right of veto. I say that so that the right hon. Gentleman hears it again from me at the Dispatch Box, as he has heard before, in the hope that from now on he will not continue to repeat falsehoods about Labour Party policy as, regrettably, he has done in the past".— [Official Report, Commons, 11/7/94; col. 703.]
There is, of course, scope for reinterpretation of that statement, but on the face of it I am bound to say that your Lordships differ. I should like to know where my noble and learned friend stands on the issue in confirmation. It would be most refreshing.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Can he specify anything which I said which was inconsistent with that statement?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, yes, I can. I can specify many things. My noble and learned friend favoured further integration in Europe. He said that many times.
I shall not weary the House further except to say that the noble Viscount referred to visions. I too have a vision. Having been a member of my party for nearly 60 years my vision is for a country which develops democracy, which eliminates the worst extremes of poverty and wealth, which gives a reasonable sense of security to its people and pursues policies designed not for the aggrandisement of politicians or bureaucrats but for the happiness of its people. Those are the visions which I have for Europe and for my own country. I commend them to the House.
Lord Brain: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he will explain why he addressed all his remarks towards these Cross-Benches, the Benches in this House with least responsibility and whose occupants bear no political allegiance to any side.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I shall answer that question immediately. The fragile person that I am, I normally try to look to my natural sources of support as a counter to my nervousness in the course of any remarks that I may make.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, it is good to have confirmation that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, does not look to his own Benches for that support.
This is a time for baring souls. It is now two decades since, in the other place, I voted for the European Economic Community. Why did I vote for it on that occasion? I did so because I felt that it was the best way of preventing Germany and France from taking Europe into a third world war by enmeshing their economies. I thought no more widely than that. It was a view shared by a substantial number of the population. I have not changed my mind about that reason, but there are now further reasons why I believe this Bill should be supported.
546
My noble friend Lord Ullswater started the debate in a superb fashion. He painted a picture of what was decided at Corfu and how it would operate. He mentioned in particular the majority voting of the IGC, which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, clearly did not hear. He was followed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, whose speech again exemplified the type of speech I have heard him make over the years— sound, sensible and practical. We do not always agree, but on this occasion I believe that we do agree.
I am concerned, as I always have been, about widening of the Community. I believe that there is a difference between widening and deepening. As your Lordships will know, for more than 10 years I have held membership of the Council of Europe. During that time my meetings with politicians and parliamentarians from Eastern and Central Europe and from Scandinavia have all led me to one conclusion; namely, that they desire to come into what is now the European Union. Certainly my Austrian and Swedish friends take a strong view on that accession. If, as I hope, Sweden, Finland and Norway give an affirmative vote in the referenda, I do not think that it will be long before Iceland also wishes to apply. That will be good because I take the view that the accession of those members will be good for the United Kingdom.
I do not make any excuse for being nationalistic on the issue. We have always fought hard for the observance of the legislation that we have passed. That distinguishes us in many cases from some of our fellow members of the European Union; and the Scandinavians take that view strongly.
However, there was the probability—not the possibility—of the Visegrad countries and other states in the former Warsaw Pact area wishing to join the European Union. The European Union has made clear that, apart from the problems of the economy, agriculture, the increase in the wine lake, or whatever it may be, one of its prerequisites was that democracy had to be practised in those countries. What I call the seal of good housekeeping in that field could only be given by the Council of Europe in the work that it does on human rights and on multi-party parliamentary democracies. I have no hesitation in saying now, in your Lordships' House, that both Poland and Hungary qualify for membership of the European Union on those grounds. Other member states are well on the way, but those two countries are well ahead of the field. I hope that they do not have to wait too long. Equally, I hope that others who have passed the test on human rights will soon have the opportunity of joining.
Mention has also been made of the European Assembly, now the European Parliament. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I do not believe that that body is yet in a position to do the job that it should do. It should be controlling the bureaucracy of Brussels, and it does not. I tell noble Lords why, in my view, that is so. That body is unrepresentative. It cannot represent the vast hordes of populations which at present it has to look after. Its members have little or no contact with their national parliaments. I believe that the two political parties of this country made a great mistake in regard to

547
membership of what was then the assembly and now the European Parliament by rejecting dual mandates. I have said before, and I repeat, that we in this House have a unique opportunity of redressing that democratic deficit. Yet again I advocate that Members of the European Parliament, like Lord Bishops, should be Members of this House so long as they hold their seats in the European Parliament. That would at least give them a link. It would give us the opportunity of hearing what they have to say. It would give them an opportunity of knowing what we have to say. I hope that that idea might be taken up even if discussion has to wait until the IGC.
However, a second point was raised, I think by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer—it might have been the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter—that the Council of Ministers might become the senate of the European Parliament. I do not believe that that can possibly be right. The Council of Ministers, the Commission and the Parliament are three separate bodies. But there is a need for a second Chamber, and that second Chamber already exists in embryo in the Council of Europe. If in the referenda the final three join, 16 countries will be represented by members of their national parliaments. We already have membership from 32 nations. As the European Union widens, as it must, it would be perfectly easy to devise a system such as that of the old Greater London Council which had a separate statutory body for education—ILEA—and only those members representing the inner London area were able to vote on education matters. In exactly the same way, only those members of the Council of Europe whose countries were members of the European Union would be entitled to vote. I suggest that that system would give the opportunity for two voices to be heard and to control the bureaucracy. There is a real need for the bureaucracy to be controlled.
Comment was made that there was not much support for the Bill from these Benches. Frankly, that is because the case is so open and shut. I was surprised that I wished to take part. I have done so in order to float those two ideas. But I am perfectly certain that the Bill is a correct way forward. I hope that the Foreign Office will take on board some of the ideas that it will need to consider well in advance of the IGC. It is important that that IGC represents the view that we in this country have been expressing for many years about the future of Europe.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, to the debate. We are accustomed to him and much appreciate the manner in which he carried out his duties as Chief Whip. I wish him well in his new duties; I hope that he enjoys them.
I wish too to express my appreciation to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell for paying me the compliment of consistency. I pay him the same compliment. He, too, has been consistent since voting against a three-line whip and supporting the government that took us into the Common Market. But for his action,
548
and that of 68 others, we probably would not have joined. However, he has been consistent in his support over a long period of time.
The longer we have been in the EC, the more I believe that the view I took in 1972 and in 1975 is confirmed. We should not have become a member in the first place; or we should have withdrawn as soon as we possibly could. The baleful effects of our membership on this country are plain for everyone to see. They were outlined by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington.
My noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington said that we would not divide the House. He should not be too sure about that. I have not made up my mind whether I shall seek to divide the House. I have to tell him and the House that I am opposed to the Bill. I do not believe that it is a good Bill. Nor do I believe that it is good that we should have these four countries joining the European Union. I do not say that because I have anything against them. I feel for them; I have great consideration for them. I do not want them to be confronted with the baleful effects which this country has experienced since 1973. They are prosperous countries which have been doing extremely well outside the EC. Frankly, I wish to protect them from the baleful effects of membership.
My noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington pointed out that although in 1972–1973 we were promised that the Common Market would be good for British trade, our total deficit in trade has topped £70 billion since we joined. I believe that his figure may be a little modest; it is probably about £97 billion. So as to being part of a trading organisation, we have received no trading benefit. Indeed, quite the reverse. What we have done is neglect other markets that we should have been building up over that period of time.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Having regard to the fact that some 14 years of that period has been a period of Conservative government, does he think that factors other than the EC may have had some effect?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am sure that there are other factors. I fear that they do not account for £97,000 million of deficit. And, of course, there was a Labour government in power in between. We should take that into account as well. I agree with my noble and learned friend that the effects might have been mitigated had we had more years of Labour government and fewer years of Conservative government.
In addition, the cost to the Exchequer has been enormous. We have paid about £20,000 million in net terms to the EC for nothing at all. As I say, it has not assisted our trade. It has damaged our agriculture. We have land set aside which used to grow food. The environmental effects of increased nitrogen on our rivers have been very bad. It is very difficult to find any benefit. But the cost has been £20,000 million.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, said that the Bill represents a good deal for Britain; that three out of the four countries will be net contributors; and that this country will save £300 million over six years. That

549
amounts to £50 million a year. But our net contribution to the EC will double from £1,750 million this year to £3,500 million next year; and indeed the year after. It will go on increasing. I fear that the incoming countries will find exactly the same thing happening to them: their economies will not be assisted and they will find themselves paying more money across the exchanges for what is a bureaucratic nightmare.
The idea that by adding more countries to the EC the more likely it is that the British way will gain ground is nonsense. The idea that adding countries will mean less bureaucracy has not been proved in practice. Indeed, the accession of Spain, Portugal and Greece resulted in more centralisation and more bureaucracy. I fear that exactly the same will happen when the four new countries are introduced to the Community. I believe that they will provide further impetus towards the Euro superstate which will be dominated by a centralist and authoritarian Germany. The accession of new members so far has resulted in more power to the institutions of the EC. During that period there has been a growth in the new political elite, remote —and they have been remote—from the people they are supposed to serve.
In his excellent speech my noble and learned friend suggested that it may be the case that his view finds more support among Labour Party supporters than mine. I do not know about that. During the Maastricht debate, not only in this House but throughout the country, there was the opportunity to hold a referendum and to consult the people on how much further they wanted to go towards an integrated Europe. Unfortunately, his party—and my party—refused the people of this country the opportunity to say exactly where they stood in regard to further progress towards integration and a centralised European state. I hope in future, when I and others suggest that we should have a referendum, he will support us. I hope that he wants to see this country governed, not by the new political elite, but by the people of this country through a Parliament elected by the people of this country without interference from outside.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am grateful again to my noble friend. I apologise for being tiresome. But our mutual noble friend Lord Bruce quoted Dr. Cunningham's intervention in another place on 11th July. No doubt my noble friend has seen what he said. He made it quite explicit that he certainly did not exclude the prospect of a referendum if otherwise that seemed to be appropriate.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes indeed, my Lords. I was very pleased to see it. What I am doing is encouraging the process. I hope that my noble and learned friend will help to take the process forward. He is a man of great influence within the Labour Party and with the Front Bench.
This country and this Parliament have over the period given more and more of our powers to institutions of the European Community. The Single European Act gave more power in relation to qualified majority voting. The Maastricht Treaty handed over further powers relating to internal affairs, including
550
immigration policy and policing. It gave over more consultation concerning defence policy and foreign policy. Above all, it gave more power to the European Parliament. And as we see, that body is now flexing its muscles as it has never flexed them before. We saw what happened over the Santer affair. Having tasted power, it now wants more. Having got more power, it wants to exercise it in an even greater and more influential way.
The leader of the so-called socialist group in the European Parliament, according to a radio programme, wants to see the European Parliament as the 13th state, with a power of veto —a power of veto, mind you— over elected governments. It sounds all very well while we have a Tory government to say, "Yes, let's have a go at the Tories. Let's show 'em". But what happens after two years of Labour government when the position in the European Parliament is perhaps reversed and there are 62 Tory members and only 18 Labour members. What happens then? Will we be happy to see the decisions of the properly elected government of this country set aside and overturned by a bunch of Tories operating through the European Parliament? I think not. That is why we must be extremely careful about giving further powers to that body lest it should misuse them against a government of this country elected on an economic, political and social programme that has been put before the people of this country at a general election and elected on the basis of 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. of the vote, and not on the basis of 36.4 per cent.
Let us keep those matters very much in mind when we consider admitting additional countries to the European Union. In fact, I believe—I am not at all sure that people will believe me but I believe it—that the European Parliament is probably a fifth column which wants to destroy the nation state. Indeed, a glance at the constitution which it has drawn up and which was mentioned by the noble Lord from the Liberal Benches makes very clear to all who read it where it wants to go; namely, the destruction of the nation state.
Finally, this country's destiny does not necessarily lie in Europe. This country's destiny has always lain in the world, not in one particular part of it. Europe is becoming an industrial and trading backwater. The action is taking place elsewhere. It is taking place in China, Japan, Australia, Taiwan and the Americas, north and south. That is where the great opportunities lie—not in Europe. We need to turn our trading attention there. Those are the partners we want. Unfortunately, our ability to find those partners is being injured by membership of the EU. That is why I say to the Government and indeed to my own party that this country is crying out for leadership. The British people believe that their leaders and politicians should be at the heart of Britain and at the heart of the world, not merely at the heart of Europe.
I implore our politicians to remember that they represent the people of this country—the people who vote for them and sustain them in office. Their prime duty is to defend this country not only militarily but in respect of standards of living and the political institutions of this country which have been built up over centuries and which have been an example to the

551
rest of the world. If we have politicians who do that, they will regain the respect of the British people which they have lost over the past 10 to 15 years.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, although my name is not on the list of speakers I rise to my feet because I was stunned by the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Stoddart of Swindon.
I much admire what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has done in this House for many months now. He has educated us all in some of the diseconomies of the common market. He reminds me very much of that fine rugby footballer, the full back and captain of Scotland, Mr. Hastings. Gathering the ball on his own line, he breaks through five or six tackles of the opposing pack as they thunder down upon him and kicks for touch just as he reaches his own 22 metre line. He is a fine performer. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, whom I have listened to many times, does not remind me exactly of a rugby footballer. He is more like one of the surgeons in our teaching hospitals in London, who makes an incision and takes out the putrid organ from the abdomen to the delectation of his medical students. They are a formidable team. But they do not convince anyone of my generation.
Both noble Lords attribute all the ills of our economy to the fact that we joined the Common Market. I attribute many of the ills of our economy—but not all— to the fact that in the late 1940s and 1950s we failed to join Europe, we failed to take command of the Common Market and we failed to impose some of our ideas on it. Mr. Bevin was a great foreign secretary; Sir Anthony Eden and Mr. Butler had their chance; they all turned down the opportunity for us to lead Europe. That is what has gone wrong.
There is a great distinction between European countries and ourselves in the way in which we manage the business of the state. In European countries that is subject to the Napoleonic Code, whereas we have our common law system. There is a great difference between those two. That is one of the reasons why we find it so hard to get into Europe.
With our common law system goes a very great respect for local government and for making trouble. Nobody makes trouble better than the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Stoddart. They make trouble with great experience of having done so all their lives. They know how to put a spoke in the wheel and get across the individual's point of view. That is something which is not so well understood and not tolerated in Europe. If noble Lords have ever tried to get change out of the Parisian police, they will have found that they were up against an unyielding and tough body. It is true that in Europe there is not the same respect for individual rights.
But when we come to the question of rival economies, let me ask which have been the economies which have fared best in the past 50 years. We have to accept that our own ways of doing business do not seem to have been so effective as those of our European colleagues. I think I heard the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, say that things were sewn up in a most unfair way in
552
the coulisses of European bureaucracy. I was astonished. In all his long time in politics does he remember times in the smoke-filled rooms of the Labour Party when things were not sewn up? Politics is a matter of sewing things up.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord was kind enough to mention me on a number of occasions and I am very glad to have merited some of his attention. I have never been part of any smoke filled room conspiracy. I am by nature a loner. However, perhaps the noble Lord would help me in my quest for the truth. Perhaps he would address a question to the Government as to how they come to claim that we have recovered sooner than anybody else in Europe and are in fact a better economy than the remainder of Europe. The view seems to be slightly different from the one that the noble Lord puts forward.
Lord Annan: I am not answering for the Government on this matter. I am trying to make a point in contradistinction to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. Perhaps I may move to another point.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before the noble Lord moves towards that point, is he aware that during the 1980s the British economy increased year by year to a greater extent than most of the economies of Europe, including Germany? Is he further aware that our joining the ERM and having to come out of it with such ignominy and dishonour caused the greatest slump that we have had in this country since that between 1929 and 1931, and from which we are only just recovering?
Lord Annan: I am fascinated to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, giving such a fine encomium to the Conservative Government's policies in the 1980s. One of the reasons why our economy boomed in those days was because it came from a rather sticky base-line in 1978–79.
With regard to whether or not these other countries should join, I can tell the House this. I was dining the other evening with Herr Heinrich Treichel. Twenty years ago he was the head of the Credit Anstalt in Vienna. At that time I listened to him in Chatham House giving a talk as to why there was no need for Austria to go into the Common Market. The other night he was entirely in favour of his country going in. He felt that there was no alternative.
I must emphasise that point. What other alternative do we in Britain have than to be part of the Common Market? The other evening I was part of a posse of British and German historians discussing in the German embassy the future of Britain in the Common Market and how we related to Germany. One or two British historians said that they felt that we ought to keep out. That was certainly not the view of the majority of us. But the point was put to us time and again by our German colleagues: what other alternative is there?
I am the last person to think that historians have any merit in being able to foresee the future. They sometimes have something reasonable to say about the past, but they are no good at all in seeing the future. Nevertheless, it is an act of faith that we must stay in the market and do better than we have in managing our

553
affairs within it. I believe that the expansion of which the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, is asking us to approve gives us another chance because we are going into a different situation. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter—and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, said the same thing—was correct to say that this is a time when we must rethink the institutions of Europe, when the numbers are about to increase. What was good for six cannot be good for an indefinite number. I hope, therefore, that the House will commend the Bill before it.
5.3 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I want to begin by recording my grateful thanks for the welcome given to me by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and other noble Lords around the Chamber. I am deeply grateful for the personal thoughts that they transmitted to me.
This Bill will permit the United Kingdom to ratify the Treaty of Accession and so allow four new members to enter the European Union. These new members are stable democracies which will bring added strength to the Union. The treaty marks a milestone in the history of Europe and a milestone on the way to a more secure and prosperous Europe.
The terms on which the new members are acceding represent a fair and acceptable balance of advantage to them and to the existing members of the Union. The people of Austria have already voted decisively in favour of accession, and we hope that the people of Sweden, Finland and Norway will make the same decision. If they do not, the treaty provides for the accession of only those who do wish to join.
But the fact that we are debating this Bill now, and the fact that other countries are already waiting in the wings with applications to join the European Union— Turkey, Cyprus, Malta, Poland, Hungary and others yet to come—show that the European Union is the centre of gravity of present-day Europe. That is where we want it to be.
Britain has played its full part in promoting and encouraging the accession of these countries. In doing so we have received a heartening echo to our determination that Europe should not become a super-state and a fortress, but a house with open windows and doors, in which individual member states take advantage of the benefits of co-operation and eschew the vision of centralised regimentation. Europe will gain in variety and flexibility from the entry of these four new members. And we can only gain from that.
I turn now to the points raised during the course of the debate. First, I am appreciative of the welcome given to the Bill by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, from the Labour Front Bench. I recognise his personal long commitment to the European concept. Noble Lords will appreciate that, whereas he may have concerns in relation to food mountains and the treatment of guestworkers —and many of us share those
554
concerns—he has a long personal commitment, perhaps on occasion to the expense of his position in the party. However, I am prepared to acknowledge that.
The noble and learned Lord indicated that he welcomed the concept of a more open vision on Europe and that the entry of the four new countries would assist in opening up that vision. We need to change some of the rules, especially for the CAP—I believe those have been dealt with—particularly for the difficult problems that the new countries experience in the ways in which they have been dealt with in negotiations. We are all keen to see that the future of the CAP should be considered carefully.
To turn to one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, it is not a question of moving from one free trade area to another which prompts those countries to join; it is that they want a seat at the negotiating table. The Government understand and welcome that. For the reasons I mentioned earlier, we welcome the ideas and commitment that they will bring to it.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, was concerned that none of the countries should seek to maximise its own interests but that all countries should be committed to sharing in the Union across all its parts. That is something which we too welcome. He dealt also with the concept of widening and deepening the Union, and perhaps gave a warning that we shall need to look carefully at how the Commission will develop to cater for the new situation at each stage of widening and deepening.
I agree that the presence of the four new members within the European Union will help to bring in fresh ideas, particularly to the 1996 inter-governmental conference. I shall turn to that in more detail in a moment. The Government's view is underlined by our support for the accelerated accession negotiations to ensure that the four countries will have acceded to the Union and found their feet before the start of the IGC. We hope and expect that they will play a full role in the discussions in 1996.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, chided me for not mentioning the IGC in 1996. He was answered in part by my noble friend Lord Finsberg. But I should like to clear up what may be a confusion in relation to the agenda for the 1996 IGC. The agenda was established in the Maastricht Treaty and was extended by decisions taken at subsequent European councils—decisions taken by all member states; not only by the French, the Germans or the Danes, but by all member states.
The agenda includes the operation of the pillared structure; the size of Commission; defence; European parliamentary powers of co-decision; and qualified majority voting. The last item is important. It is on the agenda at this Government's request. We are already actively engaged in the planning for the 1996 IGC. We are aware that it will take place against the background of enlargement. We signed up to the Corfu conclusions following the June European Council which specifically linked the IGC and enlargement. The study group was established by the Corfu council to begin work in June 1995. No decision has been taken about whether the

555
representatives of national governments will be officials or political representatives. That is something that we shall need to decide.
The noble Lord was also concerned about consultation with Parliament. Any treaty changes agreed at the 1996 IGC will be subject to approval by the Government. Additionally, as the IGC gets under way, there will no doubt be debates and Select Committee sessions in both Houses at which Ministers will be required to explain their policies. The noble Lord will understand that it will not be possible for the Government to reveal their entire negotiating hand, but we shall certainly try to keep both Houses in touch with our thinking. I should also point out that, as both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made clear recently, we very much favour national parliaments feeding in their views to the 1996 IGC.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Viscount. Are we really going to have this old chestnut of the Government not revealing their negotiating hand before we can all discuss the matter? Is he aware that what has happened previously is that, once the Government reveal their negotiating hand, they then come to Parliament and say, "You must not let us down. That is what we have agreed". Therefore, the Whips are on and everyone has to agree with what the Government have done lest they be accused of reneging on an agreement. Will the noble Viscount think about that and will he make sure that, far from not revealing their negotiating hand, this Parliament and this House will be kept informed at every stage of the negotiating procedure so that we may have some influence on the outcome?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that those are words which I have just uttered. I said that there will be debates and there will be Select Committee sessions in both Houses. However, noble Lords would not expect me to say that the Government will reveal everything that they intend to say when they go into a negotiating mode. The study group, which begins work in 1995, provides an excellent opportunity for this House to make its views known before the IGC itself gets under way.
At the same time as welcoming further enlargement, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, was wary that we should go too far or too fast. He mentioned one or two countries about which he had some reservations. The United Kingdom warmly welcomes the Polish and Hungarian applications, which the noble Lord mentioned. The main challenge for both those countries is to prepare politically and economically for membership. The noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, also welcomed their applications and said that he hoped that Iceland would join very soon too. It would have to be for the Government of Iceland to apply to join the Union under Article O of the treaty. Some internal discussions are going on at present in that sense, but we gather than an application is unlikely to be forthcoming in the immediate future.
To go back a little, the Copenhagen conclusions established the broad qualitative criteria for membership: stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy; the rule of law; a functioning market
556
economy; a capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union; and the capacity of the European Union to absorb new members —all the matters brought to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg. These are the points that we should be considering, and enlargement will involve a number of institutional questions: QMV, which I mentioned in my outline statement; the number of commissioners; and the size of the European Parliament. We shall be discussing these issues with our partners over the coming years.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, was worried about the principles that he saw may be involved in incorporating the four EFTAn countries. He declared them as having socialist principles and being more concerned about green and environmental issues. He asked why they should be good for Britain. I repeat what I said in my opening remarks. They will be net contributors to the Community budget. Norway, Sweden and Austria share our interest in budgetary discipline and value for money. They will want to make certain that we use the funds efficiently. They will argue for a free market, a free trade Europe, a market-oriented Europe, rather than a protectionist Europe. That is why I believe that the accession of those four countries will be good for Britain.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, asked us in his charming way to pause for reflection. He said that we were making some large assumptions here and he asked us to consider whether the Community really had been a success since 1972. What constitutes prosperity, he asks us; what constitutes progress? The noble Lord's sentiments are very sincere and well known, as echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. But I am sad to hear that he shares none of the vision of his noble and learned friend on the Front Bench. I am sad about that because my experience is that Britain is a very favoured place for investments from Japan, the United States and Germany because we are in the Union. That is why we are a favoured state in that way—not because we are out of it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount. He started off by reference to my definition of prosperity. He skated over that beautifully and then talked about vision. Will he tell me where I am wrong in my assessment of what has happened to us economically and prosperity-wise in Europe and in the United Kingdom since the common market started?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have indicated that the noble Lord has his own views about these matters and that those views are sincere and well known.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, what I have said is a fact.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord may indicate that he believes that those are facts. However, I should like to paint a different picture of why I believe Britain is a favoured place for investment. I believe that that reflects the view that many hold about the high level of skills that we have and the favourable economic conditions in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, mentioned the size of the European budget—a £2 billion net contribution per annum —as did the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. The four

557
countries with which the Bill deals will be net contributors, which can only reduce the UK's budgetary burden. The budget, and our overall contribution, are constrained by the own resources ceiling—a percentage of Community GNP. That is why the budget goes up and down, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, will know. We ensured in the accession negotiations that the ceilings agreed at Edinburgh were not increased. Of course there may be some increase in administrative costs by the addition of three more official languages and spending on internal policies in the new member states, but once that has been taken into account the UK will seek to ensure that any extra headroom is used to reduce the burden on everyone else and not used to increase spending.
Apart from one or two points on which I have already commented, the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, made the important suggestion that Members of the European Parliament should perhaps be considered to be Members of your Lordships' House. That is something on which we should reflect. I have heard what he said and I shall pass it on to my noble friend as a suggestion for consideration.
I believe that the noble Lord was concerned about potential reforms for the Commission in 1996. We would like to see an efficient and accountable Commission which concentrates on what it does best, regulates a single market effectively and is committed to the overall goal set by successive European Councils. We are confident that the new president of the Commission shares those aims.
We support a strong role for the European Parliament in holding the Commission to account. However, we are very aware of concern about the Parliament's democratic accountability. We are giving active consideration to a number of suggestions which are designed to address the problem. These include the possibility of a second chamber, perhaps made up of representatives of national parliaments. This idea and others will be discussed in the context of enlargement and the 1996 IGC.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has told us on a number of occasions that he would rather that we had not gone in in 1972 and that we should not be having this debate at all, whereas the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said that we should have gone in sooner. Both have views to which a great deal of weight should be given. The noble Lord threatens to divide the House. If that were to be the case, I would ask it to support me roundly in something which I believe will do Britain good when the Bill has been passed.
I have already indicated to my noble friend Lord Finsberg that we should consider the powers of the European Parliament very carefully. That is one of the areas that we should look at for the IGC in 1996. The Government have always insisted, and will continue to insist, that the Council and not the European Parliament is the policy-making institution of the European Union. Our policies will continue to be determined within that framework. The Government have also made clear on numerous occasions that national parliaments remain the prime focus of democratic legitimacy.
558
I apologise if many of the remarks I have made have been about the IGC conference in 1996, when in fact we are talking about an accession Bill for four member states. However, I believe that the debate has very much fixed on that concept, so it was quite right that I should deal with those concerns.
In asking noble Lords to support the Second Reading of the Bill today we are signalling a new stage in the history of our continent. The European Community grew out of the ashes of the Second World War, at a time when Europe was riven by ideological and political differences. Since the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989 we have been living in a different Europe, a different world. Austria and the Nordic countries are, we trust, about to join the European Union. Other countries in central, eastern and southern Europe are all seeking a closer relationship with the Union or accession to it.
Britain has been at the centre of this process. By giving assent to the Bill before it today, this House can ensure that Britain continues to play its full part in the development of the European Union and of the wider Europe.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, may I take it from what he has said that between now and the IGC conference we are not going to receive any outline of the proposals which the Government will take to that conference for the reform of the institutions of the European Union in the light of enlargement?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have sought to give the noble Lord a number of assurances that, not only in this House but through many opportunities within government and the work of the study group, concerns expressed among your Lordships and ideas for the reform of the institutions will have a wide airing before the 1996 IGC.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Marriage Bill
5.25 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It is my pleasure and privilege to pilot the Bill through this House. It has successfully completed its passage through another place where it was introduced with flair and enthusiasm by my honourable friend Mr. Gyles Brandreth, the Member for Chester City, and where it received all-party support.
I am sure that the word "marriage" conjures up in many of your Lordships' minds the picture of a village church, wedding bells and a perfect summer day. Perhaps the first and most important point I can make is that this Bill is not concerned with any religious wedding, only civil weddings. Such civil weddings account for just over half the marriages in England and Wales. It sets out to give couples who choose such a wedding more choice over the venue for their marriage. The Bill amends the Marriage Act 1949 and the

559
Marriage (Registrar General's Licence) Act 1970, carrying forward popular recommendations contained in the White Paper, Registration—Proposals for Change, which was published in 1990.
It is a simple Bill with two important measures. Clause 2 would enable couples to marry in any register office in England and Wales. Clause 1 would allow local authorities to license additional, suitable—I stress the word "suitable"—premises. Currently couples wishing to marry in a register office have to do so at the office for the area in which one or the other of them lives. In today's world where mobility is a way of life, people have often moved away from the family home but wish to return there for their marriage. This they cannot do. They are thus denied the chance to marry in the area where many of their relatives and friends live and where they have grown up.
First, therefore, the Bill proposes to remove these restrictions and to allow couples to marry in any district of their choice. A wedding is a very special day in anyone's life. It may be that the relations and guests are too numerous for the size of a register office. Alternatively, the couple may wish to have a setting which reflects the dignity and solemnity of the occasion.
Therefore, the second proposal contained in the Bill would allow, for civil marriages only, local authorities to license additional premises in their area for the ceremony to take place. For example, they may decide to license a stately home, an hotel or other suitable accommodation. There would be a fee set locally to recover the cost to the local authority of the inspection and approval process.
There would be a number of safeguards. A code of practice has been drawn up which sets out the type of building which may be used. The Bill also provides for the making of regulations stipulating the procedures to be adopted. For example, few of your Lordships, I imagine, would wish to see the arrival in Britain of a Las Vegas style wedding parlour, and the Bill would not allow such a development. Nor would it become possible for people to marry in their own homes or in open spaces out of doors.
Wherever couples choose to marry there will be no change to the existing arrangements whereby formal notice of a marriage is given to the superintendent registrar of the district or districts where each of the couple lives. That will ensure that any local objection can continue to be raised in the area where the parties are best known. But the Bill would give couples who so wish an opportunity to celebrate their marriage in style and have a real day to remember.
Having just celebrated 44 years of married life I can only say that I believe in the institution of marriage absolutely and recommend it wholeheartedly. It is the mainstay of stability in our society today and I understand that it is even more popular than ever.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Baroness Seccombe.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before noble Lords whose names are not on the list of speakers take advantage of their opportunity to speak in the gap, perhaps I may respectfully draw their attention to the
560
fact that as recently as last year the House laid down that those who take advantage of that opportunity should seek to ensure that, as the Companion suggests, any such speech should be brief. When that was specified, the understanding of "brief" was that a speech should not last for longer than three minutes.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I apologise to both my noble friend Lady Seccombe and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, for not having put down my name earlier. I rise to raise only two points. First, as there is no "extent" clause in the Bill, I hope that it does not extend to Scotland. Indeed, I do not think that it should extend to Scotland. Secondly, as this is the first marriage legislation to be introduced since the Marriage Act 1949, the usual expression in legislation to recognise similar legislation is, "This Act may be cited with the (other) Act as the 'combined Acts'". That is all that I wish to say.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: My Lords, I apologise for intervening at this point. Perhaps I did not read the right papers and was simply too late to be able to put my name down as one of those wishing to speak.
I should like to give general support to the Bill. It seems a sensible measure. I should have thought that all Christian people would support anything that helps to make a wedding day a great and happy event.
I am less enthusiastic about Clause 2. We have endless difficulties explaining to people why they cannot be married in the church of their choice. If they can marry in the stately home of their choice, it will be even more difficult to explain why the ancient legislation about residence means that they cannot simply choose a church. Perhaps one day further legislation will be needed to remove more of the geographical restrictions on where people can be married.
One of the benefits of the Bill to the Church is that it will remove the widely held but false view that if you want a big wedding it has to be in a church and if you want a small wedding it cannot be in a church because a church means a big wedding. I hope that under the provisions of the Bill we shall come again to see that the place for a big wedding with perhaps not too much Christianity in it is the stately home, but that the wedding for ordinary folk who want to be married in the sight of God is a cheap wedding in their local parish church. I support the Bill.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate congratulated my noble friend Lady Seccombe on introducing the Bill. I should like to add my congratulations to his. It was I who in 1988 presented such provisions as part of a Green Paper proposal in draft form to my right honourable friend the current Chancellor of the Exchequer when he became Minister for Health and was at the same time the Minister responsible for the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. He finally presented the Green Paper in 1989. It was translated into a White Paper in January 1990, since when there has been a pretty deathly hush.

561
Both the Green and White Papers covered other matters, two of which have been acted upon. One was the redefinition of the word "stillbirth". The other was the introduction of the qualification for registration officers. That shows that, on the whole, they were popular measures.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned choice. That is exactly what we are talking about—and more power to my noble friend's elbow for introducing this measure which widens choice for many people. I believe that my noble friend said that it would affect rather over half of the people who are married in England and Wales in any one year.
I have always recognised that there should be some control over where people are allowed to get married. Some people think that the top of Blackpool Tower might be a nice place to get married. Other people might suggest Blackpool beach. I would not recommend anybody to get married on Blackpool beach in October while the party conference season is on because it is my recollection that it is normally blowing a gale and pouring with rain at the same time. Nonetheless, the Bill presents an exciting opportunity.
I hope that the right reverend Prelate is right and that there will come a time when we can change the law— perhaps the right reverend Prelate will pursue this—to allow people to get married in the church of their choice. I can see no good reason why they should not as long as some sort of control is maintained.
I am conscious of the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, but I should like to point out that that White Paper also proposed the registration of deaths by declaration. Although that proposal was accepted by the Government, it seems to have disappeared into a large black hole. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister will be able to say something about that and about the other proposals in that White Paper in relation to future legislation. In the meantime, I really do congratulate my noble friend Lady Seccombe.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, I welcome the Bill which was so ably introduced by my noble friend Lady Seccombe. My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale mentioned the Green Paper which he introduced. Perhaps I should point out that this proposal (and the other proposals that he mentioned) came out of a scrutiny report that was produced some time in the 1980s. That report has been sitting around for quite some time.
I remind your Lordships that the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys—or the Registrar General's Department, whatever you like to call it—was set up under the 1836 Act. Very little in that Act has been changed. It was a very good piece of legislation— probably because of the legislators of that time. The scrutiny report went into everything thoroughly in order to bring the provisions up to date. Although the origins of that scrutiny report were interesting, I shall not go into them, but suffice it to say that it happened by accident.
562
However, those are piecemeal matters, and I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether parliamentary time can be given to this Bill which basically is non-controversial, non-contentious and useful social legislation.
I should like to raise a further point arising from those recommendations. I suggest that the registers of births, marriages and deaths which are over 75 years old should be opened up to, and seen by, the public, probably at the Public Record Office. I recognise that my noble friend might be unable to answer that now and I accept that she may reply by way of Oral or Written Answer. However, I raise those points to show that many other important matters arose from that scrutiny report and the Green Paper.
5.38 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I start by saying how pleasant it is to have such an agreeable and happy Bill at this stage of the Session and one which seems to be attracting support from all sides of the House.
As we all know, the old-fashioned cliché was that good marriages are made in heaven. Today's cliché is more often that they are solemnised in cold unfriendly register offices against a background of dusty artificial flowers. Therefore, I welcome this simple Bill which, as has already been said, will give the more than 50 per cent. of those who marry who opt for civil marriages much greater choice about where their ceremony takes place.
It is particularly important that that extra flexibility will include the town or district of the wedding as well as the building in which it is to take place. Young people often move away from home to work but may want, for that major event, to return to a place with family or sentimental roots. They may choose to be married in a place where they enjoyed a romantic holiday together. In any case, there seems to be no reason not to extend that type of choice without undermining the serious nature of the occasion.
Of course, as other noble Lords have already said, there are some choices which could undermine the serious nature of the event. I am glad that the wedding opportunities which have been widened in the Bill have not been widened to such extent that a marriage becomes merely an occasion for throwing a frivolous or extravagant party or creating a rather competitive show with friends. For example, my son told me at the weekend what he has seen to be the fashionable custom in the Cayman Islands where marriages are solemnised regularly on a shallow reef a few hundreds from the beach. There the bridegroom wears a dinner jacket and swimming flippers and the bride a veil and swimming costume. Your Lordships will be familiar with the press coverage of show business weddings in hot-air balloons and outdoor casinos. I hope that "suitable premises" will be defined sufficiently tightly so as to exclude that kind of occasion.
Having said that, I regret the fact that the Bill does not extend the reform to marriages in gardens. I gather from the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, that neither does the Bill extend to marriages

563
in private homes. Some of the most happy and attractive wedding ceremonies I have attended in the United States have been held in beautiful gardens. If we are to continue having summers like this one, it seems a pity to be unable to hold ceremonies outdoors.
I know that my honourable friend Mr. Harry Cohen tried to introduce such an amendment to the Bill in another place, but was persuaded to withdraw it. Mr. Brandreth, the sponsor of the Bill in another place, advanced against the amendment what seemed to me to be the slightly odd argument that marriages should not be allowed to take place behind the bushes. But the real objection, as I understand the debates, was that gardens and parks are not public places within the meaning of the Marriage Act. That seems to be the main argument also against using private homes which, again, are often the most suitable places for civil weddings to be held.
The Bill is too limited in that way. If the discretion for deciding what are suitable places is to be left to local authorities it might be within the spirit of the Bill if the accompanying regulations were to allow gardens and private homes to be included. It would also be helpful to know whether the regulations will ensure oversight of how local authorities decide which places are suitable, because I fear that otherwise many local authorities will merely take the easy way out and opt to retain the register office where weddings have always been held in probably a rather gloomy setting.
Perhaps I may end this brief contribution on a personal note. I was married four months ago in a typically antiseptic 1950s register office. The lighting was unattractively fluorescent, even for brides many years younger than I am, and the most obvious wall decorations were prominent signs to the nearby toilets. My husband and I were very fortunate because close friends and family created another much warmer more meaningful ceremony later in the day. That was held in a flower-filled room where we were able to combine the ceremony with a delicious meal. How much better it would have been, as well as more convenient for us all, if the legal ceremony and the celebration of a personal kind had been combined in one event. I only wish, like the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that the Bill, which follows the recommendations of the White Paper published four years ago, had been introduced earlier. However, as it is, I welcome its belated appearance and wish it a speedy passage so that next spring others in my position will no doubt benefit from it.
5.43 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lady Seccombe for the clear and concise way she has introduced the Bill. It will be seen by many in your Lordships' House as a useful and popular measure. It will help to meet the wishes of many members of the public—those who have yet to marry and wish to do so by civil ceremony—by extending the choice of place available. All the world loves a lover and weddings are both a celebration of love and, for many, the start of family life. It is a day of joy and the start of a commitment for life.
564
The Bill aims to allow more choice as to where civil, non-religious, marriages may be held, while maintaining the seriousness and the dignity of marriage. It does not entertain the bizarre. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that registrars who conduct marriages will not be obliged to don scuba-diving suits to marry people under water, or to go up in hot-air balloons. The place must be registered with a local authority as somewhere where marriages can be held regularly. The places must be known to the public so that valid objections can be made, and they must be in buildings which have no recent or continuing religious connections. Local authorities will require those buildings to conform with fire regulations, to comply with health and safety aspects, and so on. The ceremonies will be civil weddings, and quasi-religious marriages will not be allowed. The Registrar General, the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities have produced a code of conduct and I am sure that they will be good arbiters of the dignity and seemliness of marriage.
This is a popular Bill which we would want to see given a Second Reading by your Lordships. It removes tiresome regulations that civil ceremonies have to be conducted in the register office and gives people a freedom of choice. Owners of suitable places will have to apply to register with their councils, and I have heard mentioned that some stately houses and castles might be considered, though it would be nice to see a very wide choice of suitable buildings being registered. The cost of the registrar travelling and presiding at those ceremonies will be covered fully by their scale of charges and the existing arrangements for a standard civil marriage in the register office itself, where notice of marriage will be posted for public scrutiny, will be retained.
The Bill is not a comprehensive change of all aspects of marriage. No established rights are removed. There are no provisions in the Bill to cover ceremonies devised by humanists, witches, or gay people. It is quite simple and allows merely for a wider choice of location.
I can assure my noble friend Lord Balfour that the legislation relates to the law only as it applies to England and Wales. It is not relevant to Scotland. I shall look into the drafting to take account of his second point. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield for his support and that of the Anglican Church. I understand that those views are shared by other Christian denominations, as voiced through the Churches Main Committee.
The Bill is restricted to civil marriages. I understand that provision already exists in certain circumstances for couples to marry in religious buildings outside their district of residence. If it is the right reverend Prelate's wish that that provision should be extended further, I can do no more than support my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale in his advice. I am very grateful to him and my noble friend Lord Teviot for the parts they played in bringing the Bill to fruition. With regard to the second point made by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale about the remaining recommendations of the White Paper, some have already been implemented and others related directly to the structure and

565
organisation of the local service and may well best be addressed after the reorganisation of local government of England and Wales.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, asked why civil marriages could not take place out of doors and at any time. The Bill proposes only procedural changes to civil marriage. Any wider change, such as anywhere or outside the current times (between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.) would be fundamental and beyond the scope of such a measure. The noble Baroness asked also why marriages could not take place in private homes. Two of the principles of marriage law in England and Wales are, first, that the public should have access to the premises, and, secondly, the premises should be known as registered for that particular purpose. It is our intention to retain those principles so that any objection to a marriage can be raised during the ceremony. We have therefore ruled out private homes as approved places for a marriage to take place. Of course there are exceptions at the moment and those will continue for the housebound, the detained and those who are seriously ill who can already marry where they live.
In conclusion, the Government give the Bill their full support. If we can offer a toast to civil marriage it will be, "Long may it last".
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate for the interesting points they have raised and for their support. I offer a special thanks to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for welcoming the Bill. I hope that all noble Lords will welcome and endorse the measures contained in the Bill and in so doing enable more couples to celebrate their marriages in the place and manner of their choosing. I now ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Waste Recycling
5.50 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in achieving their targets for the recycling of waste materials.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to express appreciation to those noble Lords who, on a fine summer's day, are devoting their time to this Unstarred Question. It is an appropriate time to raise the whole question of the recycling of waste materials, in particular domestic waste. We are just about at the half-way point between 1989, when the Government first announced they were setting local authorities the target of recycling half of recyclable household waste, subsequently endorsed as 25 per cent. of household waste, and the target date of the year 2000. It is worth seeing the point we have reached and whether any changes may usefully be introduced in the policy.
The Environment Committee of another place issued a report on recycling on 6th July. In a well-reasoned and comprehensive document, it argued that the time has come to relate the 25 per cent. target more closely to
566
local circumstances and to include other ways of dealing with waste, such as energy recovery schemes. I should declare that for many years I have personally been associated with the problems of waste management. I am president of the Recycling Council, and I am involved with firms dealing with various aspects of waste management, including energy recovery.
Waste management is an essential and integral part of the efforts of any country to achieve a more sustainable pattern of development It is especially important in advanced economies such as ours where an abundance of resources and products has led us into a consumption trend in which a great deal of waste is produced. OECD countries are estimated to have increased their waste arisings by 26 per cent. between the mid-1970s and the late 1980s. Principle 8 of the Rio Declaration on Sustainable Development calls on all signatory states to reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption. In my opinion, waste management is an essential element in the UK's commitment to sustainable development. We need to look at recycling in that context.
I believe that the Government were right to draw attention to the issue in dramatic fashion by establishing the 25 per cent. target. In 1989, when the target was set, the national average rate of the recycling of domestic waste was in the region of 2 to 3 per cent. The most recent information suggests that the average rate is between 5 and 6 per cent. That is a long way off the 25 per cent. target.
There is a wide range of achievement behind the average figures, as one would expect. For instance, as has been widely reported, Adur District Council reached the target rate by the end of last year and intends to go well beyond it by the year 2000. A number of other councils, such as Milton Keynes and Sheffield, have noticeably exceeded the national average. However, the low average figures emphasise the difficulties that are being encountered by the majority of councils.
It is interesting to note that other European countries have encountered a similar situation in relation to recycling targets. For example, in Germany some very high rates—up to 70 per cent.—have been achieved in sample communities of about 100 households. High rates are much more difficult to sustain on a larger scale. The reason is that householders need to be strongly motivated, with constant prompting and inducements, to maintain high separation rates.
Another factor affecting the achievement of higher rates of recycling is the big range of difference in the market value of recycled materials. For example, at the top end of the range, aluminium fetches in the region of £300 to £600 per tonne, which works out on average at about one penny per can. At the other end of the scale is waste paper, which is the most plentiful form of recyclable material and which often costs more to collect than it is worth in the market.
Who is responsible for ensuring that the recycling targets are achieved? In the UK, responsibilities for waste collection and disposal are invested in the local authorities. District councils are established as waste collection authorities. They are the people who ensure that dustcarts visit our doorsteps each week—more

567
frequently if we are lucky—to remove our waste. They have a major role to play in the recycling system. County councils are established as waste disposal authorities and are able to take a strategic view of planning systems and networks. In the metropolitan areas', collection and disposal functions are combined. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Sections 49, 50 and 51, both collection and disposal authorities are given duties for recycling.
Recycling plans have to be produced by district and borough councils. These plans detail what action will be taken and what is expected to be achieved. There are 366 schemes, all of which aim to achieve the 25 per cent. target. But what will be their ability to do so in view of the cost of recycling systems and the difficulty of securing markets for recycled products?
A number of local initiatives have been tried, such as bottle, paper or can banks; or kerbside separation of waste. But if large quantities are to be handled a more strategic approach is required with the establishment of centrally-sited materials recycling facilities (MRFs), which disposal authorities would seem best placed to provide.
I have seen MRFs in action in Hampshire and in scale they certainly surpass other systems. I cite the county council and 13 district councils of Hampshire as an example of local authority partnership pursuing a policy of integrated waste management. I have had a number of dealings with the county council and I have attended some of its conferences. I am much impressed with its approach to the question of waste management as set out in its recent publication The Way Forward. It analyses the flow of waste materials into long-term markets, provides for a system of regional recycling, processing and treatment units and includes other methods of dealing with waste, such as energy recovery.
It seems to me that this is the way in which the issue should be handled from now on, particularly in view of the major problem presented by the availability of landfill. Suitable and safe sites are increasingly difficult to find. The costs of landfill are going up, irrespective of whether there is to be a landfill levy. Thus we can no longer consider landfill as the easy, cheap and simple solution to waste disposal.
There have been a number of interesting initiatives in energy recovery from waste. I have the honour to be the independent chairman of Sheffield Heat and Power Limited. The company was set up under the initiative of the Sheffield City Council to make use of the waste heat from the city incinerator. This waste heat, through a system of hot water pipes, provides heat to a large and growing part of the city of Sheffield. This form of heat replaces alternatives, all of which would add to emissions into the atmosphere. Other examples of energy-to-waste, in this case converting domestic waste into electricity, are provided by the plant at Edmonton, which has operated for some time, and also that in south-east London where the recently constructed SELCHP plant is taking some 400,000 tonnes of waste from two neighbouring boroughs and generating 32mw. of electricity. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Arran— I thought he would be replying to the debate but other events have intervened—has visited the SELCHP plant,
568
which is operating to full capacity. Schemes such as those demonstrate the benefits of adopting an integrated policy towards waste management.
The essential feature of a waste management strategy is that it must embrace the hierarchy of waste management options: first, minimise the production of waste; secondly, re-use and recycle materials wherever practicable; thirdly, recover energy from waste; and, finally, use landfill for final minimal disposal. A broad-based integrated waste management strategy is needed to achieve that hierarchy.
I should like to ask the following questions of the Government. First, do they consider that the time has now come to broaden waste recovery objectives as advocated in the Select Committee's report on recycling to which I referred? Secondly, do they consider that energy from waste plants should play a major role in a revised policy? My attention was recently drawn to a statement by Mr. Gummer, Secretary of State for the Environment, on 20th July in response to the Royal Commission's report on the incineration of waste in which he seemed to support that view. Thirdly, will the Government encourage local authorities with waste collection and disposal responsibilities to combine as appropriate to prepare integrated waste management strategies on the lines initiated by the county and district councils in Hampshire?
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, in the course of his extremely interesting speech I did not hear him mention plastic waste, of which there are very large quantities. That is part of household waste—especially bottles and containers. So far, local authorities have not got round to doing anything about that. Is he able to help us at all about that?
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. There are large amounts of plastic waste. I did not go through all the elements of waste. The problem in relation to plastic is that the different types of plastic must be separated in order to achieve the greatest value. It is not sufficient merely to put together all plastic elements. Therefore, that has created a real problem.
I know that a great deal of work has been done in the area, but, again, it illustrates the problem of taking recycling beyond its economic viability, which was one of the main thrusts of my remarks.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, as usual, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has chosen a particularly good day on which to introduce his Unstarred Question because it falls outside all the hurly-burly of other matters which have occupied us over the past few weeks. While the noble Lord may feel extremely passionately about recycling and waste disposal, the summer months and the months going into the autumn will give many of us an opportunity to think more coolly about the problem.
The noble Lord explained, in his usual clear way, some of the problems. He mentioned the fact that the Government have introduced those targets and he felt that that was extremely good. I believe that the introduction of targets which are not attainable has a

569
detrimental effect. Although the target came down finally to 25 per cent., the noble Lord explained that achievements are more generally in the region of 5 to 6 per cent. He asked why that should be.
The noble Lord drew attention to the value of some of the waste and to who wants it. Years and years ago boy scouts collected wastepaper and made enormous amounts of money. But who wants it today? The only piece of usable waste in the household bin is the aluminium can. Very broadly, that is due to the efforts of the steel industry in manufacturing a can which is easily collectable and, in particular, easily recyclable.
The noble Lord went on to describe a number of aspects, one of which was the motivation for collection in the household sector. I wonder whether the Government will pay heed to the House of Commons environmental committee report which the noble Lord praised. I endorse that praise and I should add that I found it to be an extremely readable document. At paragraph 149, one of its secondary recommendations is the provision of what it calls recycling credits to third parties. That might give a spur to those third parties to make a greater effort.
Later in my speech I wish to turn to the district and borough council efforts within that context. But essentially in his concluding remarks the noble Lord said that we should be spending a great deal of time on the minimisation of waste. Two matters arise from that. First, in 1992 the motor industry, with which I am rather more familiar although I have no interest to declare, with the Bird Group and the United Engineering Steels, set up ACORD —the Automotive Consortium on Recycling and Disposal.
A great deal has happened since that time. It has now been established that certainly by the year 2015—which may seem a long way away but within the context of the motor car manufacturer it is not a long time at all— about 95 per cent. of the body weight of a vehicle will be recyclable. That is a fairly good achievement, and to me that demonstrates the necessity to target quite specifically and explicitly various industries rather than treating waste as one great pile of stuff which includes plastic bottles, hazardous hospital waste and so on. It seems to me that that would be a better way forward.
However, what struck me only recently was that the Department of Trade and Industry, through the Minister, Neil Hamilton, at a meeting in June when the first year results of a programme in the North West of England called Project Catalyst were announced, said:
"We hope these results will help convince companies that waste minimisation could work for them as it has for the companies who took part in Project Catalyst. This is a powerful message which we are keen to promote".
Despite the ministerial enthusiasm for that, the DTI has declared that it will not sponsor any further regional waste minimisation projects along the lines of Project Catalyst. It said:
"We would want to avoid supporting something that has already been done".
That might have been done and done very successfully in the North of England, but there are other places where sponsorship—I suppose that one could call it
570
pump-priming —could have a significant value. It could show more people what can be done and could demonstrate the value to a company of designing into the product its waste and its waste disposal.
I believe that it is rather sad that, on the one hand, the Government make those exhortations and yet fail to put their money where their mouth is. It does not need a lot of money.
In the report at paragraph 65, the committee deals at some length with the subject of landfill. In that regard I should declare an interest in that I am an adviser to the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors. But I should explain—and the reason will be clear in a very short while—that not only is that association comprised of big and small companies in the business of waste disposal but it is engaged also in the business of waste management. Paragraph 65 of the report states that there is no sense at this time in imposing a landfill levy. I hope that the Government will follow that piece of advice.
Up until a short while ago—up to the time of the Environmental Protection Act—it was the practice to dump everything into a hole and call it landfill. However, now that the regulations are very much more strict that option becomes less acceptable.
Alongside the recommendation to which I referred, the committee also makes another recommendation in paragraph 56 encouraging the Department of the Environment to commission a study into the environmental benefits and externalities of recycling. Noble Lords may remember that the department commissioned a report, commonly known as the Pearce Report, on the environmental externalities of landfill. It was a most hopeless document, conjuring, as it did, figures out of the air with no substantiation whatever. Indeed, it was a mishmash of half a dozen people making their contributions to a report. However, my understanding is that the report has been shelved. If the DoE commissions work of that nature, I hope that it will be on a rather more pragmatic basis than the last effort.
I said that I wished to mention something about the district and borough councils being the responsible authorities for promoting schemes and plans for waste as regards both disposal and recycling. It is most disappointing—and I believe that the failure of a number of district and borough councils to come forward with a meaningful plan and actually implement it is significant—to note that over two-thirds of local government collection contracts remain under the control of local government organisations, the DSOs. For example, of the 376 contracts awarded in England and Wales since the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering, 67.6 per cent. (254) have been won by client authority DSOs.
But I am not very surprised about that. When I look at some of the figures contained in the tendering documents, it is abundantly clear that DSOs load in so many factors which could easily be omitted. Were the CCT arrangements more sensibly adopted and more aggressively monitored by the department, I believe that we would see very many more outside contracting companies from the industry being able to make a very much more significant impact.

571
Alongside the latter there is the problem which again was reported quite recently; namely, that of the European directive on co-disposal of landfill. Apparently the Government have signed up to the directive, but now the department has conceded that the wording is ambiguous and is not sure just how such co-disposal sites are to operate. There seems to be a good deal of confusion on the government side as to exactly where we are going—and, like the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I think that the minimising of waste is the first and primary objective—what we are going to do when we get the stuff and how we are to fit in with our European colleagues.
It is a big problem and much has to be done. It is easy in your Lordships' House to make the declaration that we do over so many things—that something must be done—and then rush into all sorts of rather hare-brained schemes which fail dismally to achieve the results and yet cost manufacturers, the public and eventually everyone concerned enormous amounts of money. Therefore, whatever the Government propose to do in implementing at least some of the Select Committee's principal recommendations, I hope that they will think a fairly long way ahead with a plan that can be implemented and that they will support its implementation.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for introducing the debate. As a vice-president of Waste Watch I take a keen interest in the progress of recycling in this country. As we have heard, the 25 per cent. target refers only to domestic waste but the annual waste production, if I may put it that way, in this country is 400 million tonnes. As an example of how that figure is broken down I should tell the House that agriculture is responsible for 80 million tonnes and that mining and quarrying are responsible for 110 million tonnes. Therefore, the 25 per cent. of household waste, admirable though it may be as a target, is really peanuts in the overall picture of waste production which amounts to 15 million tonnes from weekly household collections throughout the country.
It is worth noting at this point that we imported 47,000 tonnes of hazardous waste in 1991–92. Perhaps the noble Earl who is to respond can tell the House whether we import waste other than hazardous waste. I know that that was the case at one time, but I am rather hoping that that no longer happens. Perhaps the noble Earl could enlighten us on that point when he replies. Although I welcome the setting of a target for domestic waste, it should be understood that that is a minimal part of the problem. We should not ignore the far larger problem of waste from other sources.
The three R's of waste, which were referred to under another title by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, are: reduce, re-use and recycle. I believe that it is widely recognised that recycling comes last in that hierarchy and that reduce comes first. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was very firm on that point. For obvious economic and environmental reasons it is better to reduce the amount of waste produced to begin with. That was the first recommendation in the Select Committee's report which
572
has just come from another place. It would be encouraging to hear that the Department of the Environment has taken the report's recommendations seriously. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give us some encouraging comments in that respect when he responds. I also hope that he will tell us how such recommendations are to be achieved, especially in industry, if the Government support them.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to Project Catalyst which, I understand, has been most successful. However, perhaps I may give the House some figures in that respect which I do not believe the noble Lord quoted. In fact, 14 companies took part in the project and they say that they have saved £8.9 million per year as a result of the operation. That is an important sum by anyone's standards. I hope that the Department of Trade and Industry will think again before it withdraws its support from pushing that project forward in other parts of the country. I believe that more than one project is needed before the whole concept takes off.
The second item in the hierarchy, which is re-use— primarily of packaging and returnable containers— seems to grow less viable as transport and handling costs increase. However, where it can be used the savings to the environment are very considerable, especially in terms of the energy saved in remaking the objects which have been re-used. But the greatest hazards for a successful recycling programme are the maintenance of markets, which was mentioned by both previous speakers. In the case of domestic waste, efficient and reliable arrangements for collection come second to that consideration.
There is a growing willingness among members of the public to take part in recycling exercises. I am sure we have all taken part in those exercises and know others who are doing so. A number of local authorities have received approaches from housing estates asking for recycling facilities to be provided. The increase in the amounts collected, even with the present primitive and inadequate arrangements, is proof of a good degree of public support. However, we must find ways of making recycling easier. At the moment unless one has a car, or access to a car, and is prepared to drive to the nearest centre, there is not really much alternative to putting one's recyclable waste in the dustbin. I believe that apart from Sheffield, and one or two other places where small experiments in this field have been tried, no place has offered kerbside collections.
The question of markets for the materials collected is, of course, even more complex. As we know, the paper market fluctuates considerably. Incidentally, I should mention that I collected some envelopes from the Printed Paper Office this week which used to bear the recycled paper mark in the bottom corner, but that is no longer the case. I hope that does not mean that we have ceased to supply recycled paper envelopes in your Lordships' House. I believe that we should be setting an example.
Glass and aluminium have assured markets and so, I have recently discovered, have textiles. I was recently involved in a seminar, organised by Waste Watch, on textile recycling and I was interested to discover that it is one of the oldest recycling activities and is still one

573
of the most successful. In fact, the various industries involved would welcome an increase in supplies of textiles, yet this particular area was not listed in the Select Committee's report and as far as I know it receives scant attention in most publicity exercises.
I might mention to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who mentioned plastics in his intervention, that I discovered at the seminar that a particular kind of plastic bottle is in great demand because it can be taken down to its elemental fibres and made into very expensive fashion garments. The industry cannot get enough of that particular plastic at the moment. It is used to make those furry things which are so fashionable. They are often made from old plastic bottles. That is encouraging. Perhaps the noble Lord would also like to know that although the input of plastic into the waste stream in terms of numbers has increased dramatically over the past decade, in terms of weight it has scarcely increased at all because all the manufacturers of plastics have gone in for what is called "thinning" which means they use far less in each item that they produce. Therefore, the situation is not quite as desperate as it may seem.
However, markets for recyclables must be developed and encouraged if we are to achieve and to maintain the target. It is not enough just to achieve the target grandly in the year 2000 and then to fall back because we fail to maintain the markets. It would be helpful if major purchasers such as the Government would require a minimum recycled content in all their purchases. This can be done if due notice is given to suppliers of goods to various government departments. Eventually, going beyond household waste, surely there is scope for ways to apply the three Rs to industrial waste. I mentioned reduction earlier on. One obvious application would be to use recycled materials in road construction. This would have a double benefit in that the use of recycled materials in road construction would reduce the impact of mineral extraction on the countryside which, as your Lordships will know, causes great anguish to CPRE and other bodies.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, recycling is an important element in the Government's attempts to achieve sustainable development, and I know that the Committee of your Lordships' House which is sitting on this subject at the moment is about to turn its attention to waste and no doubt will mention recycling. However, that requires a positive approach from all departments and it simply cannot be pigeon-holed as a responsibility of the Department of the Environment. I repeat that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject. I hope that the Department of the Environment is to produce a serious answer.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for putting down this Question because his great knowledge in relation to waste management, upon which he spoke today, is illuminating and is vitally important.
574
It is not that I am uninterested in waste management as a whole: I am indeed very interested in it. I am also very interested in minimising waste, but I thought that in this short debate I would focus rather on the question of markets, very much on the lines of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. That means that one has to consider what exactly it is that one is talking about in relation to recycling.
I think there is a measure of confusion, not in your Lordships' House but elsewhere, over what recycling is. It seems to me that it can be quite simply defined as the separation of reusable products from other rubbish at source (or at a central sorting facility) and processing the reusable products so that they can be substituted for virgin materials at manufacturing plants. Put in another way, it is the return to commerce of those products from the waste stream which can be reused. I put this to your Lordships at some length because I think there is some confusion with regard to recycling, incineration and generation of power from waste which seems to me to be an entirely different though important matter.
Incineration, even for the purpose of generating electricity, is not recycling (though some would like to believe it is) and to treat it as if it were fudges the issue, sometimes intentionally, to indicate that targets have been achieved which have not been achieved. The target which has been set by the Government is 25 per cent. recycling of domestic waste. That may be good or it may be bad, but that is the target that the Government set. It does not include, to my mind, incineration.
It has been said that recycling will be undertaken only if costs of landfill are raised, and to that end some have suggested the imposition of a landfill levy. Clearly no local authority, or anyone else, is going to embark on recycling if disposal to landfill is far cheaper. If landfill standards were to be substantially improved, costs would inevitably rise and there would be a concurrent improvement in environmental standards. That surely is the course to pursue and it is urgently required for good environmental reasons. Its impact on recycling should be regarded as incidental. It would be interesting, if the Minister felt able to do so, to indicate what the policy of government is in this regard, and in particular their attitude to the proposals coming out of the European Commission.
The key factor in promoting recycling is the development of markets for the recycled materials. Collection has widespread popular support and it also has moral support among the public generally in that the public support sustainability. That is widely supported in the community. Were it not so, collection points such as bottle banks and so forth would not have been set up. However, no business can be created without the existence of a market for the recycled products. Indeed the impact on the wider economy of dumping quantities of unwanted materials can be catastrophic, as was exemplified in the German DSD experience. The position in that regard is well summarised in the report on recycling—to which reference has been made by each speaker this evening—of the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment at paragraphs 77 to 81.

575
In brief, DSD, a public limited company, undertook for packaging distributors their legal obligation for the recovery of packaging waste. The scheme vastly increased the amount of waste collected for recycling in Germany, and much of the paper and plastics collected was sold on the open market in the European Union. As a result, surpluses and consequent falls in price were experienced throughout the European Union. It was a serious setback to European recycling efforts. Therefore, collection of waste for recycling and the manufacture of recycled products without a market can produce disastrous results.
Markets for recycled materials extend not only to the manufacturers who use them but also the users of the finished products. So recycled plastic may not be usable in the food industry. Likewise, there is a question among certain supermarkets as to whether they are prepared to accept recycled plastic bags or whether they require those plastic bags to be made from virgin material.
Have the Government specific programmes and policies for the development of such markets? Do they require that government offices shall use specific proportions of recycled materials in products they use? I had noted that their use of recycled paper is well known, but in the light of what the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said, perhaps I should revise that sentence in what I intended to say. Do the Government seek to influence their suppliers and agencies, offshoots and others, which between them create a substantial demand?
Of course there has been a general increase in recycling—and its products—in the United States as well as in the European Union. Therefore it is of the first importance that the Government in pursuing their recycling policies should bear those factors in mind.
In a report in The Times of 20th July (on page 26) reference is made to a programme of Aylesford Newsprint to increase its production of newsprint in the coming year from recycled newspapers and magazines by some 280,000 tonnes per year and that about 25 per cent. of that increased production will be exported. That is an exciting prospect and it would be useful if the Minister could say something about the basis of the grant and the impact of the increased production.
The 25 per cent. target for recycling relates, as I said, to domestic waste streams. Do the Government consider that it would be helpful either in relation to the process of collection, recycling or the establishment of markets if local authorities were also to address commercial and industrial waste streams when introducing the recycling projects and developing recycling strategies?
It is generally believed that recycling is "a good thing" and that it is environmentally beneficial and contributes to sustainability. However, it seems that not much consideration has been given to pollution and other environmental disbenefits arising from the whole process: for instance, collection and journeys to collection centres by the public, the impact of spillage and litter there, transport to the processing plant and the impact in the processing plant itself. It would be helpful if the Government could give some response to the question as to whether any inquiry has been made in
576
these fields, which are of importance to the public who, as I have said, are very favourably disposed to the whole project. Every encouragement should be given.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him a question relative to his remarks about a landfill levy against the background of the Select Committee's report, with which he will be familiar. I paraphrase the Committee's fourth recommendation that it is clear that new regulations affecting landfill sites under the EPA brought into effect in May 1994 will increase landfill costs. The Committee does not believe that there is a case for the imposition of a landfill levy at the present time. Should circumstances change it may be necessary to look at the matter again. Does the noble Lord dissent from that view at this time, or does he want to see, as suggested by his remarks, an immediate levy?
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I certainly do not think that a levy of any kind now or in the future is the right course. I believe that the right course is the improvement of standards, possibly by pre-treatment of waste before it is put into landfill and the whole question of leachate treatment and the finishing off and covering of sites. I believe that the effect of the increased standards that would be required would be the closure of many sites. I do not believe that a levy is the right course.
6.35 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for having given us the opportunity for the debate. When the noble Lord opened the debate I thought that he said it all. However, I have been fascinated to hear others add usefully to what he said. I shall similarly endeavour not to waste your Lordships' time.
This is a most important topic and one of international concern. I remember debating the issue as a Member of the European Parliament some 10 or more years ago. Much more recently we have considered the issue in debates and in the course of committee work in the Council of Europe. Like the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, I shall be glad to hear from my noble friend the Minister at the end of the debate the latest developments and requirements on the European Union front in particular.
At its worst the international aspect means, as has been said, that waste may be shipped around the world and end up in our back yard. There is also the effect of the German experience on recycling markets. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, referred to that. Nevertheless, the ideal is that we should be able to ensure internationally that we pool our knowledge and experience for the benefit of everyone.
I speak today as the President of Waste Watch, which is the national agency for co-ordinating the activities of local voluntary bodies together with industry and local authorities in order to educate not only the public in general but also the Government and people close to government. It was the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who got me involved with Waste Watch in the first place. Therefore, it is most appropriate that I should contribute to the debate.

577
We can point in Waste Watch to many excellent local projects which are taking place up and down the country. It never ceases to amaze me how inventive people can be when they get involved. A typical national effort is a "waste line" for centralised recycling inquiries, while information is supplied both of a national and local nature. A very successful "Watch your Waste" campaign involved a pledge to which many of your Lordships as well as many Members of Parliament signed up. Indeed, all the relevant Ministers and the Prime Minister agreed to sign. From the look on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, it appears that he may not have done so, but I am sure that he will be only too happy to rectify that. I hope that my noble friend the recently appointed Minister at the Department of the Environment will also be inclined to follow suit.
All these ideas, projects and initiatives are useful and important to the educational approach and to recycling. It is vital that we use every possible method to change attitudes. I am happy that the Government support the efforts of Waste Watch both in funding and at a personal level. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State attended a recent seminar and spoke convincingly. My honourable friend the Minister for the Environment, Mr. Robert Atkins, also spoke at the recent annual conference. I therefore believe that the Government are putting their mouth and money behind Waste Watch.
As a number of contributors to the debate have said, waste minimisation must be the first aim. That involves less packaging, and manufacturing items for durability. I was interested to learn at the recent Waste Watch conference that a vast number of consumer goods are thrown away each year. I do not refer to every-day short-life items, but to six million kitchen appliances, three million vacuum cleaners and two million cars— all at a considerable environmental cost. Increasing the lifespan of products would provide a more fundamental response. I believe that increasing the durability of goods is a matter to be tackled at the appropriate level.
There are other ideas under the waste minimising heading. No one has referred to the compost initiative; it is one of the latest initiatives. The London borough of Sutton has sought to reintroduce home composting by offering a choice of compost units to residents. Local community groups have also been involved in encouraging residents to adopt that initiative which could be undertaken more widely and thereby minimise the amount of waste and cost of collection.
I recognise that waste minimisation involves changing attitudes and habits. That may be difficult. After all, recycling requires positive action. One has to take bottles to the bottle bank; one takes cans to be crushed; and one takes paper to be disposed of. One can obtain satisfaction from doing so. The problem about undertaking less recycling is that one does not attain the same feeling of satisfaction. It is therefore important that we tackle the issue on an educational level.
Perhaps I may cite another small example, although, spread across the country, it may not be so small. Sainsbury's rewards people for re-using one of its
578
plastic bag; it refunds lp. That may answer the question raised by my noble friend Lord Renton. The idea could be carried out more widely.
Most of the other points that I had intended to raise have already been referred to. I look forward with great interest to hearing the Minister.
6.45 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ezra for introducing the debate in such a comprehensive way. The problem about speaking later in such a debate is that those noble Lords who are more experienced have already spoken and most of what one would have said has already been said.
I am not sure whether my noble friend considered that we should back away from the 25 per cent. target or whether he thought that we should go for it and seek energy recovery. I believe that it is important that we should stick to targets; and I believe that the Government may be slipping back. It is easy to make the right noises and then quietly to retreat from the position that one has adopted. I fear that that may be happening.
There is a role for energy recovery. However, I would hope to see the proportion of goods that we recycle increased at the expense of landfill. We should do everything we can to recycle.
I noted in an article in Materials Reclamation Weekly this month that Cardiff is also about to achieve the target of 25 per cent. Many councils have exceeded the target. There may be special circumstances in such cases. But if some councils are able to attain the target, I believe that the main ingredient of the success must be political will, and it is that will which is lacking where the target has not been reached.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, partly answered this question. Has the Department of the Environment any official system for monitoring and collating information about action that is being taken in one part of the country which could usefully be applied in other parts? I refer to policy initiatives, methods of organising people or technical breakthroughs.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has referred to the problem that the German regulations have caused for several European countries. I had thought that the problem applied only to Britain. Could environmental policy be co-ordinated? I realise that regulations and directives come from Europe to the various countries. However, the implementation of those policies and directives needs to be co-ordinated to ensure that we do not endlessly recycle recycled products from one country to another.
The environmental Select Committee, of which I was a member, was invited to visit Marks & Spencer. That company obviously sought to impress us. I do not know how willingly it would share its information with other companies, but in implementing good recycling and waste minimisation policies it had achieved economic

579
benefits. What that company was undertaking was remarkable. There are lessons to be learned from such action.
6.49 p.m.
Lord St.John of Bletso: My Lords, ambitious goals are never to be discouraged. However, those goals must be realistic if they are to be useful. When the Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. John Gummer, recently declared that the Government's objective was for 25 per cent. of all domestic waste in this country to be recycled by the turn of the century, many experts in the industry, and many noble Lords who have already spoken today, were less than convinced that that could or would be achieved.
What can be established beyond dispute is that today barely 6 per cent.—I believe that that was the figure mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra—of Britain's household waste is being recycled. Clearly there is an enormous amount of work to be done. As the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, has already mentioned, domestic waste makes up a small percentage of the overall amount of waste produced every year in Britain.
Against that background I am pleased that this afternoon's debate has focused on those policies and measures which can bring these important goals within reach. I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who is rightly recognised in this House as one of the most committed and knowledgeable environmental spokesmen, for introducing today's debate.
I should like to concentrate my remarks on the issue of how the recycling of household waste can be made affordable, and to propose that the best way forward would be to promote a shared responsibility among consumers, recycling service providers, product makers and of course the Government.
Affordability is perhaps the major stumbling block. The principle of recycling is supported by almost everyone. But this enthusiasm tends to wilt as the costs mount. There is a need for the Government to sponsor more national education programmes on recycling. The reality is that recycling and energy recovery are not cheap options. There are a number of recognised systems for recycling domestic waste, from source-separation techniques such as those that have been developed in Scandinavia to those which have already been discussed which are currently practised in Germany. But, whatever the method, the procedure has shown itself to be expensive.
The cost to local authorities of achieving the Government's targets will probably result in higher council taxes. It should be appreciated that the purpose of recycling is not to save money but to save natural resources and to protect the environment.
Of course, government policy has primarily, and quite rightly, been aimed at reducing the amounts of waste created at source. These include clean technologies, on-site re-use and recovery of materials used in production such as packaging.
The Environmental Protection Act introduced competitive tendering to promote more affordable recycling of household waste. Yet the fact remains that
580
when push comes to push and shove to shove in the boardrooms and council chambers across the country, it still works out much cheaper to landfill rather than to recycle. When faced with a decision to have materials recycled or developing waste-to-energy facilities rather than disposal-to-landfill, most find the price differential—typically £10 to £30 per tonne—too much and sign up their waste to landfill. I fear that this practice will continue to be the case until the Government take action to increase disposal costs.
One proposal which is supported by the waste industry itself is not to impose the punitive landfill tax that the Government are considering but to raise the required standards of disposal to landfill, restrict the types of waste that can be landfilled without pre-treatment and close down a multitude of poor quality sites that currently exist and have no prospect of being upgraded to modern standards. Such measures could substantially raise the cost of landfill, causing waste producers to re-examine their costs against the benefits of savings in adopting recycling and minimisation. The environment will certainly benefit all round, with less material sent for disposal, preservation of scarce resources and higher environmental standards at the remaining landfill sites. That seems to be a positive scenario, but it is one that the Government do not appear to have acknowledged.
It is also true that the high costs of recycling could be partially recouped by the improved marketing of recycled materials. That point has already been raised most eloquently by my noble friend Lord Nathan in his speech on the market for recycled goods. There appears to be a degree of consumer reluctance to buy many recycled goods. There is the perception that they are second-hand goods. It is well known that for a waste disposal contractor to operate effectively in the United Kingdom an enormous amount of capital injection is required for them to establish the recycling infrastructure for the collection, the sorting and the marketing of the materials to be recycled.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has already mentioned the Milton Keynes Borough Council, which has opened, I understand, Britain's largest recycling plant at a cost of £6 million and spends a further £100,000 a year on running the plant. The costs of collecting the waste, at £60 to £100 a tonne, add a further £800,000 a year to the bill. However, according to the council, most of that amount is recovered through the sale of its recycled products to manufacturers in the region. It is estimated that Milton Keynes already makes a profit on metals and plastics and is close to break-even point on paper and glass.
Unfortunately, however, Milton Keynes is only one of a handful of local authorities which have made significant progress towards the household recycling target. Many more councils will have to follow its lead if the Government's target of 25 per cent. of all domestic waste by the turn of the century is to be achieved.
Perhaps the Government could refocus some of their attentions away from the various schemes to collect and process waste to encouraging more of an after-market for the sale of the recycled materials—for in all the

581
uncertainty there is one issue that is beyond doubt: there is no point in collecting and recycling domestic waste if no one uses it. Before I stood up, my noble friend Lord Nathan asked me to pass the question to the Minister as to what degree the Government can give assurances that, if their target of 25 per cent. of all domestic waste is recycled by all councils, there will be an after-market for all the recycled products.
The Question of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was what progress has been made in achieving the Government's 25 per cent. target for the recycling of domestic waste. Against what many noble Lords have said today and the reservations expressed by experts in the waste industry, I believe that with a clear, concise policy and, most importantly, with a shared responsibility among consumers, recycling service providers, product makers and government, that target could potentially be achieved. Ultimately, however, the Government must take the lead.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, the gratitude of the whole House is due to my noble friend Lord Ezra, not only for initiating a most informative and interesting debate but for making us focus on this question of the recycling of waste and the progress, or lack of progress, towards the Government's target of a 25 per cent. reduction by the year 2000. I hope that when the noble Earl replies he will find himself able to respond fully to the three specific questions asked by my noble friend.
There is a tendency now among the chattering classes to think that somehow the environmental issue has become less salient than it was a few years ago, and that somehow the constraints of recession have made us less green as a nation than we were. I myself do not believe that that is true. There is certainly less chatter but I do not believe that there is any less concern. We have heard this evening from both sides of the House—the noble Baronesses, Lady Nicol and Lady Hooper—about Waste Watch. From my observations environmental concern now embraces not just the global aspirations of Rio but the very real local worries that people have about clean water and clean air—that has been much on our minds in the past week or two—about conservation of the countryside and about cleaning up litter. There is a decent human reaction to those environmental concerns. People ask: what can I do to help with the environment?
I believe that that concern is the mainspring for the participation of so many conscientious households in the collection of glass, paper and metal for recycling. That motivation is important. We must continue to encourage people, as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said, to believe that they can make a contribution to cleaning up their own environment. We shall not solve any of our environmental problems without the engagement and education of the general public. Mine may be a puritanical attitude, but I believe that waste is abhorrent. Waste should be minimised. I cannot help feeling that a throw-away society cannot have a sustainable economy. We do not wish to be a throw-away society. We wish to be an unwasteful society.
582
More can and should be done. I believe that it requires a genuine partnership between central and local government, industry and the domestic household of the kind described by the noble Lord, Lord St. John, in his most interesting speech. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned the remarkable achievements of Adur District Council and the councils in Hampshire. He also mentioned Milton Keynes, as did the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso. We should remember that those councils' efforts have been sustained over a long period. They have been strategic efforts. They have cost a lot of money. They have not been sudden publicity gimmicks but have had to operate over time.
I believe that there is a case for the national waste policy and priorities called for so very recently by the environmental committee of the other place. We need more energy recovery—ideally, as combined heat and power. We need more frugal packaging by manufacturers and supermarkets —the example of Marks and Spencer in recycling was given by my noble friend Lord McNair. We need more composting of the kind described by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, pointed out, we should remember how small a proportion household waste forms of the whole: perhaps 5 per cent. of the total waste of the United Kingdom.
It is also worth remembering that waste is not only environmentally menacing; it is also economically undesirable. I believe that it should be a primary target for industry and government to improve waste management just as much as the improvement of energy efficiency. They should do it for the sake of running better companies and better government as well as for higher productivity. After all, in the modern world we may well find that the fruits of the earth become more expensive and scarce as labour—people—become more available. The issue of recycling should be as much the concern of the DTI as it is of the Department of the Environment. And it is not just a matter of recycling; as many noble Lords said, it is a matter of waste reduction and waste minimisation across the board. If we are to be green, we must first be lean. We must be lean and green.
I noted with very great interest the point about incineration made by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. But perhaps I may say how much I personally agree with my noble friend Lord Ezra that energy recovery through high standard incineration is generally a prior and preferable alternative to the ultimate option of landfill or dumping. I wonder whether the noble Earl agrees that public education is needed in that regard. I find that among the general public there is still widespread fear of the effects of low standard incineration.
In summary, we have the classic political challenge which the Government must take up. It is a matter of mobilising public goodwill behind realistic central and local government programmes. Perhaps I may say in parenthesis that the Government must be careful not to fall into what I shall call the Beaverbrook trap. It would not be advisable for the Government to follow the example of the Minister in the wartime government and persuade the general public to tear down park railings

583
under the misapprehension that they would be converted into Spitfires. In this sphere of waste recycling, symbolic activity is totally useless.
I believe that we need a clear strategy, realistic policies and achievable targets if the public are to be able to make their contribution willingly and effectively. We hope to hear more about that from the Government when the noble Earl replies.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for asking the Question this evening. Perhaps I may first address myself to the Question on the Order Paper, which is to ask Her Majesty's Government:
"what progress has been made in achieving their targets for the recycling of waste materials".
As I understand it—the noble Earl will no doubt correct me if I am wrong—there is only one target. The Department of the Environment adopted a 25 per cent. target for the recycling of household waste by the year 2000. That was to be achieved by local authorities. I am not aware of any other target. I shall come to what that target means in a minute.
Many noble Lords referred to the report of the Select Committee of another place. In that report we read that doubts have now developed about the feasibility of the target. Indeed, it is clear from my researches that, although local authorities have been set that target, they have not been given any particular resources with which to meet it. Officials now apparently describe the target as "aspirational". They were unable to provide the committee with any detailed evidence of how it would be achieved. We are informed that only about 40 per cent. of local authorities, according to the recycling plans that they were requested to supply to the DoE by August 1992, believed that they would be recycling 25 per cent. of household waste by the year 2000. The accuracy and details of some of the plans have also been questioned.
So the Question which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, quite rightly asked—what progress has been made?— seems to resolve itself into a question of what progress has been made on that one particular target. I am not aware that there is any other target in question. It is my understanding that, despite the efforts of many local authorities, the United Kingdom currently recycles only 21 per cent. of glass (less than any other country in the European Union) and only 16 per cent of aluminium cans, which are possibly the most effective product to recycle, compared with 63 per cent. in, say, the United States of America. Having said all that, I hope that the noble Earl will be able to answer the question which I put. I believe that it brings into focus the Question on the Order Paper.
Let me expand a little on waste reduction in general. It is perfectly obvious—noble Lords have already pointed this out—that the best environmental option is waste reduction. That point was made by the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and by my noble friend Lady Nicol and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. The Government could easily set targets for the amount of waste produced by a specific sector,
584
such as packaging, which is responsible for one-third of total household waste. But where waste is generated the best option is to recycle it.
As the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, reminded us, one of the reasons for the low level of recycling is that markets for recycled products are not well developed. It is no good simply setting up the infrastructure to collect waste; we must also be able to sell the products from the recycled waste. That was an important point that the noble Lord made extremely effectively.
The Government therefore should be encouraging the use of recycled goods by public procurement policies and perhaps through the fiscal system. Where recycling is not an option, and incineration is therefore the next best alternative, it should be in a plant which generates electricity and sustains the higher standards of emission control. I understand that the Government are supporting a Community directive on the incineration of hazardous waste which fails to set any limits on emissions of dioxins and purines, some of the most dangerous pollutants. I hope that when the noble Earl replies he will tell us what stage that has reached.
A number of noble Lords spoke of landfill sites, and that is the worst environmental option of all. Pollution from landfill sites affects nearby surface and groundwater; and gas migration can be a serious danger to surrounding houses. For a long time—noble Lords may be interested to hear this—we have advocated a levy to increase the price of landfill and to encourage the use of better options. The environmental case for increased costs of landfill is that the polluter should pay the full costs of waste disposal and that increasing the price of landfill will lead to waste reduction and more re-use and recycling. In our view the experience in Denmark bears that out. But we would target the most expensive and dangerous wastes and maximise incentives to reduce them. We propose also to introduce credits against the increased charges for landfill sites which install equipment to generate energy from the landfill methane gas. The main impact of such increased charges would be to increase the amount of waste incinerated.
The United Kingdom produces around 13 million tonnes of waste every year. More than 2.25 tonnes of rubbish is produced per individual, of which around only 6 per cent. is recycled. Dealing with that quantity of waste is increasingly problematic. What is needed— and here I join with the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham—is a planned approach to waste management based on the options that I have given to your Lordships.
7.13 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for introducing a debate on this important topic. Noble Lords made a number of points relating to the Government's policies and programmes to promote recycling, and I shall respond to as many of those as I

585
can. However, the House may find it helpful if I first describe the overall context within which the Government's policies are set.
This year my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. Gummer, launched a series of documents which followed a commitment made by the United Kingdom at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. One of those was called Sustainable Development: The UK Strategy. Any strategy for sustainable development must take account of two key objectives: to minimise the amount of waste society produces; and to make the best use of the waste that is produced, thus minimising the risk of pollution.
The Government's policy on sustainable waste management is summed up in what is known as the "waste hierarchy". At the top is waste reduction. That is followed by re-use and recovery—which encompasses recycling, composting and energy recovery from waste. At the bottom is the least sustainable option—final disposal without energy recovery. At the moment most of the controlled waste produced in this country goes for final disposal, with some 70 per cent. going to landfill. The Government's objective is to deal with a greater proportion of our waste by means of the more environmentally beneficial options towards the top of the waste hierarchy which I have outlined.
Historically, in seeking to move further up the waste hierarchy, materials recycling is the area to which most attention has been given. Recycling of waste is a complex area, not least because it covers a whole range of different techniques and approaches. Recognising that, the Government first formally proposed an overall target for recycling household waste in the 1990 Environment White Paper, This Common Inheritance.
Our target is to recycle half of all recyclable household waste by the year 2000. That equates to roughly 25 per cent. of all household waste. It is a challenging target but by no means unobtainable. However, introduction of the target did not mark the start of recycling in Britain. Recycling has been going on for centuries. However, we had to face up to the fact that social and economic changes had led to waste management practices which were not at all sustainable in the long term. It was obvious that more needed to be done. The recycling target sent a strong signal to all that the time had come to take action.
However, simply setting a target was not enough. We took the view that it was important to bolster the target with a legislative and economic framework in which successful recycling could take place. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 therefore introduced measures designed to create a more favourable climate for recycling. The Act introduced new tougher standards for waste management. In future, higher standards mean that it will tend to be more expensive to dispose of waste, making waste reduction or recycling more attractive. The 1990 Act also introduced recycling credits. In the past, local authorities which collected household waste for recycling did not benefit from the savings in disposal costs which arose because the waste was recycled rather than sent for disposal. Now, through
586
recycling credits, authorities share in those savings; so there is a much greater financial incentive for them to recycle.
Waste collection authorities were also required to draw up recycling plans. That was designed to encourage the development of a strategic approach to recycling. Every authority in England has now drafted a recycling plan. Some, including the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, have argued that our 25 per cent. target is the wrong target since it ignores the important recyclable waste arising in the commercial and industrial sectors. As the noble Lord, Lord Holme, pointed out, household waste is after all only 5 per cent of the total of 400 million tonnes of waste that arise in the UK annually.
We concentrated on household waste partly because industry is already very successful at recycling its own waste, and established recovery systems are in place. Only 5 per cent of household waste is estimated to be recycled compared with 25 per cent. of commercial and industrial waste. Moreover, the household waste target has been useful more generally in focusing minds on recycling issues—because we are all householders. The public awareness issue was rightly emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Holme.
Having set the initial framework we had to ask ourselves how far this would take us nationally in terms of the 25 per cent. target. This was and remains difficult to forecast. For successful recycling to take place on a large scale it must be economically worthwhile to those taking decisions about the waste. With that in mind we published two reports; a general one on those economic instruments which might be introduced to increase the level of recycling in the UK, and one on the feasibility of introducing a landfill levy which would make recycling a more attractive option. Many possible instruments were investigated, but these were narrowed down to two key areas: a programme of producer responsibility for waste and a system of landfill pricing.
Last year we introduced the concept of "producer responsibility" for waste. The idea is that those who make and sell products (and the packaging around them) should take some responsibility for making productive use of the waste which arises from these products once they have served their original purpose.
One of our primary purposes is to address the problem of packaging waste, since it has been estimated that 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. of the contents of the average dustbin is made up of used packaging. The packaging industries were asked to submit a plan for recovering 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. of packaging waste by the end of the decade. The target was chosen to ensure that we would be able to fulfil our obligations under the proposed EC directive on packaging and packaging waste. That point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. My noble friend Lady Hooper also expressed an interest in it.
The common position on the directive, achieved under the Belgian Presidency last December, calls for the recovery of between 50 per cent. and 65 per cent. of all packaging waste. It also sets a target for recycling between 25 per cent. and 45 per cent. of that waste. These are realistic but challenging targets, which we

587
hope can be preserved in the conciliation process that now seems inevitable; and that final adoption of the directive will not be unduly delayed.
The packaging industry has now submitted a draft producer responsibility plan which was made available for public consultation. The industry's draft plan aims to recover 58 per cent. of packaging waste by the year 2000 and to extend "close-to-home" recycling facilities to eight out of 10 homes. This will make a considerable contribution towards the 25 per cent. target. Other producer responsibility initiatives cover newspapers, batteries, tyres, electronic equipment and vehicles.
As I mentioned, we have also carried out research work on a landfill levy. Historically, landfill costs have been relatively low in many parts of Britain. If disposal became more expensive there would be greater incentive to minimise waste and to recycle or re-use products. We have published a great deal of research on this topic. Careful consideration is now being given as to whether the benefits of such intervention in the market outweigh the costs, together with the practical implications of a levy scheme.
Your Lordships may say that all the measures I have described are at the collection and waste management end of the chain. What we really need, as many if not all noble Lords have emphasised, is markets. If we are to have a sustainable recycling culture within the UK we need stable end markets for collected materials. In other words, it is important that we have matching supply and demand for collected materials, at reasonable prices.
It is of course the case that collection, sorting and marketability of materials are inter-related. Indeed, companies considering whether to invest in plant to process recyclable materials need to be assured that the material will be available in sufficient quantities of adequate quality and at the right price. Therefore, measures to encourage steady supplies of materials, suitably sorted, are in themselves part of the process of building markets.
We are aware that many of our European partners are introducing recycling schemes for packaging and in some of these schemes there is an alarming imbalance between what is collected and the ability to reprocess it. We need to ensure that we get this balance right and that we sustain the recycling infrastructure which has been painstakingly built up so far. Targets and timescales should therefore take account of industry's capacity to use the collected material. One way in which we might achieve this is built into the producer responsibility initiative for packaging. Companies which use packaging, and the retailers who are their main customers, are now in a strong position to demand that recycled materials are used in packaging. They will do so because the initiative gives companies a financial incentive to make these markets work.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, asked what the Government are doing and what more they can do to co-ordinate recycling policy with our European Union partners to counter dumping in particular. We have taken the lead in negotiating the EC directive on packaging and packaging waste to minimise the problems of dumping of waste paper. We have pressed
588
the Commission to take action against the German packaging ordnance on competition grounds and that is producing results.
Successful recycling of household waste is best achieved by combining the strengths of industry with the collection skills of local authorities. Industry, in particular the Producer Responsibility Group for packaging, will need to work closely with local authorities if their recovery targets are to be reached. Co-operation is vital. For example, the group aims to carry out a number of large scale demonstration projects which will be conducted to determine how more economic collection methods can be developed.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked the Government to encourage waste disposal and collection authorities to work together to develop integrated waste management strategies. I fully endorse that idea. The Government have always encouraged waste collection authorities and waste disposal authorities to consult each other and work together to ensure a co-ordinated approach to waste management within their areas. The integrated approach shown by Hampshire County Council and the districts is to be commended. The system being set up in the county is a first-class example of an integrated approach. I am pleased to say that the Government have been able to support the initiative by allocating more than £800,000 in extra resources to the county council and districts to cover the capital costs of developing their recycling schemes in 1994–95.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, asked whether there was a mechanism for collecting information on advances in recycling practice and technology. The environmental technology best practice programme promulgates information and advice on recycling and waste minimisation. In addition, the DTI funds demonstration projects for businesses. The DoE distributes its research results and waste management papers.
We have come a long way since the publication of the White Paper in 1990. Sometimes we can be so absorbed in where we have to get to that we forget how far we have come; and I believe that real progress has been made in the past four years. Since 1990 the number of collection facilities has increased substantially. For example, the number of glass bank sites has risen from 4,000 in 1989 to over 16,000 today. There are now over 1,150 save-a-can banks compared with 200 in 1990. Local authorities have made considerable progress in achieving the 25 per cent. target. Adur District Council was, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned, the first authority to recycle 25 per cent. of household waste well before the year 2000. Milton Keynes, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord St. John, is close behind. Others such as Bath, Cardiff, Sutton and Test Valley are catching up quickly and expect to reach 25 per cent. by the year 2000.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, complained that the Government were not allocating any resources to local authorities to achieve their targets. In fact £15 million in supplementary credit approvals was allocated to local authorities for 1994–95 for investment in recycling schemes, and we trust that that will be of considerable assistance to them.

589
While the recycling target has focused our minds on household waste and materials recycling, that is not meant to detract from other options within the waste hierarchy. Waste minimisation and the other options in the waste hierarchy together provide a package of options from which to choose the most appropriate for particular circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and my noble friend Lord Lucas mentioned the recent Select Committee report on recycling which was published on 14th July. The report has a number of recommendations about our recycling policy. I was pleased to see that the Select Committee believes that the 25 per cent. target has been helpful in achieving a step-change in the level of recycling for household waste. It recommends that other steps should now be taken to relate the target more closely to local circumstances; for example, by setting regional targets. We will be considering the report and its recommendations very carefully before making our response.
My noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, mentioned waste minimisation and regretted that the DTI was not to fund further projects. Project Catalyst and the Aire and Calder project demonstrated considerable potential for waste reduction and cost savings. I believe it is unlikely that further projects would add to companies' understanding of the issues. We now want to concentrate on getting the message across. The joint DTI and DoE environment technology best practice programme will do just that.
In response to recommendations from a number of bodies, including one contained in the report on incineration by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, the Government have agreed to draw up a national waste strategy. The Government will, therefore, publish later this year, as a basis for consultation, a draft waste management strategy for England and Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, also asked us to consider whether energy from waste plants should play a major role in our waste management policy. That was also a concern of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan.
Recovery of energy from waste is a useful means of recovering value from waste destined for final disposal, particularly where material recycling is uneconomic,
590
technically difficult or presents a health risk. It can be a significant factor in the success of wider schemes to encourage beneficial uses of waste.
The main recommendation arising from the report on incineration by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution was that incineration, with energy recovery, should play a larger part in waste management in the future. In our response to the report, published on 20th July, we accepted the general thrust of the commission's argument.
The Government intend to review the whole question of targets in the waste management field when drawing up their national waste strategy. While the need for a waste strategy may command a consensus among those with an interest, there will be considerable debate and divergence over the possible contents, including the role of waste to energy. I look forward to an informed debate which will help us to achieve the right balance of waste management options.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, asked what the purchasing policies were for recycled paper—in other words, in government departments. All government departments have purchasing policies geared towards green housekeeping, including the use of recycled materials. All used paper contains some recycled content and the DoE gives guidance to suppliers and other departments on this.
The noble Lord also asked what the basis was for the government grant to the SCA newsprint recycling plant at Aylesford and what effect it would have. The Government will provide £20 million towards the development of a new mill at Aylesford, which is about 10 per cent. of the total cost. The new mill will take about 400,000 tonnes of wastepaper each year; 80 per cent. will be post-consumer waste, mainly newspapers collected through the network of about 10,000 paper banks. That will make a significant contribution to the Government's target of 40 per cent. recycled content in newspapers by the year 2000.
I believe that we are making good progress towards reaching our target for recycling 25 per cent. of household waste by the year 2000. Nevertheless, we realise that there is still a long way to go before the target will be reached. However, I am confident that we are developing a recycling infrastructure that will be sustainable in the future and one we can build upon to take us nearer our goal.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before eight o'clock.