Lords Sitting of 2 March 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

Buckingham Palace: Traffic and Pedestrians
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What traffic flow studies and other consultations are to be undertaken prior to consideration of any scheme to pedestrianise the area in front of Buckingham Palace.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, consultants working on behalf of the Royal Parks Agency have carried out extensive studies of the effects of the proposal on surrounding roads and on reducing accidents in the area in front of the palace. The agency is also consulting extensively with interested parties, including Westminster City Council.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is she aware that 800 vehicles per hour use those roads? Is she aware also that, for example, the AA has not been consulted about this matter? Will she assure the House that the traffic implications will be taken fully into account? Can my noble friend tell me who will make the final decision about this issue?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the last part of my noble friend's question. We shall not proceed with any scheme without first consulting all interested parties. We should be happy to take into account the views of the AA and the RAC if they would like to comment. We are working closely with Westminster City Council, the traffic director for London, the Royal Fine Art Commission, English Heritage, the police and the Army.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, one of the steps that could be taken would be to give a longer time for pedestrians at the crossing between Green Park and Buckingham Palace. At present you have to sprint to get across when the green man is showing.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have never as yet observed the noble Lord sprinting, "says Alice".
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, where can members of the public see details of the plans? Are they to be given an opportunity to comment on them?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I said, we shall not proceed with any scheme without consulting interested parties. The plans are not finalised as yet. Westminster City Council will have them before it in its future discussions at its next meeting.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, if the scheme comes into effect, will it be possible for Members and staff of your Lordships' House and another place to have access through that area, perhaps by the use of special badges on their cars? I ask that because I regularly use the area around Buckingham Palace when driving to and from the Palace of Westminster.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it will not affect those who wish to reach this Palace.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, does the Minister understand that the scheme cannot be put into effect without major alterations to the standing orders of both Houses?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for that information. I should add, as I have not felt that the atmosphere is tremendously friendly, that Dame Jennifer Jenkins described the front of Buckingham Palace as a national disgrace.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, to pedestrians and drivers the area is something of a nightmare. But pedestrian precincts are not always an environmental paradise, as we know. They often become playgrounds for drug pedlars, alcoholics, beggars of various pedigrees and so on. Will the Minister assure the House that the aesthetic attractiveness of any design will be given the highest scrutiny? Will local residents be consulted? Will the opinions of the Prince of Wales be sought?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we have kept the palace informed of progress on the proposed scheme. I should remind your Lordships that there have been a great number of accidents; namely,60 reported accidents involving personal injuries in the past three years. Therefore, it is time that something was done. I hope that attractiveness will feature largely in the final scheme.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, will my noble friend include in those who are to be consulted the cyclists public affairs group? Is she aware that at present it is one of the most dangerous and unpleasant places to try to navigate on a bicycle?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is estimated that the proposed improvements will reduce accidents in the area by half. That will benefit cyclists in particular, who have suffered the greatest number of accidents in the area.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, the Minister referred to the studies extending to surrounding routes. Is Horse Guards Road likely to be included in the plan?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the recommendation in the Jenkins review to close Horse Guards Road to traffic is being considered separately. We have made no decision as yet about whether to proceed with it. That decision will be made by the Secretary of State. I assure your Lordships that any decision will be made only after

979
consulting interested parties and conducting studies into the effects that it may have on traffic movements in the surrounding area.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper refers to the pedestrianisation of the area in front of Buckingham Palace. The Minister said that it is hoped that the proposed plan will cut the accident rate by half. Does that lead us to believe that half of the current accidents are caused by pedestrians banging into each other?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, if the noble Lord reads what I said in Hansard, he will see that I never said that we would cut such accidents by half; I said that it would greatly improve safety for the likes of the noble Lord.
Lord Fraser of Kilmorack: My Lords, in her consideration of such matters, will my noble friend the Minister take into account the fact that at present the great advantage of the situation is that no one can sit down in the area? Has that thought been taken into account? If the area becomes a pedestrian precinct, I can imagine that it will be covered with people sitting down.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am rather pushed for an answer to that question. However, I do not think that people will be able to sit down while the changing of the guard is in process, "says Alice".
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the introduction of a couple of so-called "thinking pelican crossings"—that is, the new type where you press the button and it operates only if the pedestrian is still waiting—would prevent many of those accidents happening to tourists?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the roads in the park are an integral part of the Royal Parks for the use of people visiting them. They are not the responsibility of either the Department of Transport or the local authority. However, I am sure that, whatever is planned, all aspects and interests will be taken into account and dealt with as carefully as possible.

Voluntary Youth Organisations: Funding
2.45 p.m.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will review the current funding arrangements for voluntary youth organisations in London.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, support for local and regional voluntary youth groups is primarily a matter for the London boroughs, as it is for any other local education authorities. It is also open to the boroughs to provide support to voluntary organisations through the London Boroughs Grants Committee. At national level, the Department for Education makes grants to voluntary organisations in London and the present cycle comes to an end in March 1996.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, does the noble Viscount acknowledge the fact that diminishing funding from the Department for Education, combined with increasing pressure on the finances of London boroughs, is seriously affecting the services that can be offered to young people in London? As the Government have expressed their growing concern over youth crime and truancy, will they give urgent reconsideration to their policy of reducing spending on services that can provide positive alternatives to disruptive and criminal behaviour on the part of young people?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, grants paid to the 18 London-wide education voluntary organisations under the DFE-LBGC partnership scheme will end in March 1996. That was announced at the onset of the scheme. Thereafter, the voluntary organisations funded under the scheme should look to the LBGC and the boroughs for funding. All London boroughs are represented on the LBGC. It is for the boroughs themselves to decide on the allocation and distribution of the resources made available to them. The DFE schemes of grant which are national will be reviewed later this year. The department plans to consult voluntary organisations over that review.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say what co-operation there is among the ministries, the Department of Health, the Department for Education, the Home Office and the local authorities as regards finding a solution to the problem of juvenile delinquency? Would it not be better to spend money on prevention rather than cure as proposed in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which will shortly come before your Lordships' House, under which it is proposed to spend £ 30 million on 200 children? Would it not be better if the ministries and the local authorities co-operated in an overall policy to deal with the matter?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, my noble friend's question is a little wide of that on the Order Paper.
Lord Judd: My Lords, in view of the vital contribution made by the youth service in combating drug abuse, delinquency and crime—especially at a time when we have 1 million unemployed youngsters—is there not a need for an absolutely clear assurance from central government to the service that it has the strategic and financial backing of central government? What consultations have the Government had with the youth service? Further, what was the number of youth service workers in 1979 and what is the number today?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, it is a matter for the local boroughs to determine the amount of money that they spend on the youth service. The Government make a grant through the SSAs. It is for the local authorities to distribute the money according to their own priorities.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I recognise that the Government do not apparently have any direct responsibility in the matter. However, is the noble Viscount aware that London's division of MENCAP's Gateway Clubs provides 120 clubs for 3,600-plus young people with learning disabilities and that it is in receipt of a grant of £ 5,000 a year; that is, £ 1.38 per person?

981
Does not the noble Viscount consider that to be a derisory sum? Surely central government should take some interest in the amount of money which is being given by local authorities to such services.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I can only repeat that it is for local authorities and for LEAs to determine their priorities. The Government make vast sums of money available through the SSAs and it is for local authorities to distribute it according to their own priorities.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I must declare an interest in this matter as my husband serves on the London boroughs committee that we are discussing. The London boroughs simply do not have money to give to these youth organisations. The London boroughs fully recognise the need to fund youth organisations in London, but they are themselves under increasing financial pressure and they are desperately short of funds to distribute.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, Question Time in your Lordships' House brings with it many pleas for additional funding for a wide range of good causes and what could be a better cause than the youth service, be it the statutory youth service or the voluntary youth service? However, we have to remember that the public purse is finite and that difficult choices have to be made.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that all his answers have been totally complacent and uncaring? Youth Matters, the London Council for the Voluntary Youth Service, and the British Youth Council are all extremely anxious about what is going to happen. They reckon they will lose as much as half a million pounds in the period up to 1996. The Government complain about the behaviour of young people and the crime rate and therefore I think they should mind a little more about these organisations.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that the Government do mind about this matter.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, on rethinking his answer, that her question was wholly relevant to this issue because it is for central government to decide the priorities in public expenditure? If central government get it wrong, it is not surprising that local government get it wrong, too.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, as I have said before, this is a matter for LEAs and local authorities to distribute the resources given to them by central government.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, is not the run-down in government funding for the youth services in London at any rate in part a reflection of the Government's new-found preference for locking up young offenders rather than diverting them from further crime by community action? Is it not a fact that with relatively few exceptions—I accept there are exceptions—locking up young people in prison does not deter them from
982
further offending? At great public expense prison prepares the great majority of them for committing more and more serious offences in the future whereas constructive community programmes have a remarkably good success rate in diverting young offenders from committing further offences. Is that not where the Government's priorities should lie?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I was not sure whether I was listening to a question or a lecture, but the Government certainly do not encourage any system whereby young people are placed in prison.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with respect, I ask my noble friend whether this is right. As your Lordships know, I have been concerned with introducing legislation—now accepted by government—which seeks to get the legal position right for children with special educational needs. If, frankly, the position is that the local authorities do not have enough funds to do anything about this, apart from the sum of about £ 1.1p per child received in grant, is it not really a matter for government? What is the use of passing legislation if no money is available from any source to implement it? I suggest to my noble friend that something has gone wrong.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I cannot relate the Question on the Order Paper pertaining to youth organisations and youth services to special needs.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, what do the Government intend to do if local authorities cease to provide any funding to the youth services and, as a result, those youth services close down? Are the Government prepared at least to ring-fence some of the funding which they are passing to local authorities so that they can make a more reasoned decision?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the statutory provision for youth services in local authorities is covered by law.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that two of his replies were quite insulting to those noble Lords who had asked serious questions? Further, his other replies lead one to conclude that it is about time there was a London authority instead of this matter being dependent on London boroughs.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Department for Education has shown evidence of its concern by contributing £ 1.5 million up to 1992–93 through the interim grants scheme. It has also responded positively to an initiative by the LBGC and it is providing additional support for the years 1995–96 through the partnership scheme. The department values and supports the work of voluntary organisations. Its grants to national voluntary youth organisations amount to £ 8.6 million over three years. Some £ 1.2 million has also been made available over three years for youth work development grants administered by the National Youth Agency.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, your Lordships have indicated that we shall probably want to return to this matter, but perhaps today we should move on.

Crime Survey
2.56 p.m.
Lord Erroll of Hale Lord Erroll of Hale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the estimated cost of the British Crime Survey recently commissioned by the Home Office; the number of interviews to be carried out; the definition of "crime" to be used; and whether the findings of the survey will be published.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the costs of the 1994 British Crime Survey will be £ 690,000. The 1994 survey will cover a nationally representative sample of 15,000 adults, and a further sample of 2,500 from ethnic minorities. The crimes which are covered by the survey are those against householders and their property. The findings of the survey will be published. First results will be available in the autumn.
Lord Erroll of Hale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply. What steps are being taken to include certain excluded classes whose views and representations would be well worth having such as members of the armed forces, university students and young couples living, for example, in rented accommodation?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I have indicated, there will be a survey across some 15,000 people. If the noble Lord feels those particular groups he has mentioned might be included, I shall certainly pass that suggestion on to those who are responsible for establishing the basis on which this survey is undertaken. It is indeed intended to give as accurate a representation of crime levels in Britain as is possible. We certainly would not want any particular group to be excluded.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the Minister accept my assurance as a former chairman of the Market Research Society that the British Crime Survey is held in great esteem by survey researchers and criminologists alike? Does the Minister agree that the current design of the new British Crime Survey gives an opportunity for government to assess the extent of racial attacks? That information is not available from recorded crime statistics as the Home Secretary refuses to recognise racial crime as a particular category within the statistics.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the approval he has given to the British Crime Survey. He will become aware in the autumn—if he is not aware already—that the techniques to be used in the survey this year will be even more sophisticated than in the past. I am happy to confirm that part of this survey will seek to secure the views of some
984
2,500 people from ethnic minorities. As the survey is meant to consider specifically crimes against householders and their properties, I hope that just the information which the noble Lord considers to be desirable will be revealed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend say whether the large number of undetected crimes will enter into the consideration of those holding the crime survey?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, one of the purposes of the British Crime Survey is to discover to what extent the level of crime is not reflected by crimes which are recorded by the police. Some trends emerged from the surveys in the 1980s. One is that police statistics on crime increases have tended to overstate the figure; but generally speaking the level of crime is higher than that recorded by the police.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord assure us that the Home Secretary will demonstrate his complete consistency in these matters by seeing to it that the results of the survey are totally ignored?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the Home Secretary will show the same consistency as that displayed by previous Home Secretaries. The figures in the British Crime Survey will all be published; and much of the detail will be further elaborated on in other survey papers and, as has been the case in the past, in academic journals.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord referred to previous Home Secretaries. Will the crime survey explain that great conundrum—why it is that crime in every respect has gone up and up since there was last a Labour Home Secretary?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, in a number of respects crime figures have not risen as much as the noble Lord wishes to indicate. The British Crime Survey reveals that in one area of crime—vandalism—the figures have remained more or less constant, which is surprising. However, I am afraid that so far as concerns acquisitive crime, there has been a sharp rise. It may however be of some reassurance to the noble Lord that crimes of violence have not increased as sharply as recorded crime would indicate.

British Rail: Privatisation Subsidies
3 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate of the cost of subsidies to franchisees or to Railtrack which will be payable to secure access to the rail network following privatisation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the size of the grant payable to support passenger services and external finance limits

985
for Railtrack and British Rail will be announced in the transport report to be published later this month. Taken together, they will be consistent with the overall provision for railway expenditure in 1994– 95 of £ 1,262 million announced in the unified Budget.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister indicate whether that is in excess of the figure originally contemplated by the Government or below that originally contemplated? In the absence of that knowledge, and without any proper study or consultation having been undertaken in order to prepare the country for this situation, how could the Government with any degree of seriousness go ahead with their utterly fallacious proposals in relation to rail privatisation?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, a great deal of work has gone into the financial provisions which will be made available for British Rail and Railtrack. I can confirm that the external funding level announced in the Budget of £ 1,262 million will be the one that will emerge when the figures are produced concerning the total amount of subsidy to be provided to the Franchising Director.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House an assurance that when the information becomes available it will be announced by means of a separate Statement in both Houses, and will not be issued in an Answer to a Written Question put down for answer on a Friday afternoon?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord is sitting on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I wonder whether that represents a shift in the direction of Europe. As the noble Lord knows, his question is a matter for the usual channels who deal with Statements and the like.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he should not be surprised at my noble friend being on the Liberal Democrat Benches? After all, when all is said and done he might have ended up there himself in his earlier days in Scottish politics.
Does the delay in relation to the Scotrail franchise for the east coast route in Scotland have anything to do with the external finance which is at present under discussion, or is there some other problem which the Government are withholding from your Lordships' House? What is the problem which is being kept secret? Surely we are entitled to know.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, there is no problem which is being kept secret. The question of the franchising of Scotrail will be considered within the timetable which ha:; already been laid out. Clearly one of the important factors will be the announcement in the transport report of the amount of money available for supporting passenger services. I can assure the noble Lord that there is nothing to be suspicious about. I am sure that, when privatised, Scotrail will be a huge success and will be shown to be a step in the right direction, just as I believe that my own step many years ago was also a step in the right direction.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that those industries which have been privatised have been of great benefit to the taxpayers of this country? Is it not the case that, instead of paying subsidies to the old nationalised industries, the Exchequer is now receiving corporation tax from the profits that those industries are now making? Does he also agree that in many cases the privatised industries are charging lower prices in real terms than the nationalised industries?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. Over the past 15 years the privatisation programme in this country has been hugely successful. It has been followed by many countries all around the world. So far as I can tell, in successive pledges made by the party opposite over the years, the one pledge which has always been missing is the pledge to renationalise the last successful privatisation.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, can the Minister let us know how the franchise application process is going? Are lots of applications being received?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that question is a good deal wide of the original Question. I do not have the answer to hand.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, if the Minister's estimate of the cost of the subsidy turns out to be too low, will the shortfall come out of the much reduced contingency reserve or will he reduce access to the rail network following privatisation?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we do not believe that the figure will be too low. A great deal of work has gone into the calculations which are necessary in order to come to a conclusion not only about the financing limit announced in the Budget but also about the subsidy which will be announced in the transport report later this month.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, even taking into account the Minister's somewhat convoluted thinking, does he not accept that this will almost certainly be one privatisation too far? More specifically, can he explain what will be the cost in terms of public expenditure of setting Railtrack's initial rate of return at 5 per cent. for the next couple of years instead of 8 per cent.? Will he also indicate what is the likelihood of increases in the price of rail fares, because he ignored that question when it was posed earlier?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not recall that the question of the price of rail fares was posed earlier. The calculations on return on asset base have been agreed. The calculations which we have undertaken in respect of the external financing limit and the announcement to come are based on that 5.6 per cent. return on asset base. I noticed that the noble Lord thought that this might be a privatisation too far. Dare I suggest to him that that suggests that he now agrees that previous privatisations were not?

Business of the House: Debates this Day
3.8 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Beaumont of Whitley set down for this day shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Lord Redesdale set down for this day to two-and-a-half hours.—(Lord Wakeham.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Leader of the House to clear up two points in relation to this Motion.
First, in the unlikely event of my mathematics being right, it appears that five-and-a-half hours are being allotted to these two debates instead of the five hours which used to be the case. Is that a deliberate improvement? Is it a step which will lead to even longer periods being made available for debates? If that is the case, many of us may welcome it. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say on the subject.
Secondly, the Motion is being taken on the day on which the debates concerned are to take place. That means that those noble Lords who have put down their names to speak to either of the Motions did not know that they would be time limited when they put their names down. Is it not a rather strange procedure to put down time limits on the very day on which the debates are to take place? Is that an accident in this case or is it deliberate policy on the part of the usual channels?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, some time ago the Procedure Committee recommended changes in the time limits so that there could be time limits of three hours and two-and-a-half hours as in this Motion. The Procedure Committee met recently. Its report, which recommends further changes, has not yet been approved by the House. It would probably be better to debate the up-to-date position in the very near future when the agreed report is published. It recommends,
"that on Wednesdays when there are two debates, both debates should always be time-limited; and that the sum of the two time limits should not exceed six hours".
That is the latest report. It has not yet been approved by the House.
On the question of timing, the Motion is put down at the request of the party which initiates the debate as soon as it has agreed the appropriate time. Therefore the Motion cannot be tabled until we receive a request from the party which initiates the debates as to what it considers in the best convenience of the House the most appropriate way to deal with the issue. That is why the Motion is put forward today. I realise that in some ways it would be more convenient if the Motion were tabled at an earlier date. On the other hand, if it were tabled at an earlier date, the speakers in the debate might not be known, or the party might make a wrong decision as to the best way to timetable the debate. Of course I shall listen carefully to anything that my noble friend has to say in view of his great experience in these matters.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does it follow—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with that point. Does it follow from what my noble friend said that if the party organising the debate does not ask for a time limit to be imposed, the Government will not impose it?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, as I say, your Lordships have not yet had a chance to discuss the report of the Procedure Committee. The recommendation of the Procedure Committee is that where there are two debates they should automatically be timetabled. I am not absolutely certain of the answer when there is just one debate. As I understand the position, the debate does not have to be timetabled.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may plead guilty to causing the delay in the Motion coming before your Lordships' House. I apologise for that. We were faced with the difficulty that by Thursday last hardly anyone had put his name down to speak on either of the Motions. By last night it was clear that many people wished to speak. We had originally expected to have two two-and-a-half hour debates. However, that would have reduced the speaking time, frankly, to ludicrous proportions. I know that noble Lords from all parts of the House have become worried about the brevity of some of the speeches that they are forced to make.
I did not feel it right to take total advantage of the six hour limit which the Procedure Committee had suggested until your Lordships' House had had a chance to debate that recommendation. Nevertheless, in the sense that we would not delay the Unstarred Question for more than half an hour beyond the time at which it might have been expected to begin, I considered that we could compromise and take three hours for the first debate, and two-and-a-half hours for the second. In practice, it might have been better if we had been able to have three hours on each debate. I hope noble Lords will have some sympathy for us. I hope, too, that in future noble Lords will please put their names down at an earlier stage, whether the debates are in the names of my noble friends or initiated from any other part of the House. It is difficult to programme such events. Indeed one name was added only this morning. Fortunately, one other name was taken off so that addition did not affect the situation.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene but I am a little concerned that reference has been made to a report by the Procedure Committee which is not yet before your Lordships' House, far less approved by it. I hope that that practice will not be repeated. Can the noble Lord the Leader of the House advise the Chamber on whether the arrangements for today's debates are in order? I am sure that the House would like clarification that the arrangements for today's debates are in keeping with the procedures of this House which have already been agreed.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the debate and the Motion which I have moved today are entirely in accordance with the current procedure of the House. I agree with the noble Lord that it is not wise to have discussion on a report which has not been seen by many noble Lords, although I understand that the new report

989
is currently available in the Printed Paper Office. That was why I indicated that it was probably better not to have a long discussion. The new report is available. I believed that the House would wish to discuss it when noble Lords had had a chance to read the report. I do not believe that there is any difference between us.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sustainable Development
3.15 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley rose to call attention to the measures needed to meet the commitment relating to sustainable development made by Her Majesty's Government at the Earth Summit in Rio in June 1992; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. At the Rio conference, the nations of the world, including the UK, recognised the need for a switch of their economies from their traditional aim of eternal growth to the attainment of sustainable development, defined as being that development which,
"meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".
That this goal has been so widely recognised as essential itself marks a great step forward from the thinking of, say,30 years ago and those of us who campaign on this issue must not only praise those who have led this thinking but also those who have started effecting the revolution which has been necessary in our political parties.
And the revolution has borne fruit. Your Lordships are setting up a special committee to study the matter. The Labour Party has effective and sympathetic champions such as Chris Smith in another place, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, in this House—and we are sorry that she cannot be with us today. My own party is preparing a major policy document on the subject, on the draft of which I shall be drawing freely, and it would be churlish not to recognise in John Gummer a Minister who understands what the subject is all about and who is committed to it. I pay that tribute wholeheartedly before I embark on an analysis which will imply and sometimes contain a thorough criticism of us all.
In addition to drawing on my own party's work, I hope to look at the Government's responses to Rio and at the most recent issue of that essential magazine, Resurgence, which I hope is even now to be found in your Lordships' Library and which contains important articles by the leading green economist Herman Daly and by Sir Crispin Tickell, wholly fortuitously Warden of Green College, Oxford. In passing, perhaps I may point out that this Government would add to their green laurels if they were to elevate Sir Crispin to this House, where he would illuminate your Lordships' counsels.
With the adoption of the aim of sustainable economy by the nations, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that we find ourselves on the cusp of a paradigm shift—a not very comfortable place to be sitting. The change in world economies and economics will be as revolutionary as was the coming of capitalism.
990
Both John Stuart Mill and Maynard Keynes foretold in oft-quoted passages the inevitable coming of a steady state economy, but, alas, there have been and still are too many lesser economists who have thought that we could go on and on for ever in the same old way relying on technical fixes which often, if not always, create at least as many problems as they solve and factor substitutions, the successes of which disguise the real losses which have occurred in the mere fact that they have become necessary. There has been too much dependence on Ricardian economics which, among other things, presupposes that capital is as non-transferable internationally as labour—something which long ago ceased to happen.
I know that noble Lords who have put their names to the debate will bring much experience to bear on those individual facets of the problem which are most familiar to your Lordships; and there are some speeches to which we particularly look forward. Perhaps I may mention the maiden speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Temple of Stowe, and the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon. I was born and brought up in a house which was built by the ancestors of the noble Earl, Lord Temple, as their second Buckinghamshire home. It was an exact copy of Buckingham Palace before the present facade was put on, so his family has had to travel some way before they can argue convincingly, as I hope he will, that small is beautiful; and the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, will probably be grateful to me for refraining from facetiousness about the importance of forests.
It seems to me that my job in opening the debate is to outline some of the main themes which will have to be tackled. If, in doing so, your Lordships and even some Members of my own Benches think that I am going too far, it is because I think that we shall go nowhere unless we realise both the attainability of many of the goals in the short term and the revolutionary nature of those of the long term.
I can concentrate on those major themes the more readily, knowing that my noble friend Lord Ezra, who was primarily responsible for us putting forward the subject today, will be fielding at long stop as well as discussing a number of subjects on which I shall not touch, as will the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, who will deal with transport. It may well be that there are those like my noble friend Lord McNair who will think that I have not gone far enough.
The first topic I should like to mention, if only because it is too often left aside, is population growth. If the population growth of the world continues as it is, we are all doomed, or rather our grandchildren are. It may well be that the growing resistance to antibiotics, together with other phenomena such as the spread of AIDS, will bring a population collapse on a global scale similar to the continental collapse of the Black Death. But clearly that is neither to be welcomed nor to be counted on. What will be needed is a switch from our present thinking on solutions to the problem, which tend to depend at least partly on economic growth, to a rather more simple solution which has recently raised its rather beautiful head.
At the moment we are relying on the education of women and the availability of contraceptive methods to

991
bring about a stable population. Both those are supremely worth while in their own right and have been shown to be effective in many countries. But by no means in all. Professor Virginia Abernethy, editor of the US journal Population and the Environment, has come up with a different overall solution based on studies of parts of the world where population growth is already stable.
The core of the argument being propounded by her and her colleagues is that population growth explodes when people's expectations of rapid economic growth and/or emigration to areas which they see as economically desirable is high and that it levels off when people see that resources are not expanding and that their children are unlikely to become rich. In other words, they adapt to the carrying capacity of what they see as their territory. An interesting example where the population growth is just about zero is St. Helena, which your Lordships debated recently, where the people can see the limits of their resources (being a small island helps with that) and do not foresee any alternative futures for their children.
If the first topic is population, the second topic is GATT. Here I draw your Lordships' attention to the well-attested phenomena of the swing-back of the pendulum once one has reached an extreme, as also to the well-known tendency of businesses to start declining almost as soon as they move into new and palatial accommodation.
The doctrine of free trade has just, first, reached a near absolute and, secondly, fitted itself up in a virtually brand new apparatus in GATT. Therefore, it will surprise no observer of human phenomena if we see a reversal of fortunes. We are now already working on a so-called improvement of GATT which, by taking environmental matters into account, is in fact a move into reverse of the pendulum.
One of the more interesting and redeeming features of GATT is its exclusion of goods produced by prison labour. I suggest that the next steps are the exclusion of goods produced from non-renewable resources or by unchecked pollution. For we must come to the conclusion that, contrary to the beliefs of some economists, trade is not, unlike truth and beauty, an absolute good. Transport uses non-renewable resources and creates pollution. When large quantities of sugar cookies are exported from Denmark to the USA and large quantities of sugar cookies are exported from the USA to Denmark, one cannot help thinking that a mutual faxing of recipes might be a less wasteful method of international commerce.
That brings me to another facet of free trade. At the same time as we are freeing trade in goods we are busy creating protection in intellectual and natural property. The long-term patenting of seeds, for instance, is a scandal. We must in a sustainable world economy devise a method of spreading knowledge freely, while acknowledging the need to protect a modest livelihood for breeders and inventors. At the moment, any person tempted to conspiracy theories (and I am not) might regard what is happening in this field as a carefully planned bonanza for transnational corporations.
992
That brings me to the third of my strands: the need for the community of the world to harness transnational corporations for the common good. This will not be easy and we are not at the moment in the middle of a period of credulity about the effectiveness of the UN and its various offspring. But I would suggest to noble Lords that this is the only way forward and, that being so, we must not stand around complaining about the muddiness of the path, the smelliness of our fellow travellers and the likelihood of our being mugged along the way but strike out like Pilgrim along the road to the Holy City.
On the international front we need desperately to see that the Commission for Sustainable Development is given teeth and resources and that other bodies such as the World Bank are accountable to it. There are right levels for every form of action and while I and my colleagues on these Benches are tireless campaigners for devolution, if you are going to solve global problems you have to have a global authority.
On the national or general Western level, I must point out that though many of the first steps are easy we are going to have to do what has been regarded on the Left as impossible since the days of Anthony Crosland and on the Right as unthinkable. That is, to strive towards equality, more of which is going to be necessary both on a national and on an international level, in a period when there is unlikely to be economic growth as conventionally measured. Indeed, I suggest that it is likely that real economic growth of the traditional kind has already topped out for good and that when Mr. Macmillan said in that famous phrase of the Sixties that people "had never had it so good" he might well have added "and never will again".
What is to be done? Mr. Gummer has suggested that we need individual action and indeed we do. But Robert Worcester of Mori has shown in a recent paper delivered to the Green Alliance that a great deal is being done individually in this country. No doubt most of your Lordships take your bottles to the bottle bank, try out long-life bulbs and employ tiger worms to make your compost.
But action by Government is also needed and although education can do a lot and fiscal measures can do much there will be areas where regulation will be necessary. In particular, we need to be very careful in the coming months as to what we deregulate.
While we need energy taxation (by which I mean a well thought out tax designed to reduce energy use, with proper safeguards for the poor and not a one-off money-raising exercise) we also need comprehensive compulsory informative labelling of energy-eating machines with tobacco-style warnings: "This product is highly likely to damage your grandchildren's health, if by then there are any grandchildren to have health! "
In the field of biodiversity we need to set targets both within and without existing environmental schemes and I would ask the Government to tell us what they are intending to do in this field and how they are going to reverse the trends highlighted in the Government's own Countryside Survey.
From a world when there appeared to be little need for, or prospects of, limits to growth and catastrophes were things to be taken in one's stride, we have moved

993
to a world where the precautionary principle must rule. We cannot afford to go on playing "last across the road". We must now play safe instead—with climate change, conservation of species and in many other areas.
Finally, I have a specific question to ask the Government; and the reason that I do not have more than one is that I know that other noble Lords will ask them. My question is fairly obvious so I did not think it necessary to give notice of it. We are told that we are to have a panel of five wise persons who will advise the Government on strategic issues in this field. That is a good idea so long as the process is transparent. Are they to publish regular reports; or are they merely to give advice the nature of which will never be revealed if the Secretary of State so chooses? I must warn the Government that the latter course would be completely unacceptable.
We live in exciting times and, unlike the Chinese proverb maker, I would not have it otherwise. I regard it as a great privilege to have been able to put this case to the House this afternoon. I look forward to gleaning much from the knowledge and experience of noble Lords. I beg to move for Papers.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for allowing us to debate this important subject. The publication of the Government's papers on subsidiarity represented a very significant moment in the development of British environmental policy and a considerable achievement by those responsible for their production. The importance of the step that has been taken should not be underestimated. It is easy enough to find fault and to identify omissions or the lack of firm targets. But some of us at least who took part in the consultative process and heard the vast range of contradictory views, are impressed by the way in which order has been created out of chaos and a foundation has been established on which to build.
Environmental policy-making involves the reconciliation of very different views. Economists refer to "weak" and "strong" sustainability. I suppose that we may speak, on the one hand, of the free market point of view and on the other of "ultra-green" environmentalists. Governments and regulators are bound to seek a position in between, using a combination of regulation and economic instruments.
The Prime Minister was right on the occasion of the launch to point out that there are no easy options; that you get nothing for nought; and that a price has to be paid. That price is not just a financial one. Difficult choices have to be made between different environmental options. Perhaps I may give two examples.
I was involved in the original decisions to retro-fit desulphurisation plant to power stations. I must say that I was pretty shaken when I recently visited one of those power stations on the Trent to find that the plant occupied more than the original space of the power station and its coal storage areas. I heard of the vast quantities of limestone that had to be extracted, probably from close to a national park, and conveyed by road and rail; and about the amounts that had to be put
994
back into landfill at the end of the process. I hope that the balance of advantage was there. At least there were contending pressures. Another example is that of wind power. Initial enthusiasm is being tempered by the knowledge that it often involves the advance of a great army of iron creatures across beautiful and previously unspoiled countryside.
The important point about the publication of these papers is that they provide a firm starting point for action. It is helpful that so much has been set down about the condition of the environment. The fact that so many desirable objectives have been identified means that the pressure will mount to turn objectives into achievements. However, it is only a start. We have to move forward to identify qualitative objectives and firm timetables. That will happen only if the will exists, if political leadership is given and if political pressure is exerted. Probably the best way to ensure that that happens is to establish the will of the public: to find out what opinion is on these issues, both inside Parliament and outside. Even when Ministers are clear-minded, determined and impatient, it takes an alarmingly long time—except, apparently, in time of war—to implement even those policies which are agreed and are on the statute book. That being so, we should bear in mind that it is of equal importance that the Government should continually give the right signals; that the general public should exert pressure; and that we should make use of the influence of economic forces.
Business has to look ahead. Therefore clear indications of the way in which policy is developing and the likely progress of legislation frequently lead to major changes in the planning, investment decisions and business practice of industrial companies. Most leaders of industry do not like to find themselves criticised for being bad environmentalists. Many of them are increasingly seeing the commercial advantages of being good environmentalists.
I believe that in this situation one of the key factors to success is openness. It is absolutely essential for an effective environmental policy based on the principle of sustainability. We must put the facts in the public arena—if we are to understand the competing environmental arguments; if we are to be able to balance the costs of taking action against the costs of not taking action; and if we are to exert an influence against the inevitable pressures of the lobbying organisations and the inherent tendency of government to delay. It has been deeply disappointing in the field for which I have some responsibility—the water environment—that it has taken so long to move to the introduction of statutory water quality objectives which provide us with an almost ideal mechanism. They were introduced in the 1989 Act for establishing the costs and benefits, debating them in public and then putting down firm, enforceable standards.
Perhaps Parliament should establish a system rather akin to post-project management whereby we look at the way in which legislation has actually been implemented. We tend to pay attention to putting it on the statute book and never come back to see whether it has been implemented effectively.

995
I am confronted by another example of where openness can break down. The initial phase of the Ofwat examination which will lead to decisions about the water industry's environmental programmes for the next five years was admirably open. We had a vigorous debate. Some of us were concerned that the original estimates that were put into the arena by Ofwat were exaggerated. However, they were challenged; they were in the open. I had to warn the Secretary of State at a meeting only this week of my concerns on discovering that apparently we cannot now continue that open debate because the figures that are now emerging, and which are very different, are price sensitive—or are asserted to be price sensitive. I am bound to say that that is a very startling discovery. It will lead us into extreme difficulties. Indeed, it led my noble friend Lord St. Davids into giving, I believe quite inadvertently, a somewhat misleading Answer in this House only yesterday afternoon when answering the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, about the cost of the urban waste water treatment directive. The difficulty is that neither he nor I can refer at the present moment, indeed until a solution is found to this problem, to the real figures that are emerging.
The point that I want to make is simply that it is an essential feature of any successful environmental policy and its implementation that it is totally open and that all the facts are continually available to those who wish to involve themselves in the debate.
Lord Desai: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for giving us this opportunity to debate such an important topic. We also look forward to the two maiden speeches this afternoon.
First, I must say that the phrase "sustainable development" is not operationally precise enough to be able to state that such and such policies promote sustainable development and other policies do not. It is a somewhat vague notion. Other people have said that it is growth which does not cheat our children or that it is growth which we can have without depriving our children of their opportunity. Those kinds of notions are very difficult to make precise.
In the short time that I have available, I should like to highlight the difficulties of sustainable development and policy making rather than criticise what has been done, which I welcome. The problem is that there is no precise connection between the rate of economic growth, as we normally measure it in terms of GDP, and pollution. It is not true to say that rapid growth as measured in GDP causes pollution, and slow growth does not cause pollution. Stagnation and depression are just as bad at causing pollution as growth can be. In fact, it is not the rate of growth that matters; and it is not basically the level of income as growth rate. It is the composition of the income, the processes and products which are consumed and produced, which determine the amount of pollution that we suffer.
So one can have a sustainable development with either a high rate of growth or a very low rate of growth, depending upon the proper incentives that we give to producers and consumers to choose those processes and
996
products which are less polluting rather than high polluting. That is very important to remember. The old debate about whether the environment was a middle-class luxury or whether growth was causing the problem is completely misleading. If we are to take the public with us for a programme of sustainable development, we have to emphasise that the sacrifices that will be required are not so much in the level of consumption as in the kind of products that we consume and the processes that are used to produce them.
For example, it would make a great difference to pollution if we could find a better form of transport than the motor car as it is currently constructed. If that could be done, we could have as many cars as we wished with much less pollution. So that is the first point to bear in mind.
Secondly, the problem of sustainable development is very different for the rich countries compared with the poor ones. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, mentioned the problem of equality. But it is important to remember that the rich countries which have a very low population growth pollute more because of the amounts that they consume and the kind of consumption in which they indulge. So population growth is not at the heart of the problem.
The poor countries have a very different problem. Their problem does not so much concern air quality or global warming. Their problem is lack of clean water,"desertification" and deforestation. The people are so poor that they do not have the room to preserve the environment. They have to encroach on the environment just for daily living. The environment is a problem of the quality of life for the rich countries; it is a problem of life and death in the poor countries. That must be remembered. Unless there can be a vision which is not only long-sighted but global, we shall not be able to arrive at the correct policies that we would wish to have for sustainable development.
While population growth may seem like a problem, that is not where the problem lies. The real problem is poverty. We shall not have sustainable development if we preserve the current inequalities of wealth across the world. One sure way to ensure that we shall continue to have a problem will be to perpetuate the current distribution of resources. We must devise policies, either through trade or aid, and perhaps more through trade—I have not given up on trade as much as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has done—which would allow the poorer countries of the world that little bit of extra room which will make them care more for the environment than they are able to do at present. I do not believe that it is possible or even politically sound for us to say to China or India, "Please do not go down the way that we have gone because if you do you will ruin the environment." That is not possible.
Suppose we were able to give licences to pollute on a global basis in proportion to population or size of area. Then let countries trade those pollution licences. The rich countries pollute more than the poor countries. It has been calculated that if we had pollution licences which were tradable, it would take something in the order of 5 per cent. of the GDP of the rich countries to be transferred to the poor countries to be able to buy all

997
the pollution licences needed to do what we are doing today. Five per cent. of GDP is about seven times the total aid which has been given by all the rich countries to all the poor ones. We barely manage to give 0.7 per cent. of GDP in aid. The UK does not manage it—but most countries do not manage it. Five per cent. of GDP would be a tremendously large amount of money.
That brings ho me simultaneously the problem of equity across the globe and how much the rich countries with limited populations but lots of resources are presuming upon the global environment to sustain the levels of consumption that they are enjoying. I am not anti-consumption or anti-growth. But those costs right now are not being borne clearly because there are no property rights in the environment. I am perfectly happy to go along the market road. Going along the market road. if there were property rights in the environment we should be paying the correct price for it. But right now we do not have the proper markets; and in other areas we preach the free market doctrine and perhaps worsen the situation.
It is very important to remember that while individual actions are necessary, there has to be both a long-distance vision, much longer than the year 2000 or 2010, as mentioned in the paper, and it has to be a global vision. That al one will achieve sustainable development.
3.47 p.m.
Earl Temple of Stowe: My Lords, I am deeply sensible of the honour of being given this opportunity to make my maiden speech, and in particular to have the way so kindly opened for me, so to speak, by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley.
As some of your Lordships may be aware, this maiden speech has been some time in the making. When I first sat in your Lordships' House, I was given wise advice on the making of such a speech."Speak on your subject," they said."What is your subject?" Rather diffidently, I said that it was antique furniture, more particularly of the 17th and 18th centuries."Ah," they said,"Have you another subject?" Even more diffidently, I mentioned Samuel Pepys, his life and his diary. No great enthusiasm was generated, and as time passed I saw that there was indeed little chance of a debate arising to which I could contribute on either subject.
The problem was made no easier by the fact that my forebear, the Earl of Chatham, was renowned, I believe, among other things, for the length and depth of his speeches. However, in my researches I was cheered to find that his sister had said to Lord Macaulay,"Pitt knows nothing accurately except Spenser's Faerie Queene." So far as I know, that subject was never touched on in your Lordships' House.
However, I am extremely concerned about the environment and our use or misuse of it. As I live for part of the year in Orkney, which I think can claim more of its fair share of that invigorating factor the wind, I am very glad of the opportunity today to speak on wind power as an alternative source of energy.
In our daily lives, most of us can give only momentary thought to our dependence on oil and other
998
fossil fuels to provide light, heat and power for all our many needs. But, while supplies of those fuels are sufficient now, it is probable that they will not be so in 25 years' time, and in 50 years' time their shortage may well be acute. We will have, by then, to find alternative sources of renewable energy.
Nuclear power, at present the greatest source of alternative energy, requires an enormous amount of capital for its production. It can also be extremely dangerous, as experience from Russia has shown. There is no lack of wind around our coasts and on higher ground. We have a great deal of knowledge and experience of aerodynamics from our aircraft industry which we can call upon, and in these difficult times of recession there must be many who would be willing to take advantage of employment and who would bring with them technical expertise and skills.
I understand that wind power could eventually provide us with between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. of the energy we need. The areas best placed to take advantage of the prevailing winds would be Scotland, Wales, the North-West and South-West of England. Research is, of course, vital if wind energy is to make a significant contribution to Britain's needs. More aid than that given in the past is needed in this field, perhaps by government funding of those university faculties studying wind energy. Industry concerned with wind power should have, if not direct aid, plenty of incentives for practical research.
Now that we are more than ever integrated with the countries of the EC, the exchange of information on wind power conversion should flow more easily between member states. Denmark, in particular, ought to be an ally for consultation, since she leads Europe in the wind conversion industry. She has over 3,000 machines which produce 2 per cent. of heir electricity needs. The Danish plan is to raise that to 10 per cent. by the year 2000.
Perhaps the most ambiguous aspect of the wind energy programme, and one that concerns us all, is its effect on the environment. There has been considerable comment in the press recently about wind farms: their intrusion on the landscape and the noise they generate. There is cause for concern on both those counts. But the present dissipation of the earth's resources would seem to leave us with little alternative but to make what use we can of sources of renewable energy such as wind power.
There are, I believe,10 wind farms currently operating in Britain and much success has been reported in those areas. I am thinking in particular of farms in Wales and Cornwall, where individual enterprise has reaped its reward. There are, I understand, a further 60 wind farms under construction or awaiting planning permission. In relation to visual intrusion, I have seen the 10 windmills at Britain's first wind farm, at Delabole in Cornwall, referred to with appreciation as being "impressively statuesque". However, for the future of our environment, we must ensure that there is the fullest co-operation between government departments. local authorities, industry and conservationists when decisions are taken on the siting of wind generators and, in particular, wind farms.

999
In conclusion I should like to suggest that to explore new ways of working with the elements, rather than against them, may need a shift in perception. We might do well to remember what the playwright Fletcher so wisely said,
"He that will use all winds, Must shift his sail".
3.56 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, your Lordships are doubly fortunate this afternoon. First, the debate before us was opened so eloquently and thoughtfully by my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley; that, however, was compounded by the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Temple of Stowe, which was as amusing and as well thought out and reasoned a maiden speech as I have ever heard in the time in which I have been in your Lordships' House. He is greatly to be congratulated on that.
I should say that that does not come as a great surprise when I hear that he is interested in antiques, of whatever century, and also that he used to be a neighbour of my late lamented noble friend Lord Grimond and his equally lamented wife, Laura. Anybody who lives in Orkney must have a different perspective on life and know, as he suggested in his closing words, how necessary it is to go along with the grain rather then against it. I hope that he finds other subjects on which he is prepared to come and talk to us because I am sure that he has many other shots in his locker.
As my noble friend said earlier, I want to say a few words in regard to transport this afternoon because transport is a real problem in relation to the environment. The problem is that cars, buses, motor cycles and lorries in this country emit something like 30 million tonnes of CO2, let alone other gases, into the world atmosphere from the UK per annum. The other half of the problem is the attitude of government. Figures show that in this country car users doubled over the past 10 years and, we are told, will do so again. Listening to Mr. McGregor on the radio last night, it was clear that his response is that we must cope with that by building more roads. We are told that people must be free to choose. Indeed they should. But if the Government agree that emissions must be reduced, then we cannot start from the proposition that the market alone can decide. The market alone will not stop people exercising their free choice in a way which will reduce the predicted extra 25 million cars on our roads by the end of the century.
In making their commitment to Rio, the Government signed up to Agenda 21 in Chapters 9.13 and subsequent. It said under the heading, "BASIS FOR ACTION",
"there is need for a review of existing transport systems and for more effective design and management of traffic and transport systems … The basic objective of this programme area is to develop and promote cost-effective policies or programmes, as appropriate, to limit, reduce or control, as appropriate, harmful emissions into the atmosphere and other adverse environmental effects of the transport sector".
The chapter continues,
1000
"Governments at the appropriate level, with the co-operation of the relevant United Nations bodies and, as appropriate, inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations, and the private sector, should:
"Develop and promote, as appropriate, cost-effective, more efficient, less polluting and safer transport systems, particularly integrated"—
I stress the word "integrated"; it is a word the Government hate
"rural and urban mass transit".
The document further states that the Government should,
"promote cost-effective policies or programmes, including administrative, social and economic measures, in order to encourage use of transportation modes that minimize adverse impacts on the atmosphere; develop or enhance, as appropriate, mechanisms to integrate"—
again that word—
"transport planning strategies and urban and regional settlement planning strategies, with a view to reducing the environmental impacts of transport".
If the Government are serious about reducing emissions by the year 2000 to the level they were at in 1990, it is about time they started. We must have a two-pronged attack. First, we have to try to reduce harmful emissions. To a certain extent that is happening with the fitting of catalytic converters to motor cars. Secondly, we have to encourage people to use cleaner fuels. That is easier said than done because of the range of cleaner fuels available—all have drawbacks.
Bio fuels look attractive—this is a renewable source from rape seed, maize or sugar—until one realises that the CO2 they absorb during their growth is also pushed out into the atmosphere when one uses them as a fuel. Natural gas reduces the production of CO2 and carbon monoxide by 70 per cent., but the problem with natural gas is that it is a fossil fuel and is not renewable. Electricity is a nice clean fuel except that the technology is not yet developed enough to have motor cars, lorries and trucks doing all the things that we want them to do. In addition, the sources of the electricity are, on the whole, polluting. Indeed, what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, was saying earlier is relevant to that. Even with a clean power station, one is using up non-renewable resources at quite a high rate.
Although there is at the moment the catalytic converter, and although there is a shift from gasoline to diesel, people are now beginning to doubt whether diesel is all that clean a fuel because of the particulate exhausts that come from it.
There has to be a two-pronged attack. We have to do everything we can to find cleaner sources of energy for our transport. But at the same time we have to try to shift people from the undoubted freedom of their motor car and encourage them, help them and if necessary penalise them so that they go on to public transport. Here I fear that the Government have not really helped. The truth is that bus privatisation has been a disaster in terms of moving people from private cars onto buses. All the statistics indicate that that is the case. Now, from 1st April, privatisation of the railways will do the same thing.
I am sure that the Government have the resources, if they will only use them in the right direction, to improve the situation. There is an interesting article in The Times

1001
this morning by Simon Jenkins. The article relates to the situation in Malaysia but is relevant to this question. It states that,
"the Thatcher Government did not believe in subsidising British industry. In 1988 the Prime Minister was fiercely denying public support for the Channel tunnel high-speed link, in which many of the companies fighting for Malaysian contracts might have had a hand. Bluntly, the taxpayer built a dam in northern Malaysia rather than a railway southern Britain because railways do not sell arms".
That seems to be a perfect criticism of the Government's attitude to public transport in this country.
4 p.m.
Earl Kitchener: My Lords, the Sustainable Development document of this year is a welcome account of the Government's actions and plans; and it sets a good example by telling the reader that not only is the paper recycled, but the varnish on the front cover can be recycled once more. I am told that telephone directories cannot be recycled because of their solidity but that efforts, which I hope the Government are encouraging, are being made to remedy that. On the subject of paper, it can often be saved by the use of both sides of the sheet, and the three lists of speakers for today are an example.
The terms "environmentally friendly farming" and "organic farming" are roughly equivalent. Both are developments of the system used for thousands of years and so are known to be sustainable, an avowed target of the Government. Why then does so much less of the taxpayers' money go to it than to set-aside and to acreage payments? The latter generate much paperwork for farmers and need policing by a number—I am tempted to say an army—of civil servants. But there is a regulatory body, the UKROFS, which supervises other organisations which check farms for compliance with the organic rules at no cost to the taxpayer. Non-governmental organisations are well-liked by the Government, and of them I can only say that some in this field consider that good projects are being turned down.
Help for environmentally sensitive areas is most welcome; but in many ways the whole country fits that description. In the short term, organic farming might well cause, in addition to its environmental benefits, an increase in prices to the consumer; but I hope that the Government, nowadays largely by their influence on the CAP, will give it enough support to enable us to learn its long-term effects.
The clear and interesting maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Temple of Stowe, gives me an opportunity to mention a point about wind power. Its detractors accuse it of damaging flora and fauna to a degree which its supporters deny. Only an investigation sponsored by the Government is likely to be accepted as impartial.
4.7 p.m.
The Earl of Huntingdon: My Lords, I too should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for giving me the chance to speak in your Lordships' House for the first time on such an important topic. I am glad he did not dwell too long on the connection with
1002
Sherwood Forest. I am afraid that the tie to Robin Hood is firmly based in fiction, not fact. I hope to be brief and unprovocative.
Both sides of my family have strong ties with racing and politics. My maternal grandmother was a Stanley in the era of Hyperion; and my mother's father, Malcolm Bullock, represented Crosby in Lancashire for the Conservatives. My paternal grandfather is the only person to have both ridden and trained a Grand National winner, Ascetic Silver. His nephew, the 15th Earl, was a noted mural artist and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in the Attlee Government. These bloodlines have produced a flat racehorse trainer who sits on the Cross-Benches. I am afraid that I am no expert on 17th or 18th century furniture, or Samuel Pepys; but perhaps during Ascot week I may be of some help to your Lordships !
I am very lucky to be training in a small Berkshire village just to the south of the Ridgeway, one of the longest ancient stock routes. Much of the Berkshire Downs used to be sheep country; and East Ilsley, the next village, held the largest sheep fair outside London. Now much of the non-arable down land is only preserved in its open state as racehorse gallops in the area. On our summer down it is possible to ride in country that has been unchanged for generations. At this time of the year in early morning we hear the high-pitched calls of the curlews making their way north to their Scottish breeding grounds.
However, the reverse of this idyllic scene is all too close at hand and the contrast draws attention to the need for the resolutions adopted at Rio in June 1992 to be adhered to and steps taken to lead the way in environmental commitment. Article 4 of the Rio Declaration states:
"In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from, it".
The call of the curlew is quickly drowned by the frequent passing of Transatlantic jets and the occasional Concorde. The green calm of the Ridgeway is in strong contrast to the extremely busy and noisy A.34 which bisects it. The view to the north is dominated by the smoking stacks of Didcot power station, at present not equipped with sulphur cleansing processes, and the slightly less obvious building at Harwell which is a daily reminder of the difficulties posed by dealing with, and disposing of, nuclear fuel.
As many of your Lordships are aware, the individual does now have a reasonable chance of living to sustainable green standards. It is much easier now to find bottle banks and paper recycling points. It is easy to buy rechargeable batteries and longlife electric bulbs which use very little energy in the form of heat and last 10 times as long. As we have been told, green petrol and catalytic converters have improved the emission from far more cars. Recycling standards have risen, and writing paper and envelopes no longer stand out because of their obvious poor quality; you have to search for their green logo. Soon we shall be able to buy biodegradable containers made from oilseed rape.
But however hard individuals try, it is only government leadership that can achieve significant

1003
results in the main areas of energy saving, air pollution control, quality fresh water supply and safe waste disposal. Some European countries seem to be moving faster than we are. Bicyclists are much better looked after in Germany; and Cambridge even restricts cycle use now. Both the Netherlands and Germany have plans for a major reduction in carbon dioxide emissions significantly beyond the year 2000. Even the Americans who, under the last administration seemed to be dragging their feet at Rio, now have a vice-president in Al Gore who argued a strong case, when a senator, in his book, Earth in Balance, for,
"joint action to save our seriously threatened climate, our water, our soil, our diversity of plant and animal life and our entire living space".
People who have lived closer to the earth, the Indian tribes and the Aboriginals in Australia, have always recognised that the earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth. One small way that we might be able to help correct the balance in a practical and symbolic way, is to plant more broadleaf woodland. Perhaps if we could do this on long-term set-aside and encourage local schools to participate in the plans and perhaps adopt a wood, then we would be acting in a practical way to correct the loss of native trees and a new generation of school children will be given a very worthwhile natural history lesson. Some carbon dioxide would be removed, many more sites would be provided for native flora and fauna and in future the import levels of 80 per cent. of wood could be reduced.
If global warming is to be countered, if the biodiversity action plan is to be effective and if the sustainable development strategy is to be positive, we must lead from the front and set an example in our high standards of commitment to the principles behind the Rio Earth Summit. We might then both benefit from the huge international market in environmental services and products and be in a better position to influence developing countries on global environment which is under increasing threat from a world population that could nearly double in the next 40 years.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I believe that most of us found it a joy to listen to that maiden speech, which was almost lyrical. It certainly was a sign of commitment and deep principle and of the background from which the noble Earl comes. It is a notable political background. The fact that he is now sitting on the Cross-Benches does not mean that in future he cannot be extremely controversial. He has a budding opportunity for controversy in the depth of feeling which he showed. For most of us who are getting on a little bit it is lovely to welcome a young new Peer.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for enabling us to have this debate. For me it seems a long time since I was at the Earth Summit in Rio in June 1992. I was there representing the United Nations Association which, before and since, is playing a very important role with other non-governmental organisations and also in co-operation with the Government. I was pleased to be an NGO representative
1004
on the UK delegation. I do not believe that I was alone in thinking at Rio that at last the world leaders had begun to set us on the path towards sustainable development. I shall go on thinking that.
As the Prime Minister said in the Observer on 12th January,
"The challenges to us in protecting our children's inheritance are immense and they must be tackled globally and with a political will".
I want to review the extent of that political will. In terms of funding the signs are not good. At Rio the Prime Minister, John Major, pledged that Britain would provide "new and additional resources" for the global environmental facility, which is the financial facility created to assist developing countries in meeting their obligations under the international convention signed in Rio.
I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but in fact the resources for the global environmental facility will be increasingly transferred from the existing budget, and since it is a declining budget that spells ill for other parts of our overseas development programme. It is simply not good enough.
The general commitments which the Government agreed to at the Earth Summit were the ratification of the two conventions plus support for the setting up of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, which reviews countries' implementation of the very important Agenda 21—a kind of blueprint for sustainable development.
Today's debate is timely. The United Kingdom Government committed themselves at the Earth Summit to the ratification of the climate convention in December and I congratulate them on doing so and for publishing their climate action plan.
Later this year will see the publication of the second assessment report of the UN Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change. No doubt that will have a significant influence on the Government's preparations and specific policy commitments for the first meeting of the conference of the parties to the convention on climate change in 1995. That will be an historic event.
Sources close to the secretariat indicate to me that the report will emphasise the scale of the problems involved and the urgency for governments to plan for CO2 reduction well into the next century. While the UK Government strategy document identifies the year 2012 as the basis for their long-term planning, it is notable that programmes for greenhouse gas emission reductions are not provided for at all past the year 2000. I urge Her Majesty's Government to bring to the House their ideas on how they intend to reduce CO2 at the earliest possible date. I hope to hear about that from the Minister when he replies.
Her Majesty's Government also committed themselves to the ratification of the Biodiversity Convention at the Earth Summit. I am concerned that so far the Government have not yet ratified that convention. I want to know why that is. The position, as stated in the Government's biodiversity plan is that,
"The UK intends to ratify the Biodiversity Convention, given satisfactory progress towards securing safeguards regarding our concerns on the financial provisions of the Convention".

1005
Is that good enough? It is not. It has certainly not prevented the other members of the European Union—and, for that matter, Japan, Norway or even China—from ratifying the convention. I hope that the Minister will expand on the reasons for this reluctance to fulfil an original commitment. The United Kingdom Government are seen by some to be dragging their feet on vital environmental protection.
On this side of the House we support the immediate ratification of the Biodiversity Convention. As a minimum commitment I ask the Minister to confirm that ratification will follow any agreement at the forthcoming global environment facility meeting which will address funding mechanisms for the convention.
At the first meeting of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), the United States Vice-President, Al Gore, who was present at Rio and who has already been referred to, including in the maiden speech which I have already welcomed, said:
"I say to citizens of the developed world: we have a disproportionate impact on the global environment. We"—
that is, the developed world—
"have less than a quarter of the world's population—but we use three quarters of the world's raw material and create three quarters of the world's solid waste".
I met Mr. Gore during my stay in Rio and was much impressed by his commitment to the subject. I think that he will play an important part in the years to come.
Agreement was reached at the CSD last autumn to review again Agenda 21, breaking it down to be reviewed over a three-year period. At this year's CSD, governments have been asked to report on progress on the following Agenda 21 chapters: Human Settlement; Health, and Fresh Water, which has already been referred to; Hazardous Waste and Toxic Chemicals. Because of my interest in health, I am the chairman of the Health Round Table. There is a great deal of interest among the voluntary organisations and, indeed, in the Government on that subject. I understand that later this week the Government will submit their report to the commission on progress towards objectives in that area. However, it seems drat there is very little parliamentary involvement in and scrutiny of that process. I understand that although there was wide consultation with relevant bodies outside government for the UK strategy document, there has been very little for the national report. I hope that the Minister will say something about that.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will use the mechanism set up by stakeholders themselves. The United Nations Environment and Development UK Committee includes representatives from local government, business, trade unions and the voluntary sector. Its primary purpose is to promote discussion on Agenda 21 and to make the process of reporting to the CSD as public as possible. That will ensure that the review of Agenda 21 implementation is not a low key exercise carried out by overworked civil servants, but is a high profile assessment, involving the input and prospectives of society as a whole. These are vital issues which should concern the public as well as organisations.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, like others, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for initiating the debate and giving us the opportunity to hear two excellent maiden speeches.
My interest in this subject stems from the fact that when I was a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, I chaired the reports on the greenhouse effect and on nature conservancy. I was also a member of the sub-committees which studied innovation in surface transport and research into civil and nuclear power. Those four subjects are closely connected to sustainable development.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I think that the paper on UK strategy towards sustainable development is splendid. It is an excellent analysis, setting out all the factors clearly. If I have one criticism of it, it is that it is a bit short on decisions about action. However, if it does nothing else, it makes extremely clear the immense range of subjects and issues that relate to sustainable development, their complexity and their relationships with each other.
One theme runs through the strategy, appearing in chapter after chapter. I refer to the Government's clear policy of wishing to reduce dependence on regulations and to maximise the achievement of their aims through economic measures. I fully support that view. The trouble with regulations is that the first thing that people try to do is to get round them. The object of economic measures is to provide people with incentives to do the right thing, but that does not mean simply leaving it to the market to solve everything and sitting back and doing nothing, as was made extremely clear in the excellent paper which the Department of the Environment issued in November, entitled Making Markets Work for the Environment. If your Lordships have not read it, I strongly recommend it.
That paper set out a number of different ways in which markets could be encouraged, by fiscal and other measures, to move in the direction which is good for sustainable development. I should like to draw attention to a favourite of mine, tradeable permits. The paper sets out extremely clearly both the advantages and disadvantages of tradeable permits. It also makes clear the fact that one solution is not applicable to all problems—for instance, tradeable permits are not applicable to transport, in my opinion—but that there are different solutions, which are all dependent on each other. Efficient regulation depends on providing incentives. Therefore, I am disappointed that the only mention of tradeable permits comes in Chapter 33, with the suggestion that they might be considered for water pollution, water abstraction and sulphur emissions. I believe that they should be much more widely considered, particularly for all greenhouse gas emissions.
I turn now to the three other subjects of concern to me. The first is nature conservancy. I welcome the fact that the Government are now considering the merger of the Countryside Commission and English Nature which we recommended in our report and which already exists in Scotland and Wales. I remind the Government that

1007
one of our recommendations was that the remit of the joint consultative committee should be extended from nature conservancy also to cover countryside and landscape conservation. I believe that to be very important. I should also like to be assured by the Minister that he is satisfied that the joint consultative committee is functioning as it was intended to function and that, as we recommended in our report, it will drive forward nature conservancy on a national basis.
I turn next to transport. I fully share the concerns that were expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. In our report, Innovation in Surface Transport, we recommended that the Government should develop and publish a strategy for transport as an aid to forward planning by transport industries. I detect some little signs that the Government may be going a bit further than the extremely negative response that they gave to our report when they stated:
"the Government does not consider that a comprehensive strategy mapped out today will be as good a guide to future opportunities as the market research and analysis which the various components of the transport system can and should do on their own account. It is much better that those responsible for particular decisions should take their own view on their best judgment than that all should be invited to conform to a Whitehall-devised scenario".
As the Government are considering road-pricing in certain areas and have committed themselves to a progressive increase in the tax on vehicle fuels, I hope that the Minister can assure us that the Government are now considering moving towards a transport strategy.
I turn now to nuclear power. The situation is extremely serious. One of our report's recommendations stated:
"There is no adequate alternative to fossil fuels other than nuclear energy. The United Kingdom must therefore retain the capability to develop and expand its nuclear power industry, in the most cost-effective way, taking full account of public concern over the impact of the nuclear programme on health and on the environment, where possible in collaboration with agencies in other countries".
But what do we get in the enormous document on sustainable development? This is the only mention:
"The Government is committed to maintaining the nuclear option for the future, provided that it can prove economic and maintains high standards of safety and environmental protection. The Government is considering options for the scope and format of a review of the future prospects for nuclear power in the UK".
How on earth can anybody expect nuclear power to be economic if we do not have the faintest idea of the Government's policy—indeed, if the Government's only policy is to consider "options" for a future review? It is an absurd situation. It is work which cannot lead to the development of nuclear capability in this country. They should go ahead now with encouraging nuclear electricity at Sizewell C. If they do not, the only nuclear capability available in the future would be one borrowed from France.
Another point I should like to make is that these documents—which are excellent and which point the way to what this country should do—concern only what should happen within this country. On this subject, above all, a policy for one country is quite insufficient. We must consider the situation in Europe and in a wider field. Very little has been said about that in the documents.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for opening this important debate. I am delighted that it gives me the opportunity to bang the drum once again on the subject of organic farming. I am afraid that your Lordships will be suffering a double whammy today as I am following my noble friend Lord Kitchener who also raised the matter.
In the document Sustainable Development I have looked in vain for any mention of organic farming. I make no apology for introducing the subject as it is undoubtedly one of the best methods of sustainable development of the environment. The reason why it is not, to the best of my knowledge, mentioned in the document—if my noble friend can tell me that it is mentioned, I hope that he will say where—is that it is perhaps not considered very important by the Government, as evidenced by the fact that their support for converting farmers to organic farming is to the tune of £ 1 million while their support for modern intensive farming—I shall not call it conventional—is to the tune of £ 1.2 billion. That is a ridiculous disparity, reflecting the Government's view on the matter, and it should be reformed.
The subject of sustainable development of the environment is clearly covered in the document. There are some seven paragraphs referring to pollution, fresh water control, contamination, agricultural and industrial, water pollution and energy supply. Those are all subjects which can be covered on the basis of waste management. We do not pay enough attention to waste management. Waste is rather more permanent than the wind power to which the noble Earl, Lord Temple of Stowe, referred in his entertaining and interesting maiden speech. The waste is human, agricultural, industrial and permanent and in even greater supply than the wind. We do not make enough use of it.
There are systems in existence. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who is unfortunately not in his seat, will know of the considerable effort being made with a new system by Biotechna using a Biocoil system at the Severn Trent Water Board's Stoke Bardolph effluent plant. That has been extremely successful and the by-products from it make it a self-supporting system. If we could use such self-supporting systems to a greater extent throughout the country we should go a long way towards obtaining the necessary amount of continuous production of power, which is a by-product of the system.
The document fails to mention either the Graessar or Biocoil principles, which are common knowledge in biotechnology. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Carver, will have researched the subject, but the application seems to be escaping the Government's attention. It is a photosynthesis programme using algae. It consists of feeding algae into a tower and pumping it through with the effect of photosynthesis, delivering at the end a feed product that can be fed to animals. The Biocoil towers form a complex photosynthesis plant, presently working in an integrated sludge conversion unit at Stoke. If your Lordships will allow me to be

1009
technical for a moment, the micro algae chlorella is intensively cultivated in the coils and reacts with the nutrient graded effluents which are then separated. The absorbed nutrients are biochemically incorporated into proteins and extracted. The excess chlorella biomass can be removed for drying and used as animal feed—a completely recycled system.
In another form the algal product is extremely combustible, and after milling it can be used to drive a diesel generator. This is yet another process of power generation with zero CO2 emission. We all know of the gas man Sid. This is another Syd, the symbiotic diesel. The symbiotic diesel is powered entirely by the highly combustible algal product which is milled. I should like to ask my noble friend whether the Government plan any further use of the photosynthesis process.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, the subject of the debate is a very large one, and time is limited. I shall therefore address only one aspect which I believe lies close to the heart of our concern. In the end, it may be the most important of all the issues raised at the Rio conference. I speak of the need to win public support throughout this country for the Rio agreements, for the steps we are taking to implement them and, more important, for the tougher policies which will surely follow in their wake over the next decade and in the next century.
To put the issue in a simplified and dramatic form, the stakes are rising as each environmental conference takes place. The first conference in Stockholm 20 years ago was the curtain raiser. There was much talk, some argument, and agreement was reached to set up a new United Nations agency, UNEP. At Montreal we agreed to phase out CFCs, which we could readily do without anyway. At Rio perhaps the most significant agreement was that setting limits on carbon dioxide emissions. It so happens that we can hope to meet that target by abandoning most of our coal mines. Of course, that was not the reason why we shrank the coal industry; rather, we should have little chance of meeting the Rio target if we had not done so, in the absence of other policies for the purpose.
What will the next environmental conference require us to do? I do not know, but I suppose we shall be obliged to make further undertakings to meet stricter pollution targets. Car emissions is one obvious possibility. This will create great difficulty for us. To limit personal transport and restrict car use will be extremely hard. We are used to that way of life and all that it represents. It gives us freedom and mobility, and enlarges our personal lives. But I believe that the moment of restriction is bound to come. It is in that context that we need to look at the Rio conference. Is our implementation of the Rio agreements sufficient not only to meet the obligations they prescribe but also to prepare the nation for the next more difficult phases?
I suggest that there are three broad ways in which a tough environment al programme can be delivered: first, by statute law—in a word, enforcement—perhaps by schemes of rationing; secondly, by fiscal means—measures such as the carbon tax to limit consumption; and thirdly, by persuasion. We may need to employ all
1010
three methods but I believe that persuasion is much the best. If the population of this country believes that our style of life is indeed endangering the stability of the planet, it will become accustomed to that notion and, finally, will want to do something about it. The whole problem then becomes transformed. Citizens will be more ready to accept radical changes in our pattern of living, earning, spending and travelling.
I have looked at the Government's strategy to implement the Rio accords from that angle. What is being done to inform the nation and to win its active support? At the end of the book on sustainable development there is a chapter called "Working Together". It is the last chapter, chapter 38. There are some good things in it and it records initiatives taken by the Government and by non-official bodies. There is also, encouragingly, reference to a new proposal called a citizens' environment initiative. It seems that that idea is still at the embryonic stage but the emphasis is on promoting a national debate to coincide with World Environment Day which is due to take place in this country in June of this year.
I have nothing to say against those proposals but I urge the Government to give much higher priority to the whole issue of publicity and information. It is perhaps not wholly by chance that the subject appears in the very last chapter of the book and that part of the citizens' environment initiative seems to be to pass the initiative to the citizens. I hope that I am wrong about that.
The environmental problem is becoming more serious with every passing year. It no longer seems an exaggeration to regard the problem as one of the gravest threats to our future. If we are to win the support of the citizens of this country for some of the draconian solutions now being canvassed, it will require a more ambitious programme of public information than is now contemplated. That cannot be left to the nongovernmental organisations, invaluable though they are. I believe that we shall need an extensive programme of work in schools in particular and on television which is now much the best medium through which to reach the public at large and is the ideal medium for publicity on this subject. It is with reluctance that I conclude that that will require a high profile government-financed body, perhaps on the lines of the Health Education Authority which has done so much to promote knowledge about disease and how to prevent it in the past few years.
We may have succeeded in meeting the obligations imposed by the Rio conference by the means described in the Government's publication. But it does not require much foresight to see far graver problems ahead. We should use this moment—the execution of the Rio programme—to set up a serious public information campaign. Only in that way will our commitment to the Rio policies serve as a proper preparation for the greater difficulties which lie ahead.
4.44 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, both because each day's business in your Lordships' House begins with Prayers and because your Lordships may expect something of a Sermon from this Bench, I hope noble Lords will understand if I go behind the

1011
practicalities which have been highlighted so far in the debate, and some in the two excellent maiden speeches, to the reasons why sustainable development is so crucial and urgent for the present as well as the future of this world.
It was the great Archbishop Temple who said that Christianity is the most materialistic of all religions because matter matters. It matters not only because in Christian theology God manifested himself in the full human life of Jesus Christ, but also because the universe, and this world within it, belongs to the One believed by the three monotheistic world religions to be its creator. As the Psalmist says:
"The earth is the Lord's, and all the fulness thereof".
That is a psalm that I used at the beginning of today's proceedings.
Yet the Christian tradition, which has had such a formative influence on Western thought, has not been unambiguous in its attitude towards the natural order of creation and the use of its resources. But perhaps the dominant view in the West, certainly since Francis Bacon in the 16th century and until recently, has been one of domination and exploitation by the human race.
That was given Biblical respectability by the first of the creation accounts in Genesis in which the man and the woman were given:
"dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth".
With such a mandate, it is not surprising that many have taken a view of the world as a resource for us to use and exploit as we wish.
For example, Thomas Aquinas said that animals are:
"by divine providence … intended for man's use in the natural order of things. Hence it is not wrong for man to make use of them either by killing or in any other way whatever".
In Tudor times, such thinking was used by some to sanction cock-fighting and bear-baiting. Some of Calvin's more extreme followers believed that because the sin of Adam had perverted the whole order of nature in earth and heaven, the natural world was devoid of God and therefore worthless, except for ruthless exploitation.
That exploitation has taken many forms over the years and, not without some justification, Christianity has been blamed for our current ecological crisis. The historian Lynn White, for example, has argued that the Christian doctrine of creation is unabashedly anthropocentric, giving humans leave to use the earth as they see fit and:
"to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects".
More pointedly, Theodore Roszack links the view of nature engendered by the Christian tradition with exploitative capitalism. He says:
"And has this not become our predominant way of viewing the world: as so much raw material, there but to manure the growth of economies? Today when 'realistic' people look at nature around them—mountains, forests, lakes, rivers—what is it they see? Not divine epiphanies, but cash values, investments, potential contributions to the GNP, great glowing heaps of money".
It may be—and I hope it does—that that overstates the situation but there is sufficient truth in it to make me, for one, feel uncomfortable and to believe that
1012
repentance should be part of our response to the crisis which has occasioned the meeting of the earth summit in Rio.
Yet there is another strand in the Christian tradition which accords fully with the concerns of environmentalists, ecologists and those who describe themselves as "green". It would endorse the Brundtland Report's statement that:
"there are … moral, ethical, cultural, aesthetic and purely scientific reasons for conserving wild beings".
And it recognises that some of our thinking has, in the past, tended to concentrate on the salvation of human beings to the exclusion of much anxiety about the rest of creation. In that it has been untrue to the overall Biblical view of creation which suggests that it exists not simply for human use but has intrinsic value and delights God Himself so that He makes flowers flourish where people never tread, He cares even for sparrows, and created the trees of the wood to sing for joy.
If Aquinas represents the utilitarian view of creation, then it is Francis of Assisi who reminds us of the need for wonder and reverence: reverence for brother sun and sister moon and all the works of creation, because not only do they belong to God but also they reflect something of His character and providence.
Moreover, as Paul suggests, inasmuch as the natural order has been affected by human selfishness—and do we need any proof of that?—it is God's purpose to restore all creation, together with humanity, to the harmony and fulfilment for which it was brought into being.
That vision is one that is finding increasing support in the Churches and green theology is an accepted part of our academic endeavours. It seeks to restore the balance between the exploitation of and a sense of wonder for the works of nature and talks in terms of stewardship rather than of domination. The stewardship, with its demand for responsibility for this world and its resources, is the proper description of the role of human beings to be derived from scripture and the mainstream Christian tradition.
There is also our responsibility for the poor and the disadvantaged in today's world, as well as for the generations who will follow us. They, too, belong to God as well as to us and economic policies must always be guided by moral considerations. We are our brothers' and sisters' keepers whether we like it or not. We are confronted with an issue of justice.
I warmly support the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in expressing his concern and thank him for doing so. Further, I believe that I speak for many of those with religious faith in pledging our support for those who seek to implement the decisions of that summit. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, I am mindful that no amount of legislation (or taxation) alone will effect the changes which we need and need quickly. There has also to be the convincing and the converting of the population of our country as a whole—the winning of their hearts as well as their minds into accepting the need for whatever changes of lifestyle may be required.
Because we face a crisis which is not only ecological, economic and social but also moral and spiritual, I am

1013
happy to support all who seek to bring the changes which are needed for the future of this world. I believe that the Churches are already engaged in seeking to make our world a more beautiful as well as a more equitable place in which to live for God's sake as well as for our own.
4.52 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for introducing this timely and vital debate. I must say that the views that I am about to express are entirely my own though I anticipate that people of all parties, and of none, will come to see the sense and the necessity of resource economics which I am sure is our best guarantee of sustainable economic development.
First, though, I should like to look at the serious implications of the commitments made by the Government when they signed the Rio Declaration. Currently, the USA consumes two-fifths of the total energy consumed in the world. The USA, the territories covered by the former Soviet Union, western Europe and Japan between them use twelve-and-a-half times as much energy as that consumed by the rest of the world put together. Yet they—or, perhaps, I should say, we—contain only 16 per cent. of the world's population.
The intention to encourage the rest of the world to achieve our present standard of resource consumption may be politically correct; but it is scientifically untenable; it is a mathematical impossibility. Economic development on the scale presently envisaged is incompatible with the planned reduction or stabilisation of levels of pollution, leaving aside completely the question of resource depletion. We simply cannot ourselves go on using energy at the present level.
We need to harmonise the profit motive and the conservation motive and steer our economic life in the direction of good planetary housekeeping. Our best chance of achieving an economy that is globally attainable and sustainable and in balance with the forces of nature is to adopt the resource economics proposition as the operating basis for our economic life.
At present, economics is based on money; and money, according to the definition I like best, is an idea backed by confidence. In other words, money is an abstraction. On the other hand, resource economics is based on the physical reality of internationally recognised units of energy.
To explain the basic idea, I quote from an article written in 1986 by one of the main contributors to the resource economics proposition, Farel Bradbury:
"Resource economics … form a 'natural' economic structure for human societies. The physical value of all activity in nature is measured in units of energy and obeys inviolate laws of thermodynamics. All animal and plant species use energy in the natural economies of their own environment to achieve a balance; a dynamic equilibrium. Man, uniquely, has perceptions of 'value' outside these natural constraints and uses money (currency) to express this value for the purposes of exchange of goods and services. Under present economic methods, money value is unrelated to physical value and so we have a poor linkage with the natural environment. Consequently, there is little constraint either on the exploitation of natural resources or on wastes returned to the environment. Apart from changing"—
though here I would prefer the word "distorting"—
"our perceptions of the 'quality of life' on this planet, these unbalanced incentives, are now known to be limiting on
1014
mankind's future development and well-being. [Resource economics] links money value with physical (energy) value to achieve natural balances in a human 'dynamic economy'".
We have economics based on the abstract foundation of money and a commerce that co-exists somewhat uneasily with a strong environmental awareness, especially with respect to economic competitiveness. So how do we integrate good environmental practice into the mainstream of economic life? How do we harmonise the profit motive and the conservation motive? The answer to both those questions and to many more is to implement the resource economics proposition. That is a totally integrated and complete economic strategy which has the following five elements. First, any government for any defined geographical area—for example, the United Kingdom or the European union—can adopt resource economics by applying a tax on all primary energy consumed in that area.
Secondly, this tax is applied to all sources of primary energy such as coal, oil, gas, hydro-electric power, nuclear power, timber and any others which become significant. It is applied at the point where the primary energy source first enters the economic chain or system. It is applied at a uniform rate in units of currency for a defined energy value, regardless of the form of primary energy. A suggested unit of energy for that purpose is the gigajoule, which is equivalent to having the traditional one-bar electric fire on continuously for 13 days and nights. Political decisions would be required on a number of issues, including whether to treat renewables differently from non-renewables.
Thirdly, the tax is also applied on the statutory primary energy content of all imports to, and rebated on all exports from, the defined area. The statutory primary energy content would be calculated for each group of products and would appear as an additional column in the UK integrated tariff. Rebating the tax on the statutory primary energy content of exports and charging it on that of imports eliminates any disadvantage which a country or group of countries would experience vis-à-vis those where resource economics was not being used.
Fourthly, this energy tax replaces all other taxes except possibly certain excise duties which are imposed for social reasons like tobacco and alcohol duties. At present there are 88 taxes of various kinds to which we are subject. The new tax replaces all of them so ending all taxation on wages, salaries, dividends and business profits of individuals and corporations.
Political decisions would be necessary to determine the order in which taxes were replaced. My personal preference would be to start with VAT. For this purpose, the tax rate would be set to raise the same amount of revenue that now accrues from VAT, and the same proportion would be rendered unto Caesar in Brussels as at present with VAT.
Fifthly, the rate of the new tax is set high enough to enable a basic income to be paid to every citizen, thus, when fully implemented, abolishing all existing social security benefits. That is clearly another area where

1015
political decisions would be paramount. However, I see the basic income as an integral part of the resource economics proposition.
The new energy tax is in fact a unit tax because it is levied on a unit of energy but it replaces virtually all existing taxes and so it has become known as UNITAX, which is also an acronym made up of Unified National Indirect Taxation.
One obvious and major effect of this change would be to alter the economic balance between people and machines. Wages and salaries would most likely fall by the amount of the basic income. People would also be cheaper to employ because, when UNITAX is fully implemented, the additional costs of employment such as national insurance and PAYE will have been eliminated.
Reducing the cost of employing people while increasing the cost of consuming energy, leads to more employment. It would also raise the priority that business managers gave to energy conservation. This would, I am sure, go far to redressing the present imbalance between intensive, high input agriculture with its reliance on relatively cheap energy, and more labour intensive low input agriculture. The pressure for change to more sustainable agriculture producing more wholesome food would have the support of market forces and so would occur—dare I use the word?—naturally.
One further major benefit of the basic income is the "flywheel" effect on the economy. Paying people to consume makes it impossible for economic activity to reduce beyond a certain level. Used as the operating basis for our economic life, resource economics will bring about the changes that I am sure most people, including the noble Earl who will reply to this debate, do, in their heart of hearts, hope to achieve. These changes would be phased in over a period of, say,20 years. They represent, in the words of the Prime Minister, a hard-headed approach to sustainability based on good science and robust economics.
5.1 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I, too, wish to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for introducing the debate and for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important matter. I wish to express my appreciation of the contributions of our two maiden speakers, both of whom I am glad to see are, like myself, on the Cross Benches.
I declare an interest in that I am a farmer and landowner and also a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I wish to put in a plea for those who are at the sharp end of working the land and who in many cases regard themselves as being very much in the front row of Pharaoh's army because there has been much play on the role of sustainable agriculture and the grant aid and government schemes put in place to achieve it. In reality, the situation on the ground is a good deal more pedestrian, I fear.
For 40 years and more farmers and landowners were encouraged to maximise production and to make two blades of grass grow where one grew before. They were
1016
given grants to plough up moorland, grub up hedges, drain wetlands and so on. A great deal of public money was expended and there was also a great deal of private financial commitment. However, that process created an economic momentum and resulted in an expectation in some of our poorer areas of a reasonable living among those who had had a low-grade economic existence previously.
Among the myriad of environmental agencies that are now involved, the same department that gave us those grants now has a generous range of awkward, complicated schemes seemingly designed to pay out as little as possible and to control land use to the maximum degree. It was far easier to get paid for doing acts which are now regarded as desecration than it is to get paid for doing things which are now regarded as desirable environmental objectives. I feel that that is wrong. I shall illustrate my point by referring to two instances from my own landholding.
My first example relates to a small five-acre area of grassland which is protected statutorily for nature conservation. It is remote from other grazing and was last ploughed in the 1960s. Recently, following its designation, half of it was ploughed with permission but subsequently that did not prove satisfactory and I applied to plough the other half. I was refused that consent and it was suggested that I manage half of a five-acre field—it is not sub-divided by any fence and it has to be seen in the context of 400 other acres—for a standstill mode that to me is neither cost effective nor practical in the context of farm management. I can only conclude that this is a precautionary policy because the biodiversity of the habitat may be important. The conservation agency concerned has certainly chosen well. It cannot force my co-operation to achieve the impractical and it is unable to fund its objectives to make them worthwhile. It has failed to convince me that its scheme will work or that the overriding conservation interest is even present. I am prevented from upgrading the pasture to make it economic. A management agreement would, I am afraid, simply add to the bureaucratic muddle already existing and impose new obligations upon me.
I turn to my second example. During the course of last year I applied to remove a particularly prominent and unsightly block of sitka spruce from an area adjacent to a public highway and replant it somewhere less intrusive. As usual the matter went through the glorious rigmarole known as consultation. However, none of the agencies seemed able to agree. One did not want conifers at any price while another did not want trees at any price. One wanted no change at all while another wanted to preserve the silvicultural mass that was already there. The consultation process took months. Again, I do not feel that that is a satisfactory way of dealing with the issue of sustainability in the countryside.
Where government and conservation agencies pitch their interpretations of policy in direct confrontation with socio-economic activity using non-recourse powers, and to my mind failing to pay a great deal more than lip service to the concept of involving landowners and farmers in discussions at the earliest stage, there can

1017
be no good forward and committed on-site management for the agencies' purposes and objectives. Indeed, I believe there is an increasing disillusionment today—I am sorry to record this—with environmental schemes. They simply demand too much and offer too little. What is more to the point, they circumscribe entrepreneurial activity.
If sustainability of environmental goods for the future is to be achieved, the co-operation of those at the sharp end is necessary. As regards agricultural activity and land management in our rural areas, we simply cannot turn the clock back. Those in the rural areas have to compete for goods and services in the general economic market at large and, more to the point, the countryside has an important role to play in responding to the demands of an increasingly mobile and largely urban society. I do not mean that in any pejorative sense.
On this small island we have to deal with the socio-economics of people, not the imposition of ideologies. Public: opinion is easily swayed and manipulated by those whose business is environmental public relations. If we do not achieve proper resource management, all the hypotheses, all the policies and a great deal of money will be wasted and, what is much more important, the environment with it. That will not happen through lack of knowledge but through bad handling. I conclude by saying that sustainability of good, committed land management is also a finite resource.
5.8 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for asking us to focus our attention on sustainable development. For my part I wish to concentrate on biodiversity problems that lie at the root of the United Kingdom's, and indeed the Earth's, questionable sustainability. Where agriculture is concerned, the crux of the issue of sustainability lies in man's balance of the elements of sun, air, soil and water. Any gardener knows that management inputs to conserve and nurture his soil and to maintain its structure create an in-built productivity. On a world scale the productivity of soil is falling fast.
The once famous and fertile plains of the Russian fanning belts are swiftly being depleted and drained of their nutrients, their fibres, their life blood, and because of that, even their worms. Therefore, the country with over 60 per cent. of the world's arable land will be looking to other countries to balance its agricultural production targets in the future. Those problems must not be allowed to develop here. We need a more substantial, lasting framework for resolving the policy failures of EC agriculture. There are many organisations that have come together under one umbrella, so to speak, called the Safe Alliance; namely, Sustainable Agriculture Food and Environment. Those member organisations are proof of the recognition that many issues of public interest and concern are intimately interrelated and many members of such organisations are farmers. Mary of their concerns are justified, especially when we look at the vast payments being made to high input farmers in the form of subsidies both for over-production and under-production. On the one
1018
hand they are paid because too much of one commodity is grown, while on the other they are paid for growing nothing at all. Where is the balance in that: action? Just as the position of the fulcrum is paramount to the balance of a set of scales, so must production be in balance with nature.
Biodiversity objectives should be integrated into all policies that drive agriculture, forestry and land use issues generally. Unlike some countries, the UK is well placed to take urgent and effective conservation action and could set the standards for other nations to follow. In this country we have the scientific knowledge of our wildlife and the administrative structures, such as statutory conservation bodies, to deliver biodiversity objectives. But farmers must be included in the dialogue.
An example of the targets for species is the breeding population of the stone curlew, a farmland bird currently declining through changes in land use to a level of approximately 160 breeding pairs. Here I refer to the excellent maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon. I raise the point because, in the Government's sustainable development document, which I commend, the stone curlew is highlighted as an example of the role government departments might play in biodiversity action. A clear cut target is given of increasing the breeding population to 200 pairs by the year 2000. We need more such specific targets for the whole range of UK species and habitats, backed by action plans for their attainment and clear monitoring and review arrangements.
The local communities in the Brecklands of East Anglia are closely involved in the plight of the stone curlew. More than 25 farmers are involved in helping the stone curlew to improve its breeding success by protecting its nesting sites. Farmers and others are keen to help once the problem is properly discussed and an action plan agreed. This is an excellent example of species conservation, and the same is possible for the stone curlew's habitat, such as grass heaths.
Whichever way one looks at it, the arable set aside scheme will allow large areas of Breckland to provide nesting sites for the stone curlew. All that is required are clear targets to identify the hectares required, backed by generic conservation actions, such as the farm and conservation grant scheme, provided by the Government. That poses the question whether the Government will set targets and objectives for all vulnerable species and habitats in the United Kingdom for the year 2000. Will the Government ensure that the farm and conservation grant schemes and other agricultural schemes have those targets as their guide in assessing the application and the scope of the schemes?
We eagerly await the Government's planning policy guidance note on nature conservation, which we hope will reaffirm their objectives of conserving the abundance and diversity of British wildlife and its habitats. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Temple of Stowe, will be asked to plant a hardwood tree on the set aside of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, which may one day become period furniture for the great grandchildren of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon. That would be seen as sustainable.

1019
Almost 77 per cent. of the United Kingdom's land surface is in farming use. Within that area there is a great diversity of farming types—and I do not mean only the farmers. There is a variety of climate, geology, soil and local traditions. That diversity in itself can represent a managed biodiversity in which we can nurture and look after our earth, whether by improving livestock management to minimise pollution from wastes or through improved crop management to reduce the need for fertilisers and agrochemicals such as pesticides. There are many examples.
Free technical advice is made available to farmers on pollution and conservation issues. There are codes of practice, for example, on good upland management and good agricultural practice for the protection of water, of air, and, shortly, of soil.
Much of the countryside in the UK is of great beauty and a focus for recreation and tourism. Our national parks receive more than 100 million visits each year. That must represent our enjoyment of biodiversity and its importance for recreation and tourism. Here the countryside ranger can play a vital role in interpreting biodiversity for visitors, including school and community groups, and in holiday play and adventure schemes. Countryside rangers are to be encouraged.
In the light of the Government's recent documents on sustainable development strategy and the biodiversity action plan, I question whether the objectives of that plan measure up to the signed commitments agreed in May 1992—the so-called agri-environment regulation, which was the "green" part bolted on to the CAP reforms. I refer to the regulation under which the Government intend to introduce their organic aid scheme, which sadly seems to be wholly under-funded, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Kitchener. I ask my noble friend the Minister whether the Government will use their power under the regulation to implement other schemes to preserve biodiversity in the field.
I trust that the Government will not confine their commitments under the EC agri-environment pro-gramme, the biodiversity convention and agenda 21 to hedgerows, set aside land and environmentally sensitive areas. Many of the technical and economic difficulties in growing our food in more biologically diverse ways are no longer insurmountable. This is not the first time that I have mentioned the use of genetic engineering, especially when it can liberate food processing and manufacturing from specifications that force farmers into unsustainable and harmful farming practices. There is now an opportunity for the Government to integrate crop management and environmental protection into a single policy that can reach in from the hedgerows to the centre of every field in the land.
There are powerful interests vested in the status quo to keep farming the way it is—blinkered from reality yet eager to accept EC cash handouts. But we can get off the high input fertiliser and agrochemical syndrome yet still meet our food needs and the needs of future generations. The central organising principle for the development of that new harmony, the holistic approach between agriculture and the environment, is planned biodiversity in every field.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, we must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for giving us an opportunity to debate this very important and timely question.
"Sustainable development" seems to me to be an unsatisfactory term because its meaning is not entirely clear. In his foreword to the Government's document on sustainable development, the Prime Minister said:
"Sustainable development is difficult to define. But the goal of sustainable development can guide future policy".
A policy based on a concept that cannot easily be defined may be subject to confusion.
I know that others have been worried about that aspect. The Secretary of State for the Environment has suggested a definition to the effect that our policies are
"not cheating on our children".
I sympathise with that approach. We need to get away from jargon. For example, in Chapter 9 of the sustainability document relating to the sea, on page 66 it is stated:
"Inputs to the sea from anthropogenic sources are generally declining".
Some of those outside the circle of professional scientists may not immediately recognise what anthropogenic sources are.
We need to focus the widespread public concern on these matters. I agree with everything that my noble friend Lord Bridges said about the matter, which was very important. I suggest that the use of plain English in defining the problem is very important.
The issue we are debating is how to ensure a good level of necessary economic activity and development while making certain that such activity is monitored and controlled so that it does not damage or destroy the things which all of us value—our heritage, our countryside, our wildlife, our rivers and lakes and, not least, our health and that of our children. I hope that some of the more imaginative of your Lordships can think of better terms in which to describe the problems and the solutions. I prefer a term such as "civilised development".
On the substance of the issue, we can all see what happens when development is allowed to take place without proper regard for the values we all respect. There are startling examples in Russia and Eastern Europe where the authorities pressed on with development and ignored environmental considerations, with damaging results not merely for wildlife and the environment but also serious consequences for people. In the North Sea we have grave problems of over-fishing and of industrial fishing. That may well be the reason that so many birds which have died from starvation are being washed up on the beaches of Scotland and Northern England at present. The RSPB believes that the number may be as many as 100,000. The problems were addressed in your Lordships' sub-committee under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. There are grave problems in the North Sea. For instance, over a year after the disaster of the "Braer", oil tankers are still able to go wherever they wish. It has been

1021
estimated that 72 per cent. of the oil in the world seas is the result of deliberate dumping by ships. That is a serious problem.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, raised the question of transport. Roads are important. Some time ago in your Lordships' House I raised the question of the battlefield of Naseby which was threatened by a link road. Every one of your Lordships who spoke, except the Minister who responded, shared my concerns. But that road is now being built. The road will be sustainable; the battlefield will not.
We must get away from the policy of simply building more motorways. You can see what happens to a beautiful part of the world if you go to Hampshire. There are roads all over the place and what was beautiful countryside 30 years ago has been severely damaged in many places. We desperately need a proper transport policy with the promotion of good alternatives to the motor car.
I understand that there will be a speech tomorrow in another place by the Secretary of State for Wales. If reports are correct, it will be encouraging because it seems as though he will introduce policies for roads in Wales which will take account of environmental considerations. If that is true, I shall welcome such a policy—and it wi11 be a case once more of Wales showing the way.
Another problern relates to superquarries in Scotland. Wonderful aspects of the coast are being threatened. Scottish Natural Heritage has stated that inappropriately sited superquarries could gravely damage Scotland's outstanding coastal and marine environments. I am sure that that is true.
Of course we have made progress. We have the Clean Air Acts. There is the excellent work of the NRA under the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. After much effort we have had success in including environmental responsibilities in agriculture and fisheries. But much more needs to be done. The recently published government documents were valuable but disappointing on targets and specific policies.
Perhaps I may say a brief word about biodiversity—another awful word. An admiral research paper on biodiversity was produced last year by the Library of another place. I commend it to your Lordships. It contains some startling information. The paper states:
"It has been estimated that 140 plant and animal species are becoming extinct in tropical rain forests every day and that perhaps half of all existing species will become extinct in the next 50 to 100 years".
It states that such rates of extinction may be about 1 million times faster than the rate of speciation; and that forests are being felled at the rate of about 4,500 acres every hour. It points out that loss of species is irreversible. The paper is worth studying. The main problem is in tropical countries where the bulk of the species are. But we have problems in this country too. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, has just referred to stone curlews, but there are problems too with corncrakes, both species of shrikes, partridges, skylarks and corn buntings, and now with song thrushes, and even sparrows and starlings. Those species have all declined, some of them very dramatically. The reasons
1022
for those declines are complex. However, it seems important that we should have much more vigorous research into the causes and then firm action.
I am glad that with regard to biodiversity the Government acknowledge the need for targets. The joint agencies can lead the way. It is important, too, that we fulfil our obligations in CITES, that we stop damage to SSSIs and that we implement fully the species and habitats directive.
I wish to ask the Minister one question. I have given him notice of it. What is the position regarding the exceptions that have been sought by Norway to the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species, and the habitats directive? Norway has asked for exemption for several species of fish, terrestrial mammals, seals and whales. I understand that its application to join the Community was adjourned! yesterday. What is the position about that?
In summary, there is a need for balance but, as stated in Article 4 of the Rio Declaration,
"In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it".
I believe that that concept is vital and we must remember it all the time.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I, too, should like to add to the congratulations which all noble Lords have extended to my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley on the wide ranging and impactive way in which he introduced the thoughtful debate we have had today. I wish also to say how impressed we all were with the two maiden speeches. I much admired the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Temple of Stowe, but for personal reasons I would have been very interested to have heard hi. m make his speech on Samuel Pepys. For one moment II thought that he might do so. It brings back early memories for me. In the distant period before the war, I was an undergraduate at Magdalene College, Cambridge, which has Pepys associations. It is where his library is housed. Every year on his birthday there was a feast. That was convenient for me because it happens also to be my birthday. It was the habit of the college, indicating the fact that they had read the Diary, to quote from it after each course. On one occasion, one of the courses was, rather unimaginatively, salmon and cucumber. The quotation was,
"This day Sir Wm. Batten died of eating concombers".
That was one occasion when green was not particularly helpful.
There is no doubt about the timeliness of the debate. However, I was struck by some remarks by the right reverend Prelate. He reminded us that it is relatively recently that there has been a concern in philosophic and religious thinking about the environment and the animal kingdom. With the notable exception of St. Francis of Assisi, most thinking has been in the other direction. In fact, it has been a matter of only a few decades since we began thinking seriously about the environment. Now the subject is rooted in our minds. One of the reasons for

1023
the virtual disappearance of green parties is that all parties have now become green; and there is no specific role for a party totally devoted to that concept.
The Government are to be congratulated on the response that they have made to that move, and in many cases for the lead that they have given to it. They actively participated at the Rio conference. They produced the documents which they were committed to produce. They are responding promptly to the situation.
It is an issue which will obviously live with us. It has many major and various economic and social implications. Indeed, that was demonstrated by the contribution made by my noble friend Lord McNair when he deduced from the environmental issue that we might change the whole system of taxation—an interesting proposition which I am sure we would all like to read about and ponder on.
One of the most important aspects of the whole environmental issue is the threat of global warming. It is on that aspect that I wish to concentrate my remarks. The Government's aim, as we well know, is to ensure that the CO, emissions which are largely responsible for global warming will be no greater in the year 2000 than in 1990. They have deployed in some detail how that is to be achieved. What they have set out to do is to show that there can be savings of 10 million tonnes of carbon emissions because their calculations suggest that, starting with 158 million tonnes of carbon emissions in 1990, we would reach the level of 168 million tonnes if corrective action were not taken.
I wish to look at the various measures the Government propose and consider whether they are likely to lead to the desired results. Quite clearly, carbon emissions are directly related to levels of energy consumption on the one hand, and to the energy mix on the other, to which noble Lords have referred. That leads one immediately to the question of electricity generation because it is the single largest contributor to carbon emissions and it involves a mix of primary fuels which are converted into electrical energy, which is vital to our way of life.
If we consider the primary fuels which go into electricity generation, on the one hand there is coal which, used in the traditional and existing manner, contributes most to environmental pollution; and, on the other hand, nuclear which contributes least. However, nuclear has its own environmental problems which will no doubt be addressed when we receive the long awaited document on nuclear policy.
Having had some connection with the industry, what I feel about coal is that it is unfortunate that we have not tried harder to preserve the role of coal in electricity generation. That could have been done, had more resource been devoted to the development of clean coal technologies. Those technologies are perfectly capable of enabling coal to be used in such a way as to reduce harmful emissions. What surprises me is the number of other countries, including Holland—which, for years, has had no coal industry—who have gone much further into the area than we have here, with our massive coal reserves and great knowledge of coal mining which is being so rapidly dissipated.
1024
Thus, I hope that even at this late stage we might think again about putting more resource into clean coal technology. One important way of improving the efficiency with which primary energy is converted in power stations is to develop combined heat and power. I am glad that the Government have paid much attention to that. Our present level of combined heat and power generation is in the order of 2,000 megawatts, which is a relatively small proportion of the approximately 50,000 megawatts generated in the whole country. The Government expect CHP to rise to about 5,000 megawatts by the year 2000. The Government themselves say—I believe rightly—that they have encouraged the use of CHP methods in the public sector. I suggest that they publicise what they have done much more. What they say about CHP is in general terms and I think it would make a much greater impact if they were to publicise in detail what they have achieved and what energy and cost savings have been made as a result.
A good deal of attention is devoted, in the document on climate warming to which I refer, to the use of energy in the home. There, the Government claim that a number of measures have been taken which can achieve reductions. The document mentions VAT on domestic fuel, which has been a controversial measure. I personally do not believe that it will achieve the energy savings which the Government say will be achieved. I believe that the consumption of energy in the home is relatively inelastic. People need to use a certain amount of energy to get warmth, heating and to cook meals. I do not believe that there is much elasticity there. Where I think the real saving could be made is if there were much more encouragement for higher standards of insulation. The Government have helped by providing more resource for the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, which enables the homes of those on low incomes, particularly elderly people, to be provided with insulation. However, that only affects a small segment of the population and there ought to be much wider schemes to stimulate insulation.
The Government believe that much saving could come from the operations of the Energy Saving Trust, but that depends on the trust being adequately resourced. The original intention was that it should be resourced out of part of the proceeds of the sale of electricity and gas. The famous E-factor was to be used for that purpose. However, there have been recent suggestions in the press that the new director-general of Ofgas is very much opposed to that system. If the trust is to be starved of resource to do what it was set up to do, how will it work?
There are many other ways in which the Government indicate that they wish to save on energy in the home. The energy rating of appliances is another method and I am glad that the Government are going along with the Commission's proposals in that regard. I should like to see more done in the energy rating of houses. There is an effective scheme which has been developed by the National Energy Foundation, whose chairman is Dr. Mary Archer. I feel that we could do more of that. There have been many other proposals on energy in the business and public sectors, and transport has been referred to by my noble friend Lord Tordoff.

1025
My conclusion is that, as concerns the period up to the year 2000, the Government have deployed a number of proposals, some of which may not have the effect anticipated. But because of other factors—namely, the rundown in the coal industry and the recession from which we have suffered in recent years—the targets set may be achieved. What is really worrying, however, is what will happen after the year 2000 when, as my noble friend Lord Tordoff said, the car population will double and we could get very much higher levels of emissions, going by the Government's own studies. While the Government have identified the problems, like many other noble Lords, I am worried that many of the solutions still need to be proposed.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, first I must declare an interest as President of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Temple of Stowe, will understand that I sympathise rather more with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, than with him on his conclusion to an extremely agreeabl and entertaining speech about wind farms.
We must again thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for introducing the debate about sustainable development. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, had difficulty with the definition and I suggest that the Brundtland Commission got it about right. I quote from its definition:
"development which meets the needs of current generations without compromising: the ability of future generations to meet their needs".
That sums up what sustainable development is all about.
I wish to make two preliminary remarks. The first is that sustainable development is not just about environmental protection. That point was made by my noble friend Lord Desai and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. It is also cross-departmental, multi-disciplined, and, above all, it requires social justice in the world between rich and poor. Although we think about sustainable development in our own country, we must also think about the balance between our country and the developed world and the under-developed world.
My second preliminary remark is that thinking about the environment must be at the centre of all thinking about policy. It is no good putting the environment in a pigeon-hole and saying,"That's there, and all other policies can carry on regardless of that particular pigeon-hole". There must be an environmental aspect in everything that we seek to do. That is why, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, the Labour Party has set up a commission on the environment which is cross-departmental. It involves people from our transport, energy, Treasury, environment and employment teams, local authorities and the chairman of the European Parliament Environment Committee. We take the view that environment must be right at the centre of all our policy thinking.
Since the summit at Rio there have been some welcome policy developments. The United Nations has set up the Commission for Sustainable Development to
1026
review progress on Agenda 21. Two consultative bodies have been set up by the present United Kingdom Government to plan the future for sustainable development in our own country. And the Government have produced what I can only describe as four rather hefty documents which, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said, contain a great deal of very useful information about the state of play as it is at the moment. I am bound to say, with other noble Lords, that I did not see much of an action plan in any of the documents. But no doubt that will come as we move along. It seemed to me that they were more a rehash of existing policies than a plan of action for this country.
What is needed is not simply words or analysis—though analysis is important. We need deeds. Again,1[am bound to say that, when it comes to deeds, the Government do not have a terribly good record. As my noble friend Lord Ennals pointed out, we have not yet ratified the biodiversity convention. The hedgerows Bill was talked out. Between 1984 and 1990 we lost 130,000 kilometres of hedgerows—that is 23 per cent. of the total. These were important wildlife habitats, and the Government simply allowed the Bill to be talked out. We have not yet put the habitats directive into UK law. It is still in consultation. We have as yet done nothing about legislation on national parks. We have clone nothing about legislation on common land. All those measures were promised by the Government. At the moment it does not look as though the Government place the environmental issue very high on their political agenda. We would like to see them do what they can and have promised to do. And we would like to see them do it now. When they do it, they will gain a certain amount of credibility in our eyes in regard to the rest of the plan, however grandiose it may seem at the moment.
As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, quite rightly pointed out, many issues come under the umbrella of sustainable development. I cannot possibly cover them all. I agree entirely with what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Moran, about transport. It is quite absurd that the Government are still considering widening the M.25, building masses of roads and doubling the car population when we know that such a plan will end up polluting the atmosphere, landing us all in the most tremendous traffic jams, and in the end destroying the planet. It makes no sense whatsoever. If we cannot get down to a proper integrated transport policy which places much more emphasis on public transport and much less on cars and roads, then I am afraid that everything else that we do environmentally will fail. That will be the crucial test of political will.
On CO2 emissions, again, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said about the need to set targets beyond the year 2000, and indeed to try even at this late stage to make sure that we put more funds into clean coal technology. That seems to me to be straight common sense. It is after all the DTI that is forecasting that after the year 2000 CO2 emissions will climb very steeply, and we have to do something about that.
On biodiversity, I see no coherent plan to prevent a new Twyford Down situation. There is nothing in the

1027
plans that the Government have put forward to prevent that happening again. I see no real action plan for wildlife habitats. The best plan that I have seen was produced by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and others. They produced a perfectly well-argued and well-documented action plan with which I was most impressed. I was sorry to see that it did not come from the Government. In the whole of the Government's so-called action plan there is no mention of hedgerows. There is not a word about this important wildlife habitat.
I turn to the question of forestry. I think everybody would agree that forestry provides a wildlife habitat of great importance. What do the Government do? They privatise it. If ever there were a case for keeping the Forestry Commission—which is now starting to develop policies on planting which are environmentally sensible—that case is established by sustainable development. Privatisation will destroy that sensible policy.
The final point that I particularly wish to mention is that we were promised an environment protection agency to enforce all these matters. Do we have an environmental protection agency? No, we do not. I very much hope that we shall soon have one. There is much to be done. We are by no means satisfied that the Government have credibility in this particular matter. They have produced documents which give us a great deal of information. It is time for action.
How do we go about it? Clearly, the Government have to take the lead. But in my view there also has to be action at local level. Much can be done at local level by voluntary organisations—wildlife trusts, for instance—if they are given some encouragement from the Government. At the moment, core funding from government is being taken away from such trusts. It is being taken away by the Welsh Office from CPRW. We are expected to go out to private companies to run voluntary organisations. That is not good enough. Voluntary organisations, particularly at local level, will have a vital role to play in sustainable development. It is known as primary environmental care. It is a well-established principle. Most environmentalists believe that it is an important contributor to sustainable development.
Lastly, I take up one of the most important points that was made this afternoon. It was made by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. The real problem that we all face if we are not to "cheat our children", in the words of Mr. Gummer, and if we are to exercise proper stewardship, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth put it, is that we have not yet engaged upon a wide programme of public education. I honestly believe that most people in this country are simply not yet aware that serious sacrifices will have to be made if the planet is to be protected. Environment is what I would call a middle-class issue. It is discussed among the middle class. We must be absolutely certain that all of us, of all creeds and classes, understand what is required if we are to preserve the planet on which we live. We shall no longer have unlimited and inexpensive freedom to drive wherever we want in our own cars. We shall no longer enjoy an unlimited ability to waste energy when and
1028
where we will, or pursue profit regardless of the effect on the countryside or on the air. That is a massive educational task, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, pointed out. It is one of the depressing facets of what has become, if I may say so, a very depressing Government, that not only have they failed to provide action where action would have been easy, but they have failed to prepare the public for the sacrifices that we all know will have to be made.
5.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, many of your Lordships this afternoon have said that this is a huge subject. It is indeed. It is an absolutely immense subject. I ask for your Lordships' sympathy if I am not able to mention every single speaker this afternoon. Were Ito do so, it would be well into the evening before I had finished.
As many noble Lords said, this is a very timely and important debate. Certainly, I am delighted that two maiden speeches have been made. I am glad that the inclination of the noble Earl, Lord Temple of Stowe, to 18th century furniture eventually gave way to wind power. I shall refer later to the extremely interesting comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon.
Throughout the whole of this evening we have been talking about issues which will have a significant impact not only on our lives but on those of future generations. The four documents, to which so many noble Lords have referred, on sustainable development, climate change, biodiversity and forestry, that were launched on 25th January by the Prime Minister, are the Government's response to the Earth Summit in Rio in June 1992. For the next few minutes that are available to me, it is my intention to show to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, precisely the action that the Government have taken and are taking.
The United Kingdom is one of the first countries to have produced a sustainable development strategy after the Earth Summit. It is the first country to produce a climate change programme. The four documents chart the way forward for the United Kingdom into the next century. Certainly I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for his general welcome of the part that the Government have played.
Noble Lords must not imagine that we regard the publication of those documents, however worthy, as sufficient in itself. They are the basis for actions at all levels; international, regional, national and local. In that context, I am pleased to report to your Lordships that I had the privilege of representing the United Kingdom last week at an important informal meeting of Environment Ministers held at the invitation of the Indian Minister of the Environment in Agra.
This was a very important and, I believe, successful meeting, which brought together Ministers from both developed and developing countries. It is an example of the extent to which the follow-up to the Earth Summit is stimulating new levels of international co-operation on our shared problem of delivering sustainable development.

1029
The meeting, which took place over several days, agreed to send a strong political message to the negotiators, who will be meeting in Geneva on 14th to 16th March to discuss the global environmental facility, that agreement must be reached. That was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. The Ministers present also agreed that the Indo-British forestry initiative should play a key role in the preparations for the discussion on forestry at the 1995 session of the Commission on Sustainable Development. The next important step in that initiative will be an international workshop on the implementation of the Rio forest principles which will be held in Delhi in July.
Other useful discussions took place on the forthcoming session of the Commission on Sustainable Development scheduled for May of this year and on the increasingly important issue of trade and the environment. I am particularly pleased to report that the discussions, though frank, were animated throughout by a very positive and co-operative dialogue between North and South and marked a further development of the increasingly close relations between India and Britain in the pursuit of sustainable development.
The noble Lords, Lord Beaumont and Lord Desai, inferred that trade was not an absolute good. But trade is a very effective way of spreading know-how, stimulating wealth and raising standards in developing countries. Poverty is one of the greatest threats to the world's environment. We must not turn our backs on trade. But the Government and the European Union which lead for us in trade matters support the establishment of a permanent trade and environment committee of a new world trade organisation which will be set up to succeed GATT.
We must not lose sight of the European dimension. Indeed, the Prime Minister on his return from Rio in June 1992, persuaded his fellow EC Heads of Government to sign up to a common plan to keep up the momentum. The Community's energetic programme of environmental legislation has enabled us to make significant advances which have brought measurable improvements in the state of the environment in this country; for example, the water environment, air, and the handling of waste.
But let me now return to our documents and the principles on which they are based. Sustainable development is not an easy concept to understand. However, I find helpful the Brundtland Commission definition, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred—and I hope that this might help the noble Lord, Lord Moran—that sustainable development is:
"development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".
This emphasises that sustainable development is not anti-growth. Indeed it cannot be achieved except through growth and the maintenance of a prosperous economy. That certainly was recognised by many of your Lordships. There are many ways in which the right kind of economic activity can protect or enhance the environment; for example, energy efficiency measures,
1030
waste minimisation and environmentally friendly farming practices. Many of those subjects have been referred to by noble Lords.
The sustainable development strategy is not, of course, wholly new. It builds directly on the 1990 White Paper, This Common Inheritance. That White Paper report was a milestone; it provided a first comprehensive survey of all aspects of environmental concern and, through its annual updates, it has established a system of environmental auditing of which we can be proud.
But the strategy takes things further. It sets out, by environmental resource and by economic sector, the United Kingdom's position today and projections of where we might be in the year 2012,20 years on from the Earth Summit, on current policies. It looks at the principles of sustainable development; at the problems and opportunities which we face in the United Kingdom and internationally, and at the processes we have, or which we could develop, for implementing those principles and processes.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell stressed the importance of discussion being open. But the sustainable development strategy was prepared in a very open way. There was a consultation paper last summer to which we received over 500 replies. Many meetings were held during the summer to discuss issues raised in the strategy. We shall shortly be setting up a national round table, to which I shall refer later and which will expose issues to public discussion.
I have to say that some people have been disappointed at the lack of specific targets in the strategy. That document did not set out to prepare targets; that was not its purpose. But the United Kingdom does have targets. I can tell the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, that the nuclear review is planned to take place this year. The climate change programme promises to return greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000; 35,000 hectares of new nitrate sensitive areas will be designated in 1994; and renewable energy is due to increase to 1,500 megawatts by the year 2000.
My noble friend Lord Clanwilliam stressed quite rightly the importance of developing all potential forms of energy. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Temple of Stowe, in his maiden speech made mention of the need to encourage wind farms. Certainly we are encouraging renewable energy through economic incentives such as the non-fossil fuel obligation and investment in considerable resources in research into their potential. Also, on the subject of renewable energy, your Lordships may be interested to learn of a potentially formidable initiative which I saw for myself during my time in Northern Ireland. At Enniskillen Agricultural College, the Department of Agriculture has set up an experimental combined heat and power plant. That uses willow biomass to produce both heat and energy and is the first modern small-scale installation specifically designed to use energy coppice as a fuel. Indications are that the plant will prove effective in practice.
This is one specific example of the way in which we will be responding to strategy targets. New targets will follow. Three new measures will be put in place to promote sustainable development: the Government's

1031
panel on sustainable development, a UK round table on sustainable development and a citizens' environment initiative.
The panel has already been established and had its first meeting. Sir Crispin Tickell—although the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, would wish him to be ennobled—is the panel's convener; my noble friends Lord Alexander of Weedon and Lord Selborne are members. The other members are Sir John Houghton and Dr. Anne McLaren. So, in the panel, we have a formidable body of very eminent individuals, independent of government and charged to monitor progress on sustainable development.
The noble Lords, Lord Moran and Lord Beaumont, asked whether the panel will be making public any reports or advice it may give. I can say that it is quite likely that the panel will wish to make public what it does. But it will be a matter for the panel to decide when and in what way it will do so.
Secondly, there is the round table on sustainable development. That will take a little longer to set up because it must involve representatives from all sectors—from business and industry, from agriculture, from local government, from environmental groups and voluntary bodies, from the academic world and from the countryside agencies. And it must include representatives from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. My department will soon be issuing a consultation paper inviting views on the membership of the round table and on the way in which it might work.
Thirdly, there is the citizens' initiative. The Secretary of State will be appointing a national committee or task force that can create a programme of activities to interest and involve individuals and households. That may be a campaign lasting about a year. It will need some months to plan properly and we shall be seeking views on how it can best be run. I welcome the message from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth on his support of the Churches for necessary changes in lifestyle.
Those three new bodies—the panel, the round table, and the citizens' initiative—provide three new independent centres outside government from which performance can be monitored; from which new initiatives can be taken; from which the challenge can be carried to all sectors of the economy, to all groups and to individuals throughout the country. And it is a challenge that we must all meet. The action to take this country forward on a sustainable path will only partly be required of government. We shall certainly do our part. We shall give it teeth and resources, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, stressed. But some of the initiative must come from other bodies, including local authorities, business, the voluntary sector and, above all, from individuals.
Sustainable development depends on changes in individual lifestyles. We need to use the car less, to recycle more, to save energy. It is those individual changes which people make in their everyday lives which together will determine how successful we are in following a sustainable path. Which is why the Government announced the new citizens' initiative
1032
which will promote the vital messages of sustainable development in clear unambiguous language. It will provide people with information which can influence the choices they make and it will show them how their actions can make a difference.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, stressed the importance of gaining public support. He is quite right. We are doing much to encourage and enthuse the public on a voluntary basis.
I shall now turn briefly to each of the other three documents. The Climate Change Programme sets out the measures we are taking to meet the Climate Change Convention commitment signed at Rio. That means reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The fastest and cheapest way of curbing emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, is by improving energy efficiency. The UK economy has grown by about 25 per cent. since 1979, but it still uses roughly the same amount of energy. With further cost-effective improvements—such as home and energy efficiency schemes, and others carefully outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra—some 20 per cent. of current energy demand can be cut. The Climate Change Programme is based on a partnership approach. The Government provided the right framework to stimulate the introduction of energy efficiency measures. We are also helping by providing advice and information on actions to achieve savings.
Nearly half of the savings we are looking for in the carbon dioxide programme are expected to come from reducing energy consumption in the home. The business and transport sectors are both expected to contribute a quarter of the savings; and one-tenth of the savings are expected to come from the public sector. So it is up to households, businesses and public sector bodies throughout the country to take the actions that will lead to lower emissions.
I now turn to the Biodiversity Action Plan, which brings together for the first time all the relevant policies and programmes into an overall strategy to promote nature conservation within the United Kingdom. The plan is based upon three principles: sound science, partnership and common sense.
Sound science must underpin all environmental policy. When it is established that species are endangered or vulnerable, as well as providing protection under legislation such as the Wildlife and Countryside Act, we are promoting specific action. The Species Recovery Programme, launched by English Nature to assist endangered native plants and animals, is already enjoying some success. Indeed, that was a theme strongly supported by my noble friend Lord Addison.
Common sense is also important when balancing the need for sustainable development with wildlife conservation. We believe that the best balance for development and conservation is achieved through voluntary management agreements. The Government have therefore been developing important initiatives such as the Wildlife Enhancement Programme for SSSIs and more widely in the countryside the programme of environmentally sensitive areas, other agri-environmental measures and countryside stewardship.

1033
All of those engage landowners and occupiers in management that contributes towards the conservation of our natural heritage.
My noble friend Lord Kitchener referred to the benefits of organic farming. We support organic farming and encourage more extensive livestock farming in selected areas. That is one of the action points in the biodiversity action plan. That plan was prepared through consultation and partnership with many people both inside and outside government. It enabled a general consensus on the way forward. The theme of partnership will continue through the new steering group, which will be chaired by my department with members drawn from central and local government, the nature conservation agencies, scientific and academic institutions and voluntary bodies. The group will have the important task of delivering the 59 progress points contained in the plan, and of developing specific costed targets for species and habitats for publication in European Nature Conservation Year in 1995. I can say to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that we believe that farming and landowning interests should be represented in that group.
Turning to forestry, I am not sure from where the noble Lord, Lord Williams, obtained his idea of privatisation. The document on the forestry review group has not yet been published and therefore, as far as I know, there is no truth in what he says. Just over 10 per cent. of the UK land area is now covered by forests. The Forestry Programme sets out our policies to promote the further expansion of forest cover; to protect and prevent the decline and loss of woodlands; to enhance their economic value; and to enhance the social and environmental benefits of our forest resources. Over the past five years we have encouraged the creation of more than 100,000 hectares of new woodlands and forests through the Woodland Grant Scheme and Farm Woodlands Premium Scheme.
Those four documents—to which I regret I have only scantily referred but time prevents me from doing more—provide the framework within which we in government must work. We shall be pursuing the theme of sustainable development in all policy areas. Within my department we have kept careful track of the problems and opportunities flagged up for action. They also provide a framework for everyone else. The Government provided a lead. Now we must look to each and every one of us—in business, farming, local authorities, voluntary organisations—to people in their everyday lives, to play their parts. Sustainable development is not a giant leap to a known destination. It is a series of incremental steps which take us forward in the right direction, and we must take those steps together. We must all act responsibly to make sustainable development a reality for the United Kingdom.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has well justified the initiative of my noble friend Lord Ezra and myself in bringing it forward, and my colleagues on these Benches in backing it. We have had a notable
1034
series of speeches and two maiden speeches. Maiden speeches are often neither distinctive nor memorable, although they are always worthy. The two speeches were distinctive and memorable; and as long as the two people who made them continue to speak in your Lordships' House, as I hope they now will, their maiden speeches will be recalled. They were very splendid! occasions.
I am particularly grateful to the right reverend Prelate for underlining the theology of the debate. It is only if we understand the concept of stewardship of property that we are able to sustain our development and look after what we all share in common and what is both the human and the global inheritance. Perhaps I may pick out two speeches. I was especially pleased that at the very beginning the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, talked firmly about the need for openness of debate and for wideness of discussion. That point has been picked up again and again, not least, at the end of the debate, by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for underlining that it will not be all that easy and that some very tough decisions will have to be made. I was pleased to receive the reply that we had from the Government. It showed that they take the matter seriously and it gave us some information that we did not know before.
Lord Williams of Elvel: About forestry.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Indeed, my Lords, about forestry, among other matters. If there was one thing said in the debate which showed the need to have had the debate it was when the Government talked about sustainable development going alongside growth. One can have sustainable development and save the planet. But there is no such thing as sustainable growth as such. There is such a thing as qualitative improvement—that is, sustainable development. But we must give up the idea that we can have sustainable development: and have the kind of economic growth that we have all talked about for the past 30 or 40 years. The enormous majority of noble Lords who joined in the debate understand that even if the Government do not.
My Lords, I thank you all very much. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Overseas Development Aid
6.13 p.m.
Lord Redesdalerose to call attention to the case for aid from the Overseas Development Administration budget being directed to "where it is most needed" as set out in the administration's annual review 1993; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to start the debate today by thanking all noble Lords who, at such short notice, have put down their names to speak, and by thanking the Minister in advance for her reply. I realise that she will be facing the questions of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee tomorrow morning.
The reason for calling the debate is to look at the use of Overseas Development Administration funds in the

1035
wider context. My noble friends will be looking at particular issues. My noble friend Lord Avebury will be speaking on East Timor and my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie will be looking at overpopulation. I, however, should like to focus my speech on the particular questions that the Pergau dam project have raised.
Perhaps at this point, considering the almost inevitable charges that will be levelled by the Minister, it is worth stating that we on these Benches are very concerned about exports and jobs. We are not hostile to the sale of arms to countries that need the arms for defence and which have no policy of repression against their own populations. Also, having close connections myself with the North-East, I am only too well aware how important the defence industry is to British jobs and exports.
However, I strongly believe that the present diplomatic difficulties that exist between Britain and Malaysia are due to fundamental problems that arose when in 1988 aid and arms became entangled, and the present questions arise due to the cavalier fashion in which the budget of the ODA was raided while the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was Prime Minister, allegedly to secure a large arms contract.
The noble Lord, Lord Younger of Prestwick, is reported in the Economist, while discussing the Malaysian arms deal, as saying,
"a verbal undertaking was given by somebody—not myself—to link the aid to the defence contract".
Is it possible for the Minister to say who gave the verbal undertaking and by what authority?
In the Foreign Affairs Select Committee this morning, the Foreign Secretary gave details of the "brief entanglement" between aid and arms which took place in 1988. On 23rd March 1988, the then Defence Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Younger of Prestwick, signed a protocol with the Malaysian Government which contained an explicit link between aid and arms. The Foreign Secretary admitted that a figure of 20 per cent. was quoted, implying that aid would constitute 20 per cent. of the value of defence contracts, estimated at around £ 1 billion. The Foreign Secretary admitted that this was an MoD initiative and that the wording of the final protocol was not agreed with the FCO. When the noble Lord, Lord Younger, returned to Britain, the Government evidently realised the significance of this entanglement and sought to untie the linkage.
The way they did this was to write two letters on the same day,28th June 1988, which were delivered by the British High Commissioner to the Malaysian Finance Minister. The first letter said that the terms of the original protocol involving linkage contravened international guidelines and could not be pursued. The second letter, also delivered by the British High Commissioner, reconfirmed Britain's willingness to fund ATP projects up to the value of £ 200 million. While the Foreign Secretary claims that the effect of those two letters was to "de-link" aid and. arms, it is difficult to see how that is the case, given that both letters were delivered on the same day, and the £ 200 million mentioned in the second letter equates with an
1036
uncanny resemblance to the 20 per cent. figure in the original protocol, and indeed with the £ 234 million eventually spent on the Pergau dam. The close link in correspondence is further highlighted when, on 8th August 1988, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, wrote to the Malaysian Prime Minister and mentioned defence contracts and the aid package in consecutive paragraphs.
The Foreign Secretary claims that after the June exchange of letters, both policies were pursued independently and says that both were completely defensible. But in the case of the aid package which relates to the Pergau dam, is that really so? In aid terms, the ODA did not think it was defensible and the then Permanent Secretary, Sir Tim Lankester, described the project as "a bad one in economic terms" and "an abuse of the aid programme". I wish to return to that point.
A final point raised in the Select Committee this morning was that the Foreign Secretary admitted that the ODA, including the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, was overruled in February 1991 when he and the Prime Minister decided to go ahead with the Pergau project. While acknowledging Sir Timothy Lankester's opinion, the Foreign Secretary said that there were wider considerations at stake—political considerations.
The budget of the ODA was raided to finance the most expensive ATP project ever undertaken, a project that is costing the British taxpayer at least £ 234 million and will still be being paid for into the next millennium. That would not cause so many problems if this was a project that fulfilled the ODA's stated aims. However, Pergau dam was a bad buy.
If this was just an aid project, why did the Government support a project that was clearly so problematical, and back it so vehemently that the then Permanent Secretary to the ODA, Sir Timothy Lankester, had to be given special direction by the Foreign Secretary, to sign the cheques, so freeing himself from responsibility for this wasted money.
The National Audit Office reports do not normally grip me; but the report on the Pergau project is breathtaking stuff. It shows quite clearly that the aid budget has been abused, as Sir Timothy Lankester implied. This hydro-electric project is significantly more expensive than gas turbine generators, which the World Bank study of 1987, and other studies, favour. It is probable that if gas turbine plants were constructed, British companies would have won the contract for the plants. That would have created jobs in Britain that the dam failed to do, but not to the same extent.
As the Minister no doubt knows, the ODA study shows that the dam will cost the Malaysians £ 100 million more over its 35-year life than gas would. I realise that there is some debate whether a dam can have a 35-year life. It will probably even raise the price of electricity in Malaysia. The ODA further concluded that it would not be economic to commission the dam until 2005.
It seems extraordinary that this huge ODA grant is being paid not to the recipient government, as is normal, but rather to a private company, Tenaga Nasional Berhad—which is the Malaysian electricity company. That is a highly unusual arrangement, although I realise that it was a government body at the time.

1037
Apart from any other odious elements in this deal, is the Minister satisfied that the environmental dangers which the dam poses are being addressed in a satisfactory way? Many of the Green groups seem to have real anxieties.
I now look at the Aid and Trade Provision (ATP), which makes up about 6 per cent. of the aid budget. The ATP was established in 1977 with the aim of giving developing countries preferential deals if they bought British goods. It was intended as an aid for the poorest countries in buying the goods which they really needed to buy. It was not the intention that business should decide the direction of the aid budget.
The ATP is administered by the ODA and the DTI; but one should remember that it is part of the aid budget as a whole. The rules governing the ATP have been reviewed and revised in the light of the Pergau dam scandal. I understand that all ATP projects will undergo the same assessment which other ODA projects undergo. That is no doubt a good thing. However, having followed how the ODA was swept aside and ignored in the Malaysian case, I wonder if these safeguards are enough to protect the aid budget from interference? My anxiety has been heightened by hearing a recently retired Minister expressing disdain for the worth of guidelines.
Much has beer, said about the links which the companies who benefited most from the ATP have with the Conservative Party. I understand that because what has been called "constraints of the time-scale" in ATP operations, those companies who know the ropes benefited from the provision. I hope that the ATP will be administered in such a way in future that any bias in the allocation of contracts will be clear for all to see.
The revelations about British policy towards Malaysia have raised many questions. Perhaps the Minister could answer some further questions. Did the Government act as one would hope in the trial of Mr. Osman, former head in Hong Kong of the Malaysian state-owned bank? There have been allegations that the documents the Foreign Office refused to supply in that case—using Public Immunity Certificates as in the Matrix Churchill case—would have implicated Malaysian Ministers. Is it true that this was done to avoid jeopardising relations with Malaysia?
Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on allegations that in September 1988, as part of the aid and arms deal, the Malaysians demanded another landing slot at Heathrow and that the British Government paid British Airways £ 2.1 million out of public funds to relinquish a slot. If this is untrue I am sure that the Minister will want to make it quite clear in her speech.
That the ATP is not working well is shown by the list of projects that have been criticised by the National Audit office: the Karachi water scheme (£ 8 million from OD. A); the Malaysia rural water supply scheme (£ 62 million from ODA); Victoria dam (£ 117 million from ODA); a dam in Sri Lanka (£ 19 million from ODA); mini hydro-power stations in the Philippines (£ 5 million from the ODA). Three of these five were built by Balfour Beatty and on one other of these they were the consultants.
Speaking about the ATP, the Minister said:
1038
"it should not be seen as a subsidy to industry; it should be there to get economic regeneration in developing countries started as well. That is always something that we must have in the forefront of our minds".—[Official Report, 11/11/92; col.313.]
I sincerely hope that the new guidelines allow those al. the DTI to at least do that much, for there seems little doubt that the ATP, by its nature, is driven by the interest of British companies rather than the needs of the poorest nations. It is surely sensible to work towards a multilateral ban on ATP.
Turning away from the ATP to the ODA in general, I should like to propose further reforms which would introduce greater transparency and accountability to the workings of the ODA. Perhaps in future pipeline projects should be published; project documents, once approved, should be made available; and preparatory reports should be circulated.
The ODA' s aid framework paper, which is at present a secret document, should be made available when issues concerning aid are to be debated in Parliament so that the debates can take place in an informed manner. I realise that there will be difficulties in undertaking what I have proposed. However, it is only through greater transparency that the spectre of apparent shady deals will be banished. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Prior: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest at once. I am chairman of GEC; we hold a 30 per cent. share in the holding of GEC Malaysia and I believe that in 1987 we gave £ 50,000 to the Conservative Party. We did not contribute in 1992 and on a previous occasion we have also supported the Liberal Party. I do not know what one can make of that.
I wish to examine how we have got ourselves into this dreadful mess which is having such an effect on jobs, investment and political influence in South-East Asia. However, first I have something to say about the press. In the 1980s some sections of the press were extraordinarily sycophantic towards the Conservative Government. Frankly, on a number of occasions the press allowed the Thatcher Government to get away with murder. In the 1990s the worm has turned with a vengeance and now no innuendo, no rumour and no suggestion is too far fetched for the press to turn against the Government. It is little short of catastrophic that the jobs of many thousands have been lost as insult and injury designed to inflict damage on the British Government have drawn in the government and Ministers of a very important and friendly customer; namely, Malaysia.
On a visit to Japan last September with the Prime Minister I watched the reaction of the Japanese press as our Prime Minister was pilloried in Tokyo by our own press correspondents. The Japanese press simply stood there with their mouths open with amazement at the lack of respect and courtesy that was shown to a Prime Minister operating in a foreign country. I sometimes reflect on what a pity it is that everyone can understand, speak and read English. If all the talk had been in

1039
German, French or Spanish, no one would have been any the wiser. As everyone can understand English, perhaps our press should be more responsible than ever.
What are the facts? I shall try to give them as I see and know them. First, Malaysia indicated that it wished to place large defence orders with Britain of about £ 1 billion, which it would pay in cash. In fact, the orders have amounted to about £ 1.5 billion and the Malaysians have paid in cash. Quite understandably, Malaysia said at the same time,"If we place this order with you, will you aid us in a major project that we badly need?" It is not surprising that the Malaysians asked for that and it is not surprising that the British Government said,"Yes, we'll give you some aid". If there was a "tangle", to use the Foreign Secretary's word, about whether the two issues were contingent upon each other, it is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable cause for inquiry by the press and Opposition. I do not doubt that for one moment even though it was quickly sorted out, as the Government made clear in the House of Commons on 13th June 1989, reported in volume 154 of the Official Report at cols.397 and 398. They had earlier made it clear that the Secretary of State for Defence at the time had made a mistake, but had put it right in June 1988, as the noble Lord said.
So aid was granted to the Pergau hydro-electric scheme. Quite rightly, the Malaysians regarded the project as a means to increase power generation and to diversify their energy sources. Frankly, a great deal of nonsense is being talked about such a scheme being expensive. We all know that when one builds a dam which has a hydro-electric scheme, a lot of capital is involved, but over a long period of time the running costs are very low and the two things balance each other out. That is why, where they can, most countries opt for a mixed source of power, whether hydro-electric, nuclear, coal, gas, or whatever.
I am not certain that in this case the ODA made what was for it more than a cursory examination. I have seen reports—I am not certain about them—that the ODA had people out there for a couple of days. I am not certain whether that was long enough for them even to get to the site. They concluded that they did not like the scheme. They were overruled. It is quite clear why they were overruled. It was because we had already given our word as a nation that we would honour an aid programme to Malaysia.
I have to point out that the aid and trade provision is an aid and trade provision with emphasis on the "trade". It is about 5 per cent. of the aid budget—£ 100 million a year. In the latest report that we are considering tonight I think that the figure is £ 92 million. If it is going to lead to the sort of accusations that have been made in the past few days, I think that it would be much better to take ATP away from the ODA and to put it with the DTI. That would be resisted hotly by the ODA, but it seems to me that if we are to get into this sort of problem, it would be far better to do so.
Under OECD rules, one has to give 35 per cent. of the cost of a project. One cannot give less. Two recent grants by Germany (one to the Shanghai metro and one to the Guandjhou metro) have accounted respectively
1040
for 51 per cent. and 68 per cent. of the cost. Germany has only done that because it thinks that it will get further orders. On the whole, that is why British industry needs to have this help in large capital projects in which we have to compete with a great many other countries. The aid and trade provisions resulted in Britain being chosen for the new airport at Kuala Lumpur, for gas turbines providing more power, for hospitals and for universities. In fact, the Malaysians now say that we have lost between £ 3.5 billion and £ 4 billion of business.
There is another reason why this has been so disturbing. It is arrogant of people here to believe that they know better what the Malaysians require. It smacks of the colonialism of a bygone age and is deeply offensive to a very successful nation that is very proud of its achievements—and rightly so. We must respect Malaysia's sensitivities and culture if we wish to do business with that country. I applaud the way in which Malaysia has managed its community of mixed races, different religions, emergence from colonialism and internal conflict to become one of the leading countries of the Commonwealth and the so-called "developing world". The growth in its economy and standard of living will shortly take Malaysia above the limits of aid policy. Britain has played an honourable part in helping, including by ATP, one of the world's great success stories: a democracy with political stability and strong leadership, and growing prosperity for all the people.
To end, I ask: what next? We must now stop criticising each other, honour our friendships and get back to sensible trading relations in which the Government here have a major part to play. We must hope that our sense of national interest will enable the press, the Opposition, industry and government to recognise all the issues: the freedom of the press, the importance of industry and jobs here, and our friendship with Malaysia and other South-East Asian countries. We must recognise that all those issues are at stake and deal with them in a responsible manner.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for raising this issue. He could not have chosen a better time, or perhaps the time was chosen after his choice of subject. I do not know how it worked out, but it is good that the debate produced such a frank statement from the noble Lord, Lord Prior. I was interested in the various parties to which GEC has contributed. The noble Lord missed out the Labour Party for some reason or another and did not say whether he gave a contribution to the Conservative Party in 1993, but one cannot intervene to ask in debates such as this.
The only interest that I can declare is that I have been interested in overseas aid ever since the end of the war. I looked up the first little pamphlet that I produced on overseas aid, which was in 1947. It was published by the Council for Education in World Citizenship more recently than that—and the first time that I ever came close to power in this area—was when I became Parliamentary Private Secretary to Barbara Castle when in 1964 she became the first Minister of Overseas

1041
Development. I was very proud of that. I discussed this matter with my noble friend yesterday and have been looking through her White Paper. A number of phrases in it warmed me. One may well hear them from the Minister, but they are not apparent when one looks at the "dreadful mess" to quote the words of the noble Lord, Lord Prior, that we are now in.
Paragraph 8 of the introduction to that White Paper states:
`We give aid because in the widest sense we believe it to be in our interest to do so as a member of the world community. We recognise that it is in. he nature of aid that we should accept an economic sacrifice when giving it".
Your Lordships should take note of that. The paragraph continues:
"To describe as aid transactions which do not entail such sacrifices would incur risk of frustration and ill will".
The first sentence of paragraph 2 reads:
"The basis of the aid programme is … a moral one".
I suppose that most Ministers today and some former Ministers would say that that is a load of old nonsense. That is just what Alan Clark has been saying. We now seem to take it for granted that the aid programme has a real task to promote not just trade in the best sense of the word, but military trade and the arms trade. I find that quite disgusting. I feel that we are living in a very squalid time in politics. Putting the aid-arms picture within the framework of the Scott Inquiry, this is a sad time for British politics. There are a few clean people around, and one of them is sitting on the Government Front Bench and will have to answer this sad debate. It is sad in many different ways.
It is interesting that the public actually believe in aid. Politicians have always thought that aid really was not popular. Opinion polls show that over 70 per cent. of the public support the concept of aid. They also show that the public want British aid spent on basic needs: emergency relief, primary education and health, help in growing food and digging wells. I believe that to be true. The Government argue that Britain has one of the world's biggest aid programmes and that UK aid is well focused on the poor. That was absolutely true at one time. Critics respond that Britain is one of the meanest donors and that little help reaches those who need it most. What are the facts?
At £ 1.8 billion in 1992, Britain's aid to developing countries was the world's sixth largest, but it is going down. As a percentage of our gross national product we gave less than most, coming 15th out of 22 donors. Whether this makes Britain generous or mean depends on one's view. What is clear is that Britain is less generous than it was 15 years ago, and each year that goes by it becomes less generous still. The simple argument which is often used by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker,"But don't worry, it is so well administered" is beginning to crack at the seams.
Some real challenges must be made from this side of the House. The Government broke their own rules on aid and trade provisions by going ahead with the Pergau dam project when they knew that it failed to fulfil the requirements to be economically and financially viable and technically sound. Of course they knew because they were told by their experts. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Prior, that I find it difficult to believe that the
1042
ODA's examination which led to the conclusions by the Permanent Under-Secretary was based on a two-day visit. That is difficult to accept. If it is so, it is an absolute criticism of the ODA to which the Minister must respond. Secondly, she must also respond to the criticism that the Government linked the provision of aid for the Pergau project with commercial orders in other areas, specifically for defence equipment, in breach of their own declared policy that there should be no aid-arms link.
The Minister has always taken a very honest and principled position on this. She said on 20th December 1991:
"United Kingdom aid is provided in support of sustainable development and to alleviate poverty in developing countries. There is no question of linking aid and arms ' deals".—[Official Report, Commons,20/12/91; col.331.]
Then, on 24th November 1993, she said:
"Aid funds cannot be used for the purchase of arms."
Of course, that is right.
"All bilateral project proposals are subject to careful appraisal of economic, financial, institutional, social and environmental aspects before they can be approved".—[Official Report, 24/11/93; col.258.]
I was horrified to see, just reading the newspaper coverage of the inquiry today by the Select Committee, that the Foreign Secretary had to admit that the Foreign Office was not even informed at the time, in 1988, when the then Secretary of State for Defence, now Lord Younger, actually signed the agreement. That means that the ODA did not know what was being done in its name. I find that quite horrific, and the Minister must explain the position of the Foreign Office and the ODA at that time. The Minister is on the spot. Many of us here have great sympathy for her, but I have no sympathy for the argument that she is going to have to defend.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I hope the House will allow me to divert from the bashing of the ODA to a slightly different subject. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for encouraging me and perhaps others to read this year's ODA annual report rather more closely than we otherwise would have done. found the report highly readable, and it shows some of the excellent aspects of the ODA's work.
I should like to focus on one particular and most needed part of ODA work; namely, health and population. In terms of the Motion before us, population assistance is one of the most vital aspects of fostering sustainable and lasting development. I was very glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, was going to say something on this subject.
Perhaps I may first draw attention to one self-contained page of the ODA report, page 5, headed "CARE and ODA: a lasting partnership", CARE here being the name of the international development organisation which is the second largest recipient of ODA funds. An account is given here of an NGO making very effective use of both emergency and development aid supported by donations from the public. Organisations such as CARE are able to be particularly flexible and to be responsive to local needs as expressed from the ground up.

1043
Among NGOs which do not solely concentrate on population matters, CARE realises the full importance of integrated population programmes and is now placing an increasing amount of emphasis on population as part of its development programmes. The ODA could encourage further such trends more generally by increasing the amount of 100 per cent. funding for population projects. As the Minister may be aware, it is relatively difficult for NGOs to provide matching funds for such programmes.
I would not expect the Minister to give detailed answers now to my comments on this area of population, but I hope that she can give general positive indications, especially as the record of the ODA, and in particular the Minister herself on this subject, if I may say so, is so far so good.
I should say at this stage that I am not asking for new money for the ODA, but that within the department a greater proportion of the existing level of funds should be allocated to population activities. The Minister may not be surprised if I mention a figure of 4 per cent. which is basically becoming the target aim—as it is in other countries—for the element of population activities as a proportion of the overseas aid budget. In this country the relevant figure is currently below 2 per cent.
In assessing the global unmet need for family planning services, the figure of 300 million couples is now generally accepted as those who would like to use family planning but lack access to services. That need, even though it is dealing with longer-term issues, very much qualifies as the need referred to in the question before us.
The part of the ODA report, in the section on health and population, rightly recounts welcome success stories even in countries such as Bangladesh and Kenya. It is encouraging to read on page 10 of the report:
"So family planning, successful as it has been in helping to slow population growth, is a service which needs to be extended much further. Providing this form of aid has therefore been central to ODA's programme".
There is a momentum building up which has clearly been boosted by the change of administration in the United States and of policies in this field. There is a good prospect that the 10-yearly conference organised by the United Nations on population and development in Cairo this year will continue not only to increase global awareness of the connection of population and development, but will also provide some significant impetus to action. This will not happen automatically, and I know that the noble Baroness will be playing a leading part, as she tried to do in Rio.
Some noble Lords may have received a copy of a report on aid which was entitled "Population Summit of the World's Scientific Academies". That was a joint statement by 58 of the world's scientific academies following a conference in India last year. It was promoted partly by our own Royal Society. That was done as a message to the Cairo conference. It is encouraging that the scientific community—not just in this country—is being made aware of the population dimension of some of its activities.
I have been told by one distinguished, scientifically-inclined Member of the Cross Benches that it was his
1044
impression that, partly as a result of that conference, awareness, talk and scientific work on the population dimension had increased. Perhaps I may quote one conclusion agreed on behalf of the world's 58 scientific academies:
"The academies believe that ultimate success in dealing with global, social, economic and environmental problems cannot be achieved without a stable world population".
That is obviously long-term thinking, but they also accept the immediacy of the problem in their final sentences addressed to the Cairo conference which say:
"With each year's delay the problems become more acute. Let 1994 be remembered as the year when the people of the world decide to act together for the benefit of future generations".
Even though it may not be directly responsible for it, I hope that the ODA will encourage that awareness in the scientific community of this country.
Finally, I draw attention to the remarkable speech of Mrs. Brundtland, the Prime Minister of Norway, who was the chairman and author of the Brundtland Report in last year's lectures sponsored by the United Nations population fund in New York. I hope that the noble Baroness may find time to read that report if she has not already done so. In the past Mrs. Brundtland has always put her thoughts on population in the wider context, and she still does so. However, her voice has become much more urgent and committed and I know that she, like the Minister, intends to play a very full part in the Cairo conference.
In the printed introduction to the Salas lecture, the director of the UNFPA, Nafis Sadik, summarises what she calls the powerful message of the lecture delivered by Mrs. Brundtland:
"Unless we accept that rapid population growth is the most serious, predictable and intractable crisis facing us today, she warns, 'we shall not be able to avoid … the ultimate collapse of [the earth's] vital resource bases".
The Norwegian Government are almost alone in reaching the target of 4 per cent. of overseas aid being directed to population activities. I hope that the Minister can encourage the ODA in that direction.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Foreign Secretary has laid down three principles which should be considered in determining our aid programme: respect for human rights and the rule of law; movement towards democratic and accountable government and the rooting out of corruption; and the pursuit of sound social and economic policies. The annual review adds a fourth:
"Concern for the environment runs through the whole of Britain's aid activities, and each project … is assessed for its environmental impact".
In the case of Indonesia, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, has claimed that as a result of our aid there has been a reduction in absolute poverty levels; that we have retained our influence over Indonesia; and that by giving aid to projects which help British firms, we are influencing the government to improve the human rights of the Indonesian people dramatically.
The per capita income of Indonesians has been rising gradually, and they are now just below the threshold of 700 dollars, as the noble Lord, Lord Prior, reminded us, where they would cease to quality for ATP aid. That is not due to aid but to commercial exploitation of natural

1045
resources, including the Achehnese gas fields, which are the largest in the world. The people of Acheh are not enjoying respect for human rights and the rule of law, however. Amnesty says that,
"the pattern of gross human rights violations reported from Acheh since 1989 continues to warrant urgent international concern",
and that the fate of thousands of victims remained unresolved. The UN rapporteur on extrajudicial executions says that the pattern of killings and disappearances in Acheh was similar to that in East Timor, and there was no fundamental change in the conditions which allowed those phenomena to occur.
The rapporteur wrote to the Government of Indonesia asking to visit East Timor in accordance with the UN Human Rights Commission's resolution passed in Geneva last year. The Indonesians replied that having voted against the resolution, they did not feel compelled to abide by its provisions; but they now say he could visit East Timor in 1994. Will the Minister confirm that, and will she say whether the Government will press Jakarta to allow him to visit Acheh and West Papua as well?
The UN rapporteur on torture says he received information indicating that torture,
"has been used routinely in Acheh by military and police authorities since mid-1989".
He too has been denied admission either to Acheh or East Timor, as have the UN working groups on disappearances and unlawful detentions.
Amnesty's overall view is that the Indonesian Government,
"with minor exceptions, has failed to comply with the spirit or the substance of the Commission's recommendations".
The US State Department, says that,
"extra judicial arrests and detention, [and] torture of those in custody … continued in many areas of Indonesia. Legal safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention are frequently ignored. The armed forces continued to be responsible for the most serious human rights abuses".
Asia Watch has details of cases of harassment of union members in late 1993 and early 1994. Indonesia has eroded but not removed the law on military intervention in labour disputes because it wanted the US to continue the generalised system of preferences benefits for Indonesian exports. The review of the programme was postponed for six months in February while freedom of association is still restricted. Military oversight of labour negotiations, dismissals of workers and interference in strikes are still within the law and the Jakarta military commander has implied that the repeal of Decree 342 will make no practical difference. Reports of bonded labour continue.
In John Pilger's programme on East Timor last week, evidence was given of secondary killings after the Santa Cruz massacre. Two hundred and seven persons were listed as missing by UN agencies of whom eight have been accounted for by Jakarta. According to survivors, the wounded were stabbed and clubbed to death by the soldiers, and some were killed by poisoning.
Indonesia has been responsible for the deaths of a quarter of a million East Timorese since the illegal occupation of the territory began in December 1975. Yet it receives lavish aid from Britain. The World Development Movement says that over the decade 1980
1046
to 1990, UK bilateral aid to Indonesia rose by 111 per cent. It is the ninth largest recipient of UK aid, and the largest outside the Commonwealth. Indonesia has been second only to Malaysia as a beneficiary of ATP funding since 1989, and that money has gone largely to infrastructure projects which have very little impact on poverty.
One of the largest of our Indonesian ATP projects is the £ 65 million Samarinda power plant, the contract for which is about to be awarded to GEC Alsthom. The electricity from Samarinda will be used to expand mining and logging in the area; for example, at the huge Kelian gold mine. The environmental hazards of the operation were demonstrated when heavy rain swept 617 drums of poisonous waste into the river, allegedly causing toxic burns to 13 people.
The company is also in dispute with 440 families displaced by their operations. Those families; lost their homes and livelihoods and were paid 100 to 500 dollars in compensation. Some, who got nothing at all, are still camping on the sequestrated land. Now the company plans to alter the course of the river, thus harming the Dayak forest dwellers. Britain is not demonstrating much concern for the environment in East Kalimantan.
If Indonesia fails to qualify for British aid as a country which is not among the poorest and which has easy access to market capital; which shows little respect for its own environment; which fails to respect human rights and the rule of law; which is not tending towards pluralism but has a dictator now in his sixth unopposed term; and which persists with repressive policies, why should we, in the Foreign Secretary's words,
"support their folly with scarce aid resources which could be better used elsewhere".
Lord Rea: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he can answer an extremely brief question. He referred to the John Pilger programme "Death of a Nation". The programme gave eye-witness evidence of British Hawk aircraft being used to bomb villages in East Timor. Can the noble Lord confirm—
Baroness Trumpington: Order, my Lords; this is a timed debate. The last two speakers went the full length of their time. We cannot have such interruptions.
7 p.m.
Viscount Weir: My Lords, I must first declare an interest as deputy chairman of BICC, whose subsidiary, Balfour Beatty is the lead contractor for the Pergau Dam. No doubt, therefore, noble Lords, with their customary good sense, will discount heavily most of what I am going to say.
However, in my turn I might perhaps start by discounting some of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, conveyed about the costs of power from Pergau. First, dams of that kind are built for a life of over 100 years and not 35 years. Their hydro-electric machinery is often rebuilt to "as new" condition after 30 years or more. Their costs should, therefore, be evaluated accordingly on a very long-term basis. As for cost comparisons with gas turbines, I am only delighted that either the noble Lord or the ODA can apparently predict gas prices so long ahead.

1047
Having said that, I must also confess to a certain unease about the wording of the Motion. The whole idea of directing aid,
"where it is most needed",
sounds admirable enough as a general concept, but there is, perhaps, just something about it which is a little reminiscent of the trustees of some well-endowed charity meeting to pick a list of the most deserving causes. That task always brings with it the inescapable pleasure of handing out other people's money and the difficulty of avoiding any small touch of condescension. As recent events have shown, even a suspicion of condescension understandably rankles in Malaysia.
I hope that noble Lords will not take those remarks as being either critical or unkind. They are certainly not so intended. It is impossible however to be as kindly disposed to some of the press. The editor of the Sunday Times was quoted as proudly taking criticism of the innuendo-laden article in his paper about an aluminium smelter that was, incidentally, never built as a "badge of courage". It was almost certainly that article which precipitated the fierce reaction of the Malaysian Government. Self-congratulation stinks and to congratulate yourself on an article where the transitory titillation of your readers results in massive economic losses for your country only shows how much lower the already low standards of press responsibility can sink if they are in the right hands.
The Observer of course—particularly now that it has escaped from the clutches of Mr. Rowland into the warm liberal bosom of the Guardian—is altogether a more up-market journal. It merely wrote about aid money being spent on a "luxury airport" in Malaysia. I suppose those concerned would have been happier if it had not been a luxury airport but just a normal uncomfortable one. At any rate, the Observer and its little band of readers can presumably now rest well contented and satisfied as British companies will apparently play no further part in building that highly prestigious £ 3 billion project.
Finally, there is one significant point that the press seems to have completely missed. Why was Malaysia chosen in the first place as a priority recipient for so much aid? Surely, that was only sensible in order to re-build and recover Britain's trading position in such an important market where our position had been so seriously eroded by the original trade boycott in the early 1980s. The Government were quite right to do it, even if their detailed implementation of the policy has, perhaps, left something to be desired.
The question we need to ask is how the present arrangements for aid can be improved. The starting point ought to be some simple economic considerations. I suggest the following four as being relevant. Our aid budget is puny compared to the problems of the less-developed world, and there is little chance of it being increased; our balance of trade is horrible; our unemployment is high and much of industry is working below capacity; and, finally, the competition for international business is fierce. Incidentally, noble Lords can see for themselves how fierce that competition is and its direct connection with
1048
government aid from the two examples of the Shanghai and the Guandjhou metros to which my noble friend Lord Prior referred.
Frankly, our economic circumstances today are such that, sadly, I believe we can only really afford such forms of economic aid as give our industry some measure of benefit in return. I would, therefore, make two suggestions. First, that a lot of our politicians and press give up the luxuries that they are currently enjoying so much of humbug and the public washing of dirty linen, and instead make a conscious effort to grasp the sometimes unattractive realities of competitive international business in which some of us have to trade. Secondly, that a much larger proportion of our overall aid budget is allocated to the aid and trade provision and that the whole responsibility for ATP is transferred to the Department of Trade and Industry, where it seems sensibly to belong.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I had not intended to speak on the Pergau Dam at all but on the subject set out on the Order Paper. However, having listened to the noble Viscount who has just spoken, I must say that I have not yet heard a more stringent critique of government policy. The noble Viscount seemed to be saying that the Government have reduced the British economy to such dire straits—for example, high unemployment and industries without orders—that, unless our foreign aid is used to give our industry orders, there is no other way that it can compete. I did not say it; but thank God it is there and we can use it some other time.
I should like, first, to speak in defence of economists. Various people have said that the kind of project evaluation that the ODA no doubt obtained was either ignorant of the situation in the long run or ignorant of the balance between initial fixed costs, running costs and so on. Economists have been doing such things for at least 50 years, if not longer. If people do not have the technical expertise to evaluate such reports, it is bad form to criticise those who cannot defend themselves. I imagine that the ODA received very good professional advice on the matter. It is an economically well-established subject, especially as regards cost-benefit analysis. I am sure that what was said initially—namely, that the project did not have a good cost-benefit ratio—was entirely correct. I would not expect anything less from the ODA. Just because the project has been mentioned, people have chosen to malign economists. I do not like that.
There is another rather curious aspect to the project. We are told that the initial evaluation by an Australian agency was £ 150 million. However, the project finally ended up costing £ 471 million. Indeed, aid is going where it is most needed—to British corporations. I do not know how anyone could inflate the value of the project three times in the course of two years. No doubt sound reasons were given. Nevertheless, I am sure that there was a lot of cost inflation going on.
I turn now to the topic at issue. The problem is not the Pergau Dam or anything like it. I believe that much of the aid given by the United Kingdom and many other countries is not going where it is most needed. If it is

1049
going to poor countries at all, it is not going to the poorest people within those countries. If it is going to those countries, it is not being used to further what I would call the human development of the poorest people. It is not being used to meet basic needs or in sufficient quantity in areas such as health, education or women's development. Less than 10 per cent. of all OECD aid is used to meet the basic needs of people. Far too much aid is given not to help the recipients but to help secure business for the country which is giving the aid. The noble Viscount said that the purpose of giving aid is to subsidise our industry. I believe it is wrong that 65 per cent. or more of British aid is tied.
If all that we achieve by giving aid is to help our own business community, why not just do that direct and call it something else? We should not call it aid and declare that the receiving countries are gaining from it. Such aid is a form of tariff. We are giving subsidies to our own businesses because without it they are too weak to go out and get orders. I believe that the aid system, not just of the UK Government but also of the OECD, must be radically re-thought. It is not a case of there not being sufficient money but rather of such money as there is not doing enough good. People have the impression that we are giving a lot of money away when we are giving very little. Perhaps more of our aid should be multilateral rather than bilateral and funnelled through NGOs whose staff know where the poor are to be found and who can carry out the kind of projects which help the poor.
We should ask ourselves the question: why do many people give money from their own pockets to NGOs? They do so because NGOs can demonstrate that the money that is given reaches the poor people and helps them. Few governments can show that happening with aid. That is my indictment of the aid system. I would prefer the British Government to shut down the ODA more or less and give all the aid money to NGOs. Let us have this purchaser/provider split. Let the ODA purchase development aid but not provide it. Let Oxfam and Save the Children provide the aid because they are much better at it. So much money is wasted in the provision of government-to-government aid. I am not merely criticising the UK Government in this regard; it is a general malaise. Aid is given for extremely dubious purposes, some of which concern defence contracts. It is also given for diplomatic reasons and such phenomena as, formerly, the cold war. I believe it is fraudulent to pretend that such aid is helping the poor.
Countries should state clearly that they are giving aid because that is part of their foreign policy and diplomacy and their policy of setting their friends against their enemies. The problem is that we say things we do not mean. If we want our businesses to secure overseas contracts we should leave that in the hands of the DTI and at least in that case any money that is spent in the process will not be called aid but something else. I am sure that eventually we will have to find a more radical way of giving aid that is much more effective and economical than the present system. At present there is not enough aid money available and what is available is not doing any good.
7.14 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, this Motion gives me an opportunity to share my views on a matter of great concern to me. I passionately believe that the greatest single problem facing the world today is an unchecked growth in population. Since 1950 the world population has doubled and it will increase by another billion during this decade. In the next century it could double or triple, and about 95 per cent. of that increase will occur in developing countries.
This Motion calls attention to aid being directed to,
"where it is most needed".
I would submit that it is most needed for family planning and in the connected area of the health of mothers and children.
My noble friend the Minister launched several new initiatives in 1991 to strengthen Britain's contribution to family planning and health in developing countries. These included strengthening health services, providing easier access to contraceptives and establishing health and development projects. On the occasion of the launch my noble friend said:
"British aid for population activities in developing countries must enable more women and men to decide the number of children they have by choice not chance".
She added:
"There are three guiding principles for population assistance. First, individuals, particularly women, must be able to choose when to have children. Second, clear family planning advice must be made available to all to exercise their decision freely and without coercion. Third, the quality and availability of family planning services must be improved if men and women are to feel confident that modern family planning is for them".
I have quoted the words of my noble friend the Minister because I could not have expressed them so clearly and concisely myself, and also because to me they make up the guiding principles which should never be lost sight of.
However, while the principles are right, the picture is not as rosy as I would wish. First, only 1.5 per cent. of UK aid is devoted to population activities. Secondly, there are still many charities which shy away from being involved in a concerted effort in this field. ODA and my noble friend have recognised that there is a great unmet need. One has to ask oneself whether this need can be met with the small amount of aid money which is being spent on it.
I am a woman whose roots lie in a developing country, a country which has continuously struggled with its population problem, sometimes quite disa-strously. I was visiting India when Mrs. Gandhi's son, Sanjay, tried to achieve quick results through enforcement. That step set India's family planning programme back by at least a decade. I believe that coercion is the grossest violation of human rights. The key lies in educating and helping women to take decisions about their own lives. By education I do not mean literacy—as some organisations have chosen to emphasise—I mean helping women to understand the choices which are open to them and helping them to take responsibility for making those choices.
I used to subscribe to the view that education in a more literal sense is the key. There is absolutely no doubt that that is so. In India the lowest birth rate and the highest standard of living are found in Kerala where the

1051
literacy rate is 87 per cent. The worst situation is found in Uttar Pradesh which has the lowest literacy rate. However, I now believe that we just cannot wait for there to be a dramatic increase in literacy. There are other successful ways of helping women who may not have access to education in a literal sense.
Women in rural areas are much more receptive to advice from women with whom they can identify. There has to be a cascade system of training for health workers reaching right down to training a village woman herself to give advice on family planning and health issues. Perhaps the biggest battle has to be fought with the men who often feel their traditional role is being threatened. On my recent visit to Calcutta I was encouraged to learn that 30 per cent. of places on village councils in West Bengal have been reserved for women and that one woman has been elected head of a council.
It is my firm belief that no outsider can come in and change things. Outside aid can only provide the means by which people can take charge of their own lives, set their own priorities and make their own choices. But I must say to my noble friend the Minister, money is of vital importance.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the whole House is grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, who has just spoken, because she has cut my speech at least by half. She made the point so much better than I could ever hope to. It is an enormously important subject. I have spoken about it before. I cited the Scandinavian countries, which give more money. The noble Baroness has replied that we do our best. It is a matter of vital importance. I shall say no more. It has all been said by the noble Baroness.
I shall move on to the particular. However, before doing so perhaps I may say that I think that my countryman, the noble Viscount, was a little hard on the press. We have a free press and if it makes a mistake we have to put up with it. One cannot moan about the press. I always thought that the great, competent industrialists of this country so organised their affairs that they produced goods which were of a quality and cheapness with which other lesser breeds were unable to compete. I thought that that was the basis for success rather than help from government in various ways, although government must not hinder.
Having said that, I shall move on to the point that I wish to make about deserving countries. The noble Baroness the Minister has been in Albania, which I visited in the autumn. It is a country in Europe of extreme poverty. Albania suffered for 40 years under a regime which made Russia, Poland and Hungary seem a liberal heaven in comparison. I was fascinated to see developments in my own field of agriculture. About 80 per cent. of the people live on the land. Such was the people's hatred of the previous regime that they seized the state farms, broke up the irrigation systems and tore out the vines to pasture their cows. The government had to back them.
The agricultural area was split into small farms. In this country after the First World War it was said that
1052
every returning soldier should have three acres of land and a cow. A farmer in Aberdeenshire said that he would take the three acres in front of his house and keep a bull. The Albanian families settled on their few acres, averaging just under two hectares. They are feeding themselves. It is uneconomic, but the families exist on their few acres. That holds them together.
Until Albania can encourage tourism and build up its horticulture to provide exports, and until some industry gets going again, those families will have to live in that way. I believe that help, mainly of a technical nature, to train those people—who were, in effect, serfs living on state farms—how to run a profitable small unit to feed their families would be of great value.
There are agricultural scientists in Albania and any help that we could provide to allow those scientists to spread their knowledge would be extremely useful. That would help a country inside Europe which is probably as poor as many of the developing countries in other parts of the world. It would also do us in Britain a great deal of good, perhaps not in terms of industry but certainly in terms of prestige and gratitude.
While Albania is building up means of employing her people in other ways she will depend on family farms in the countryside. Any money that we spend on education, on agriculture and generally helping to improve the fabric of the country would be very well spent. I hope that the Minister, who is good, kindly, and a proper person to do that, will help them.
7.25 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, was going to propose organic farming for those farms.
I had not intended to talk about the Pergau dam, but the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale—whom we must thank for introducing the debate—concentrated his speech upon it. It seemed to me that he was making great political advantage from that simple aid for trade activity. That is what it is, what it has been and what it will be. It may be a bad deal, and its value is disputed, but not by my noble friend Lord Prior and the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, whose words on that subject I accept in advance of those of anyone else in this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, also raised the question of the arms industry. We have an arms industry in this country. We need one. How could we do anything in Bosnia if we did not have one? If one has an arms industry one has to export arms. Some people may not like it and find it objectionable, but it is head in the sand nonsense to imagine that that is not done and should not be done. It is done, it has been done for centuries and will continue to be done. We need to do it and I thoroughly support all the work that is done for it.
I, too, have read the overseas aid review and support entirely the Government's work with Horizon 2000 in its excellent work worldwide in health, education, poverty and distress. I should also like to point out in particular that I am grateful that we are now giving aid to South Africa, which is a great advance.
I recently participated in an IPU visit to the Czech and Slovak republics. We met representatives of the

1053
British Council in some 13 different establishments where they were running much welcomed and very successful English language teaching schools. They made a plea that the ODA should develop that work, especially in Slovakia where it is greatly appreciated and extremely successful.
The Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew runs a programme funding sustainable development in tropical ecosystems in St. Helena. That is supported by the Government and is very welcome. I have spoken to Professor Prance at the Royal Botanic Gardens who mentioned that Kew has for a long time been running a large project in the arid deserts in north east Brazil. He is anxious for mere funding for that project. It is a long-standing project and is of enormous value. It is in the arid north east region rather than in the tropical forests.
I have one further point concerning small villages in Africa and Asia which need a means of treatment for a combination of animal and human waste. It is possible for such treatment plants to be scaled down with an existing system, which I mentioned in the previous debate, to a size to accommodate some 50 households, which can be constructed, operated and maintained largely by local labour. It is called the Biotechna Graesser system. The Biotechna system is operating in this country at present.
Perhaps I may be technical. The simple anaerobic pits will not only destroy toxic bacteria and viruses but also parasitic ova. The consequent liquefied slurry from those pits can be used as a feedstock for the photosynthetic biocoils which will transform the slurry to high protein algae which is suitable for feed to cattle, pigs, poultry or fish. It also generates methane, which can be extracted. The extracted methane can then be used for heat and can help to drive the system. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether the Biotechna Graesser system is considered a suitable item for promotion by the ODA in African and other third world countries. It seems to be an extremely successful and self-supporting system. Single units of £ 100,000 for small villages are quite feasible.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Alport: My Lords, if I feel some diffidence in addressing your Lordships tonight, it is because I do not have available the official papers upon which the points I wish to make are based. I therefore have to rely on my memory.
About 1960, those of us who were serving in the Commonwealth Relations Office became increasingly concerned that our programme of overseas aid might become regarded by the countries of the New Commonwealth, not as a contribution to their social and economic well being, but as an attempt by Great Britain to maintain its political influence and to continue some form of economic hegemony.
We were well aware that the governments of those countries so recently emerged from being colonies to full independence, while needing Great Britain's help, were acutely sensitive to anything which seemed to be an attempt to continue their pre-independent status. That was, of course, at a time when our relations with the
1054
Commonwealth countries, great and small, were the subject of a certain amount of idealism; and before that ghastly phrase "value for money" became the overriding principle of government policy.
We were determined that the British taxpayers' money should not be wasted on grandiose and uneconomic projects, but we believed that aid should not be used primarily to grease the wheels of Foreign Office policy or as a sort of hidden export subsidy. Of course the goodwill which we believed the provision of aid would produce meant that the bread that we cast on the waters would bring a reward in due course.
At the same time we believed that aid administered without taking into account the sensitivities and suspicions of governments of the New Commonwealth might do more harm than good. Above all, we believed that the Commonwealth was of major importance to Britain's standing in the world and that the material help that we gave to strengthen their economies, to support social progress and consequently to maintain political stability in newly independent countries, was the real value we achieved from the money which our aid programme provided.
I happened to learn that the Canadian Government had set up a department independent of the Ministry of External Affairs to administer its aid. I therefore proposed to the Secretary of State, the late Lord Duncan Sandys, that we should do the same. He put the proposal to the Prime Minister, the late Lord Stockton, and to the Cabinet, who immediately agreed. Thus an independent Ministry of Overseas Aid and Development came into being, able to establish its own criteria for the granting of aid and without arousing in the minds of the governments of the New Commonwealth any suspicion of there being some sinister or ulterior motive.
Not long after that, the Commonwealth Relations Office was absorbed into the Foreign Office and soon after the administration of overseas aid went the same way. The present controversy over the Pergau Dam is exactly what we feared would happen and what we wished to prevent. The provision of a large slice of aid to a prosperous country for a utility which is uneconomic and a danger to the environment, and which is associated with an arms deal, is exactly what aid to the Commonwealth should not represent. That this should be accompanied by allegations of corruption and accusation of neo-colonialism is exactly the situation we were determined to avoid. Not only will it sour our relations with Malaysia, but it will sow suspicion in the minds of the Commonwealth governments and damage Britain's reputation in the world.
I am quite certain that if the Department of Overseas Aid had been independent, its Minister, with the strong advice of his or her permanent secretary, and despite pressure from other government departments and the misguided interference of a Prime Minister, would have had no hesitation in turning the Pergau Dam project down. Thus £ 234 million would have been available for countries where it was desperately needed and where British help would be appreciated, instead of, as in the case of Malaysia, ending in a quarrel which damages both British reputation and our overseas trade.

1055
The answer is quite simple. It is to take the Department of Overseas Aid out of the Foreign Office and to restore its independence as a department of state. My noble friend Lord Prior said,"Hand over aid to the Department of Trade and Industry". By all means allow the Department of Trade and Industry to give export subsidies for British exports to foreign markets, whether Commonwealth or others; but do not call that aid because it is a total misuse of the term and something which I believe does damage to our aid programme.
If your Lordships believe, as I do passionately, that our relations with Commonwealth countries great and small are vital to our nation's standing in the world, then it is high time that we recaptured some of the idealism of earlier days and measured the value for the money we give in aid to Commonwealth countries in their greater political stability, the improvements in standards of living and in continuing goodwill for Britain. That surely is better than using it to promote traffic in arms, which is already far too great for the security and peace of the world today.
7.39 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for directing our thoughts to the difficult subject of overseas aid and to where this important expenditure goes in order to benefit the most needy.
Overseas aid must be viewed in the context of the cultures of the countries to which it is given. The family of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, have exhibited much talent in being able to set in context and illuminate some of those foreign cultures. His noble ancestor the first Lord Redesdale even witnessed ritual hari-kiri following an uprising in Japan. I hope that the noble Lord is spared similar performances.
My own interest in the subject of overseas aid stems from the fact that I have spent the past 30 years of my life promoting the export of British manufactured goods all over the world and from the fact that I lived for 17 years in one of the furthest flung corners of the British Commonwealth—New Zealand. I hasten to add that New Zealand has not needed to be the beneficiary of United Kingdom aid at any time in my lifetime.
Many noble Lords have dwelt on what I might describe as some of the more topical issues concerning the recent spending of some parts of the ODA budget. Perhaps I may be allowed to underline the main thrust of the Motion which is concerned with applying the United Kingdom's overseas aid budget where it is most needed. As the wording of the Motion acknowledges, that objective was well spelt out in the 1993 annual report of the ODA. This is not a sad debate; it is one in which we can take pride.
It is possible to put some of the earlier contributions in context if one focuses on the ODA budget as a whole and sees just how it has been spent. The ODA is responsible to Parliament; an NGO is not. As we have heard, the ODA's budget represents just over 0.3 per cent. of our GNP and has grown in real terms by 10 per cent. since 1987–88. Perhaps 0.3 per cent. or just over £ 2 billion of taxpayers' money does not sound much to
1056
some noble Lords. However, as with spending on health care or other worthy social benefits, we must temper our enthusiasm with some sense of reality.
It is only realistic that our overseas aid budget should reflect our local economic circumstances and be balanced with the other pressing claims on our scarce national resources. Indeed, I suggest that my noble friend Lady Chalker, who has given a major slice of her career to the cause of overseas aid, should be congratulated on having maintained such a significant overseas aid budget in the face of so many other pressures on our overall public expenditure budget.
It is important to highlight not just the quantity but the quality of our overseas aid. It is pleasing to note that the OECD has singled out the United Kingdom for particular praise for the effectiveness of our aid, for its poverty focus and for the emphasis that we place on encouraging the private sector enterprises of the economies within which our aid is applied.
It is a cornerstone of British aid to promote good government, sound economic policies, democratic accountability and a respect for human rights. As the ODA 1993 annual report highlighted, in 1992–93 just over 55 per cent. of our aid was bilateral, with the balance of just under 45 per cent. being multilateral. That was channelled through the European Community. About 80 per cent. of our bilateral aid goes to the poorest countries, all new aid being in the form of grants rather than loans and increasing amounts being spent on the direct reduction of poverty.
An increasing percentage of our aid is committed for humanitarian purposes. Sixty six million pounds has been given directly to Iraqi civilians since 1991, deliberately bypassing the Iraqi Government, and £ 157 million of humanitarian aid has gone to the former Yugoslavia. The United Kingdom is a major contributor to the multinational aid agencies, not just via the EC. It is the fifth largest contributor to the International Development Agency and is a major contributor to the interest subsidy account of the IMF's enhanced structural adjustment facility.
The UK, via the ODA, has a strong record in helping to relieve the poorest and most indebted countries of the burden of debt. It has strongly supported the Paris Club in implementing modified Trinidad terms, based on proposals made by our present Prime Minister back in 1990.
Overall, the ODA has relieved developing countries of £ 1.1 billion of debt. Part of our overseas aid budget is rightly being spent also on environmental projects: 200 forestry projects costing £ 150 million; and energy efficiency and pollution control in India amounting to £ 60 million. The ODA is active too in health and population-related programmes, as we have heard, and is supplying economic assistance to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.
Sustainable development requires that the conditions exist to attract a healthy flow of private investment to build up local infrastructures. In that area, the UK record in developing countries is particularly good. British private investment in developing countries was

1057
estimated in 1992 at £ 1.7 billion, which represented half of the EC total, exceeded only by the investments of the United States and Japan.
We have heard much about the aid and trade provision. There is no doubt that it is an essential part of our organised overseas negotiating relief. It is a means whereby we can compete with our partners in the EC. There was a time in this country when aid was spread to many areas without any consideration of what was purchased. Today, our aid is directed. No longer do people in Africa buy Chinese railways with British money.
My time has gone, but if we continue to suffer the problems with the press which have been highlighted in this debate, we need to remember the words which Lord Braclwell (Tom Driberg) attributed to Hannen Swaffer in his biography:
"Freedom of the press in Britain means freedom to print such of the proprietor's prejudices as the advertisers don't object to".
7.46 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on bringing forward this topic and also on his expertise in putting such topical Questions on the Order Paper. He seems to be acquiring quite a knack with it. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, I have examined and read the ODA report with interest. It is admirable. Sadly, there is no time to go into many of the projects that it describes, but there is no doubt that in this country we have a great number of dedicated people, both in the ODA and in the country as a whole. They are experts in the real problems of development.
In a recent statement, an OECD spokesman said that the UK had a unique concentration of talent and experience in development. It is a pity that that interest and expertise is not matched by funding on a suitably generous scale. On too many occasions in your Lordships' House we have debated the budget of the ODA and lamented that not only is it static overall, but the demands on funds for multilateral organisations are diminishing what i; left for bilateral aid, which is what we do best and which is our most effectively targeted aid.
Other noble Lords have focused on the dam problem so I shall not labour the point, except to say that it appears that in the end it is a case of the biter bit. But sadly. it looks as though British workers will be the ones to suffer rather than those who committed the misdemeanour. I am rather worried that £ 90 million a year will still be spent on ATP, though I am somewhat reassured that the rules will now be rather more strictly adhered to. I am glad that it will stay within the ODA and not go to the DTI. At least, if we listen to our officials, it will be spent on aid in the future.
The Pergau payments will represent an average of approximately £ 17 million a year over 14 years. It is worth comparing that with the £ 28 million which we spend on the much praised joint funding scheme which funds about 100 non-governmental organisations. As my noble friend Lord Desai and other noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, said, the money spent on overseas NGOs is particularly cost effective. If the Government had taken Sir Timothy
1058
Lankester's advice and not funded Pergau, the JFS budget could have been augmented by 60 per cent. every year for 14 years.
The annual review that was mentioned focuses on Uganda. In fact, it puts that country centre stage as a good example of effective aid. What it does not mention is that Uganda is effectively bankrupt and has no hope of becoming solvent for many years, even if it now has three judges, a rural water supply and other valuable institutions funded by the ODA. That country, which is one of the poorest in the world after emerging from 20 years of war-torn misery, has a debt of £ 2.5 billion. That is a very large sum compared to its small population. Fully servicing that debt will require 25 per cent. more foreign exchange than Uganda earns from all its exports—coffee prices having collapsed recently. That has led to an acute shortage of foreign exchange. All development, and even its structural adjustment programme, is in danger of collapsing. Uganda has derived little benefit from debt rescheduling efforts made under the enhanced Toronto terms, which do not include debts incurred after 1981, nor those to the World Bank or the IMF. As a result, the Ugandan economy will be drained of £ 2 billion annually for the next 20 years.
Many other countries in Africa face the same problem, as the noble Baroness knows well. Is it not more important to get Africa back into the world economy so that it can pay for its own imports—those which it needs for development—rather than patching up the worse deficiencies piecemeal? United Kingdom aid to Uganda was worth £ 35 million last year. But the Government of Uganda will have to pay £ 2 billion out in servicing its debt. That is more than 50 times as much as the United Kingdom aid is worth.
If one multiplies that figure over all the countries in Africa, one sees that the situation requires a major international shift in financial policy and a change in the nature of the Bretton Woods institutions, as was suggested by my right honourable friend John Smith in Geneva last week. The debt of most countries in Africa needs to be written off, just as the debts of an individual citizen are written off when he is declared insolvent. I would have no objection to all the assets found in Swiss banks belonging to citizens of bankrupt developing countries being tracked down and taken back in part payment.
Finance to kick-start the recovery could be provided by the issue of special drawing rights, as was recently suggested by the managing director of the International Monetary Fund. That is not a new idea. With world inflationary pressures at a low level this is an appropriate moment for that kind of action. It could bring the 400 million people of Africa, arid others in heavily indebted poor countries, back into the world economy, to both their and our lasting benefit.
7.53 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, first I owe an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and to other speakers in that unfortunately I had a longstanding engagement at 6.30 which I had to attend. I was not therefore able to hear the whole speech of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. Perhaps in my political inexperience I had

1059
assumed that the debate that the noble Lord had opened was to be on the subject as expressed in the Motion on the Order Paper. I am afraid that I must address my remarks to what I thought the debate was to be about. I understand that some noble Lords have addressed those problems.
The first point that struck me when I saw the Order Paper was whether ODA policy was directed to those areas which are most in need. That is a fundamental part of development aid. Just by chance I saw the UNICEF report The State of the World's Children 1993. Interestingly, Table 6 (on page 78), which deals with economic indicators, gives a long list of some 64 countries and their average GNP per capita. For the first group of 35 countries the figure of 355 US dollars for 1990 is shown. For the second group of countries the figure is 525 US dollars. It may interest noble Lords to know that, checking the statistical appendix produced by the ODA in its report, every single African country mentioned in that list is covered by the statistical appendix of the ODA. I believe that that shows both the intentions, the intelligence information and the determination of the ODA to fulfil its obligation to deal with those particular poor areas of the world. It is to be congratulated on that.
Interestingly also, on page 3 of the same report a table shows aid given for basic needs. Noble Lords will know the definition of "basic needs"; I do not have to go into that. The table shows the net bilateral ODA figures, together with the percentage allocated to basic needs. The United Kingdom comes seventh in that list. There are six north European countries above the United Kingdom, but the percentage allocated to basic needs of its net bilateral aid is 8.8 per cent. Below that figure comes every other country. If it is an indication of how the proportions change, the figure for Germany is 1.9 per cent. in the percentage allocated to basic needs. Again, that is evidence of the determination of the ODA to fulfil its obligations to those areas of the world which certainly suffer most.
Very little has so far been said about appreciation on the part of those countries which receive aid from the ODA. It is very easy to criticise; to say that not enough has been given, that more should be given, or that more should be done. But I have just arrived back today from an international conference which was attended by representatives from many parts of the world. The conference was not on the ODA. I can give three specific examples of people who came up to me and said,"How grateful we are for what Britain does for us". One was a young man who was in charge of an institute of human rights in Nepal. He praised the new highway that has been built there using British aid. He said that it is the best highway in the whole area and that it had brought considerable help to his country. The second was someone from Zimbabwe who praised the development by British NGOs in the whole area, including of course Mozambique, and said how grateful people were for the work that NGOs do on the ground.
As we know from the report—which I should say in parenthesis is clear, comprehensible, well presented and, above all, brief—about £ 33 million has been given
1060
to NGOs; they are the people on the ground who can contribute so much to improving the life of the poorest people in the world. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those members of NGOs who work in the most appalling conditions, and who are very often in danger of losing their own life. We cannot over-estimate the work that NGOs contribute and the ODA and other member states support them throughout the world.
I personally welcome the concentration on the four Commonwealth countries which have received sums of money. I appreciate what was said by the noble Lord who spoke before me on Uganda. The situation there is appalling. Having had to study the reports of what happened 20 years ago in Uganda, reading of the absolute outrages that were committed day after day upon vast numbers of innocent people among the population, I can but welcome that at least there is some improvement in the quality of living in that country. I accept the financial difficulties with which that country is faced; and I personally very much welcome, as I am sure did other noble Lords, the proposal of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister with regard to the Trinidad terms. I particularly welcome the fact that the report before us tonight stresses that money is being given in the form of grants. For so long we have seen the effect of loans burdening these countries with debt for longstanding outgoings. I noted specifically the mention that grants were now the policy of the Government in helping these countries. That is also to be welcomed.
Other aspects of the report are also to be welcomed. For instance, there is the new approach of giving and encouraging investment in small businesses, in India for example. That would have been unimaginable 10 or 20 years ago. It already shows a vast improvement. We want to see countries which will eventually move into a position in which they are economically independent. They do not want to be dependent. Regrettably there will be some which will remain dependent for all sorts of reasons. As we see countries moving towards economic independence, we should welcome it with the aid policy of this Government.
I should like to stress that the conference that I attended today related to international observer groups at democratic elections. Again, the support of the ODA for that activity was warmly welcomed. We all know that without a democratic system many of those countries will not reach a quality of life that we should like to see sustained throughout the world.
In conclusion, I thank my noble friend the Minister for all that she does. It is perhaps invidious for her to have to listen, but wherever I go I am always told that she is the only aid Minister who is any good anywhere. I say that off the cuff. That is what I heard in Tenerife this morning.
8 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords who have spoken in congratulating my noble friend Lord Redesdale on initiating the debate and giving us an excellent speech. As the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, pointed out, there have been two interlinked debates this evening—I hesitate to use the

1061
description "entangled debates". One has been on the ODA's annual report and various aspects of its operations, including interesting and important issues such as population control; the other related to the extraordinary story of this Government's behaviour over the Pergau Dam, the arms programme and the Malaysian Government's reaction to those events.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, paid tribute to the Minister who has the slightly difficult task of winding up the debate. The noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, also remarked on her experience and we all know of her concern about the issues of overseas aid. But to make some remarks on tie more general point of the ODA's report, I do not feel that any of us in this country can take much satisfaction in the scale of our aid budget over the years. For the Government to go on, as they did at the last general election, setting the famous figure of 0.7 per cent. as their target for overseas aid at a time when year by year that percentage appears to come down, is becoming almost an abuse of language. Perhaps the United Nations' target ought to be looked at and tackled. It makes no sense having that figure as a target when it comes down year on year.
It is sometimes said that one of the reasons for that is that there is a kind of aid fatigue around and the general body of voters are not very keen on taxpayers' money being spent in large sums on giving help to the poorer societies of our world. I believe that that is mistaken. One of the most hopeful pictures of the world in which we live is the number of voluntary organisations that have proliferated over recent years with dynamic and idealistic young people engaging in giving help to the poorest societies it the world.
If I were asked about my own priority in these matters, I would join with the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, in citing not only the very big issue of population control, which was also mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie, but also the importance of education. I am not sure that we devote a big enough part of our aid budget to education and within that budget that we devote a big enough part of our educational aid budget to basic primary education, which is extremely important in creating decent societies in the poorer parts of the world.
Incidentally, perhaps I may say to the Minister that it is quite difficult, amidst all the pretty pictures, to extract from her report the figures for the separate expenditure on education. It occurs to me that if we had given a greater priority to an educational aid policy and interpreted it imaginatively we should not have put up the fees for foreign students coming for an education to this country in the early 1980s, which has caused so much of the trouble in Malaysia. In fact, the Government might have been able to avoid all the difficulties that we have been debating tonight.
I turn from those general matters to the aid and trade provision of the ODA. There was a fascinating brief exchange across the Floor of the House between the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai. So far as I could make out they agreed on one point: they both seemed to want to abolish the ODA. The noble Viscount wanted to hand over its funds to the DT'I for an export subsidy campaign, for which I think
1062
there is very little to be said; the noble Lord, Lord Desai, urged that the aid should go principally to the various multilateral agencies, for which in general principle there is a good deal to be said, provided the multilateral aid is well managed and well used. I know that the noble Baroness is vigilant on that point.
I turn to the Malaysian situation. Malaysia is a fellow Commonwealth country and a democracy. It is a country with which we ought to have friendly relations and give help to. There is no reason at all why we should not seek to sell arms to Malaysia. It is a much better recipient of our arms exports than, for example, Indonesia, which was described by my noble friend Lord Avebury. So that is not an issue between us. But the scale of aid involved for Malaysia in this particular affair is disproportionate to Malaysia's place in the totality of the need for aid.
The noble Lord, Lord Alport, made a very powerful speech. I well remember the part that he played in setting up the original Department of Technical Co-operation many years ago. He made the point extremely well. I must tell noble Lords that in your Lordships' committees Malaysia is not talked about as one of the poorer countries of the world. That does not mean that Malaysia does not deserve aid arid help. But Malaysia is spoken of as one of the new tigers of the Pacific Rim with which we will have to compete before very long in the higher technologies.
In the time available to me I do not wish to go into detail on the Pergau affair, as my noble friend Lord Redesdale did so extremely well. I say very seriously to your Lordships' House that in all my many years in Parliament and in my time as a Minister I cannot recall a case of a permanent secretary, as accounting officer for his department, telling his Secretary of State that a ministerial decision was "an abuse of the system" and refusing to sign the cheque without a written order from his Secretary of State.
Mr. Douglas Hurd, as Foreign Secretary, issued that instruction. One understands that he did it because not to have done so would have been, as he said,"a breach of faith" of a secret understanding between his Prime Minister (who is now the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher) and the Prime Minister of Malaysia. But there was indeed a worse situation. Mr. Hurd has since explained—he did so this morning in the other place with what I believe is praiseworthy frankness—that at an earlier stage the aid for the dam had been allowed to become "entangled" wholly improperly with a major sale of arms to Malaysia. Mr. Hurd, who is an upright and loyal person, not for the first time was loyally disentangling Mrs. Thatcher from the problems created by her imperious style of personal international diplomacy.
The trouble is that although the arms deal and the dam deal were then formally separated, as major deals they have each continued to be implemented. The strange tale of the two letters recounted by my noble friend means that the link, although formally abolished, is still casting a long shadow. It raises suspicions that in other cases, without any formal link, aid may be going to countries which would not receive it if they were not already buying British arms.

1063
The noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, spoke of the arms trade as being a legitimate trade. I have already made it clear from these Benches that we recognise that, with appropriate safeguards. But the aid and trade provision must in no sense become an aid and arms provision. There is a good deal of sense in the Daily Telegraph editorial today which says that we should be working to define other things to sell than arms now that the Cold War has ended.
Now that the truth is out in regard to the Government's breaches of their own policies, we are paying a high price in the overreaction of the Malaysians to what happened. It is childish—if I can say this seriously to the noble Viscount, Lord Weir—to blame the damage to British business and British workers' jobs on the press and the Opposition. That is about as sensible as complaining about the British climate. I know that time prevents me from saying much more. But we live in a democracy with a free press. It is the Government's blunders which created this situation. The Opposition in Parliament are simply doing their duty to expose those blunders and the noble Viscount's ire should be directed to the proper quarter.
My time is up and I end simply by saying that I hope some good may still come out of the Pergau Dam saga. It will serve a useful purpose if it induces a little more humility on the part of some Members of this Government when they come up against inconvenient constitutional conventions; when they feel that the law and the constitutional arrangements are only for little people. It will have done a great deal of good if it brings a proper end to any linkage between arms and aid and trade provision. In those circumstances the noble Baroness may, with a sigh of relief, get on with what I know she would like to do; that is, implement fully and properly, without that kind of interference, the philosophy set out in her annual report.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I fully endorse the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. This was an important and timely debate and we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for making it possible.
At Chatham House last October the Minister underlined the central aims of the aid programme as being to reduce poverty and to improve opportunities in the countries that we assist. However, what seemed sadly to be lacking in that message was the same degree of commitment to the conviction which she had previously expressed so strongly, again at Chatham House, in June 1991. She then heavily emphasised that in the cause of sustained human development,
"open government and a free press [were] vital safeguards to ensure that bad policies and failures are exposed and that governments respond to the needs of their citizens"—
something which I hope is taken seriously both here and overseas. Indeed, I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Prior, agrees with her.
For all engaged in the front line of the fight against poverty and the struggle to enable people to take control of their own lives, the Minister's earlier words were encouraging and desperately pertinent. Why then the
1064
muted call last autumn? What pressures had intervened? I hope that the Minister will reassert her wider vision when she replies tonight.
This debate is about the quality of aid. It is sobering to note that as recently as the end of the last decade UNICEF recorded that only 9.1 per cent. of Britain's bilateral aid programme was spent on basic needs such as primary health care, safe water and similar fundamental human requirements. In that context the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, and the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, were right to emphasise the population crisis. We all wait to hear the Minister's response to those points this evening.
Quality cannot be separated from quantity. There comes a point at which lack of quantity inevitably damages quality, and I believe that that point has come. For, while paying lip service to the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product, the Conservative Government consistently refused to set a timetable for achieving that. By contrast they have literally presided over the halving of the commitment. In 1979, when they came to office, aid had reached 0.51 per cent. of GNP and was one of the most steadily rising areas of public expenditure. By 1992 it was down to 0.32 per cent. and, based on their own figures, it is set to reach an all time low of 0.26 per cent. of gross national product in 1995. The latest OECD report underlined that sorry story.
What is more, in the 1993 budget round, for the first time the Government merged the budget lines for developing countries and for Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. I know that many noble Lords share my anxiety that combining the two budget lines is a way of disguising an increasing diversion of aid funds to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to the detriment of the third world. That is a far cry from the firm assurances of the past that aid to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union would on no account be at the expense of the third world; that it would be covered by additionality of funds.
The noble Lord, Lord Prior, powerfully spoke of the retaliatory measures of the Malaysian Government, upset as they have been at the implications of media reports about the Pergau Dam. Britain must not succumb to crude pressure of that sort. To do so would really make a mockery of expressed commitments—not least those of the Minister herself—to good government, freedom of the press and human rights. The Minister, like the noble Lord, may be tempted to blame those who spoke out about the deal. But if anybody is to blame it is surely those responsible for that shoddy backroom deal which, whatever its real purpose, had absolutely nothing to do with helping poor people and which has brought the whole ATP into disrepute. If it were not so grave, the story of two letters delivered on the same day by the same ambassador would have made a stunning scene for a Gilbert and Sullivan opera and is certainly a humiliating episode for Britain.
Nobody on these Benches is against British firms and workers benefiting from the aid programme. Such an attitude would be ludicrous. Indeed, I was a Minister in the Labour Government which introduced the aid and trade provision. However, the fundamental governing

1065
principle then and the one which should invariably remain was and is that any direct or indirect assistance to British firms must be economically, technically and developmentally sound. Without that firm condition the aid and trade provision would not only waste taxpayers' money, but also cynically undermine sound and effective self-generating development in the countries concerned. It is in that respect that the operation of ATP by the Government and their friends in industry has gone so badly wrong.
Responding to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee's criticism of ATP back in 1987, the Government then said that,
"in each case there must be a reasonable assurance of economic, financial and technical soundness. ATP funds represent a transfer of resources to the country concerned in the same way as other aid funds do".
That was an undertaking which is scarcely borne out by the grim realities as revealed by the National Audit Office, no less.
And ATP is not all. Quite apart from its specific endorsements of British firms, a large proportion of British bilateral aid remains tied. Yet in 1991 an OECD study concluded that,
"it is improbable that aid tying provides significant macroeconomic benefits to any donor's domestic employment or balance of payments aggregates".
As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, rammed home tonight, there is another sinister dimension to what appears to be influencing the Government's distribution of aid; that is, its relationship to the arms sales. Even if there is no explicit link, there appears to be, as they used to say about smoking and lung cancer, a direct correlation. Why the almost doubled aid to Oman between 1980 and 1992–93? Why aid at all to such a relatively prosperous country? Were the 367 million dollars worth of arms sales by Britain between 1988 and 1992 purely coincidental?
Indonesia, to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred, which was the subject of ITV's harrowing documentary last week detailing human rights abuses and cruel oppression in East Timor, saw virtually a trebling of British aid between 1980 and 1992–93. What of the arms sales by Britain amounting to 201 million dollars between 1988 and 1992? How were those arms used? What cast iron guarantees do we have that they were not directly or indirectly used for repression in East Timor? Are we really to believe that there is no relation at all between the additional aid and the sale of military aircraft? I know the Minister always says that aid has not been linked to arms sales. But loosely to quote the immortal words of Mandy Rice Davies,"She would say that, wouldn't she?"
Whatever the legalities of trading aid for arms, it is obviously, as the noble Lord, Lord Alport, in his forthright contribution, put it, quite simply wrong. One of the greatest obstacles to development—one of the greatest causes of human suffering—is conflict. How can it begin to be right to associate the aid programme of all programmes, with spending on the fuel of conflict and oppression?
The UK Government are determined to hold on to the permanent seat in the UN Security Council. Credibility in this intent is inevitably severely damaged when at the
1066
same time the UK is opportunistically profiteering out of the arms trade. Furthermore, to feather-bed the traditional arms trade is to work against the economic and industrial restructuring and substitution which are essential if Britain is to be geared to meet the world trading challenges of the century ahead and to secure high levels of employment for the British people.
In conclusion, I must respond to what I regarded as the moving intervention of my noble friend Lord Ennals. I do so by returning to the Pergau dam in a development context. The former Permanent Secretary at ODA, Sir Tim Lankester, was right to say that it was "an abuse of the aid programme". The £ 234 million of taxpayers' money wasted on Pergau would have been better spent on saving lives than on destroying the environment and subverting sound economic management. The 1993 UNDP report estimated that. in sub-Saharan Africa life expectancy was only 51.8 years; infant mortality was 103 per 1,000 lives; 59 per cent. of people had no access to safe water; and 53 per cent. were illiterate. In the face of such suffering, what on earth were the Government doing spending aid money on building an uneconomic hydro-electric plant in Malaysia?
I leave your Lordships with this reflection. At 1991 prices the £ 234 million wasted on Pergau would have been enough to finance the whole of Oxfam's programme in Africa for the next 10 years.
8.23 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, I shall not waste a moment; but I cannot sum up this debate in the eight minutes which are left to me.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I was informed that the debate would finish at thirty-three minutes past the hour of eight o'clock. If your Lordships will bear with me for a little longer, I shall say a little more. I am very happy, after this interesting debate which I welcome, to do that. It is a good opportunity to look at where our aid should be targeted. I am very grateful to a number of noble Lords who have sought to follow the wording of the Motion.
Some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, to whom we are grateful for initiating the debate, seemed to be under some misconceptions. Perhaps they have been carried away by the tide of press attention on certain issues in recent weeks. There has been a notable degree of consistency in many of the comments made which are in support of the Government's commitment to maintain a substantial aid programme and in support of the direction in which it should be spent, concentrating on the poorest and helping people to help themselves. I believe all parties in the House are agreed on that.
The Government have consistently made clear the main purpose of the aid programme. To quote from the departmental report, to which so many noble. Lords have paid compliments (for which I am grateful):

1067
"the purpose of our overseas aid for developing countries is to promote sustainable economic and social development and good government in order to reduce poverty, suffering and deprivation and to improve the quality of life for poor people".
My duty—both to the recipients of our aid and to British taxpayers—is to ensure that our aid is directed to where it is needed, as the Motion says, and where it can be effectively used.
Development therefore is the main aim. To draw a distinction, as some of your Lordships have tried to do, between the promotion of development and the reduction of poverty can be misleading. The reduction of poverty requires sustainable economic and social development. Aid has to be seen in the wider picture. It helps to create stability; and by helping countries individually it contributes to the global economy. That is in British interests and those of the countries we assist. I see no difference between the aims of my department and those of the department which my noble friend Lord Alport helped to set up so many years ago. Those were his aims then, and those are still our aims today.
Aid is not a static instrument. The way we give aid—the forms it takes, the channels we use, even the countries to which we give it—reflects the constantly changing international scene. I want to highlight two or three major changes of recent years. In our bilateral aid programme we now place greater emphasis on technical co-operation, institution building and policy reform advice, with less emphasis on that project aid of a traditional infrastructure kind. In short, we are helping poor countries with sound policies to help themselves. We are involving a large number of UK citizens and institutions, both public and private, to ensure that our aid programme meets its objectives. In the past six years the amount of official aid which we have channelled through British NGOs has increased from £ 30 million to £ 150 million. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and the many other noble Lords who spoke on NGOs, are glad to hear that. We believe that it is exceptionally well used by the NGOs. I shall return to that point in a moment.
The third aspect is that we have to respond to what are tragically the most obvious needs of all. We have had to increase our humanitarian aid in recent years—the money which helps people to stay alive, to obtain basic shelter and food, without which there can be no reconstruction or rehabilitation—in a way few would have envisaged even five years ago. The guiding principle which we maintain, whatever the changing circumstances of the recipients, is that our aid must be closely geared to their particular individual needs. To do this we maintain a constant dialogue with the countries to which we give aid. We encourage them to develop their own strategies to combat poverty and to draw from the experiences of other developing countries.
So where should we—and do we—give our aid? We deliberately focus our aid to developing countries on the poorest of those countries. We seek to target on the poor people in those poor countries. We have frequently been congratulated on this by other donors in the OECD Development Assistance Committee. Poverty reduction lies at the heart of our development effort. Most poor
1068
people live in low income countries, and the number of the poor is continuing to rise. We cannot ignore the fact that empowering them and assisting them to greater growth will make them consumers of the future. Only when they are consumers of the future will they as countries be able to develop the trade on which they would like to rely rather than being so dependent on aid.
These countries have the least domestic resources to invest for growth and higher living standards. Most of them also have difficulties in attracting foreign investment. It will still take many years of successful development with aid and investment and trade before the numbers of the absolutely poor will start to fall consistently. That is why our focus on the poorest countries is right. But we do not and should not ignore the benefits of using smaller amounts of assistance, the provision of technical advice, know-how and training of better-off countries, especially where these have reached a crux in their economic fortunes and social development, as the countries in transition so clearly have.
What is encouraging is the clear evidence that development efforts can succeed; that developing countries can secure self-sustaining growth. Over the 25 years to 1990, GDP growth in low and middle income countries was nearly 5 per cent. per year. The growth in per capita incomes was nearly 2.5 per cent.
But income is not the whole story, as so many of your Lordships have reminded us tonight. Adult literacy has increased from 42 per cent. to 65 per cent. The rate of infant mortality has nearly halved, and life expectancy has risen from 51 to 64 years. All those statistics need to improve still further and that I do not deny. But the most important thing is that they are going in the right direction. The most important factors in this are the actions and policies of the developing countries' governments themselves and a commitment to setting a framework in which individuals and communities can help themselves.
Aid has played a vital part in helping this process. We have given substantial British aid to support economic reform; to help improve countries' infrastructure; to assist in the provision of better education and health and the many other essential areas such as water and sanitation and access to good quality family planning services which the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and my noble friend Lady Flather spoke about so warmly. We are after real improvement in the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, said that the speech I made in 1991 on open government, a free press and good governance, had somehow changed. I can assure him that whatever he is trying to read into any subsequent speeches—I may not have used identical words—but those words of 26th June 1991 have not changed and they will not change. There is no muting of my call in the October speech.
A small part of our aid programme is ATP. It is an important part; it is 5 per cent. It is covered by the same good governance criteria as we apply to the programme as a whole. That can be seen when your Lordships investigate the restrictions on our aid that we made,

1069
including ATP, to countries like Malawi and China because of human rights anxieties. It is certainly wrong (as some try) to portray ATP as operating outside those criteria. It does not.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, put me in some difficulty tonight because I shall be giving evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs tomorrow. I may not say in your Lordships' House those things which have not already been said. Yet it would be ridiculous to repeat everything which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said this morning. I urge all noble Lords to read what he said because it is certainly true that there is still some muddled thinking around.
In winding up, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, talked about aid for the dam being entangled with arms. This morning my right honourable friend made it absolutely clear that, yes, there were three months of an attempted linkage, but that was all long before the Pergau project was even considered. Before that project even came to Ministers it had been disentangled. I ask the noble Lord to look at the dates on which that happened. I can assure him that the Pergau dam was in no way linked to the temporary entanglement that occurred between March and June 1988. In fact, it was my noble friend Lord Howe of Aberavon who carried through the disentanglement and not my right honourable friend the current Foreign Secretary.
We shall not use ATP to boost defence sales or to promote such sales. ATP has been designed to help recipient countries develop their economies in ways that are also of commercial and industrial importance to Britain. It is good for us and for them that ATP has helped British companies in a wide range of industries to win contracts.
As my noble friends Lord Weir and Lord Prior said, we are in a very difficult position at the present time. There are very good British companies which have done good work throughout the world and whose future may indeed be imperilled by the comments of some. It would take too long to put down the inaccuracies. I have eight pages of inaccuracies from the British press on this subject gathered in the past couple of weeks or so.
Above all, ATP is a longstanding provision of the aid programme, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, accepts. It is successful; and as [told noble Lords the other week, we have to date about £ 3.9 billion worth of British exports for a cost of £ 1.4 billion won with ATP since the scheme's inception. That represents over 270 projects in 50 countries worldwide. We have already amended our ATP rules as a result of the review which I undertook in 1992 and announced last year. That is that we shall concentrate our ATP in future on countries with a per capita income of under 700 dollars per annum at 1989 figures. That brings us into line with the focus of the wider aid programme.
One of the reasons why we have ATP and for which it was designed in the first place, was so that we could have a scheme like most other aid-giving countries so our firms could compete on equal terms. I have heard
1070
many comments tonight on the ATP programme which I do not propose to go into until after I have spoken and answered questions of the FAC tomorrow.
However, one comment which my noble friend Lord Prior made was that he felt that ATP should be handed over to the DTI. We have examined that extremely carefully in the past; but because ATP meets a developmental need, and because we have the systems of assessment, monitoring and evaluation in the ODA, my noble friend is not right in that. I shall look at all aspects of this matter in a calmer time after this review. We are in a far better position to run ATP, however difficult it may sometimes be for the Minister in charge of the ODA, as it was for my right honourable friend Chris Patten when he was there, and now for me.
In these words I hope that I have said where we stand. I cannot answer all the questions; but I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who wants us to do more in Albania, that we are gradually building up our programme. Last year it reached nearly £ 400,000 in that country. Given our two-man show on the ground in Albania, we are not doing too badly in assisting them with the help of Britain's NGOs.
My noble friend Lord Clanwilliam commented about South Africa. He seemed to think that we had only just started giving assistance there. In fact, we have been giving that assistance for about eight years now and the programme is really building up, particularly in education, health and in the townships.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, spoke about Uganda. I can certainly agree with him that the multilateral debt situation is difficult for that country because it is so large. But that is being helped both by ESAF and IDA. Britain has forgiven all the bilateral debt with Uganda. We are encouraging our partners to do likewise. Uganda is also one of our largest aid recipients. It was the sixth largest last year and it received a total of £ 32 million. Uganda is not only trying very hard, but beginning to succeed in many areas where other countries are not.
My noble friend Lord Alport asked about the Commonwealth. It may interest him to know that we keep aid to those countries as a priority. That is why two-thirds of our bilateral aid goes to Commonwealth countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, spoke a lot about the Pergau dam and defence. He made a number of comments, including one on aid volume which I shall take up now. We are still the sixth largest aid programme. Indeed, we are getting small increases in our budget at a time when a number of countries have cut or frozen their programmes. I am determined that we shall let ours grow sensibly. I very much hope that those people who are critical of the real term decline in our aid programme will examine the detail of what we are doing with it because they will find that so much more of our aid is targeted on those areas which are critical to the welfare of people as they grow and develop whereas many other donors' projects are less clearly targeted in that way.
I urge the noble Lord, Lord Desai, to realise that bilateral aid is a much more controllable animal than multilateral aid. However, I advise the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, that, with my partners in the

1071
European Union, I have plans to try to make our multilateral aid through the European Union more effective and better targeted. It forms about half of our multilateral aid, not the percentage that he said, and it is growing all the time.
Deciding where our aid should be spent and for what purposes is complex. We have to weigh up a number of critical decisions, but we want to ensure that aid is not unidimensional, not conditional on just one objective. We want it to achieve sustainable development. I shall not shy away from difficult decisions. I shall stop aid where aid needs to be stopped for the very reasons that many of your Lordships have mentioned. But I shall always make sure that we encourage recipient governments to give poverty alleviation a high priority because the only way in which they will make the programmes effective is if they have some ownership of them, through partnership with us. We shall continue to ensure that we help to improve the standards of good government. We want the governments concerned to respond to the real needs of their populations.
The yardstick for our aid programme is the improvement that it brings to the basic quality of life of the poorest communities. That means access to opportunity, family planning, education, health and clean water. It also means having the chance to be able to get one's goods to market, which is why, in certain circumstances, infrastructure projects are necessary. It also means having the power to run the embryo factories and developments about which my noble friend Lord Prior and the noble Earl spoke earlier. These things are all part of a whole. We cannot pick and choose how countries will decide to develop. We can back good projects and we can refuse to back projects which we do not find developmentally sound. I am glad that at least the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD recognises that our record in delivering aid is one of the best. I intend to keep it that way.
8.42 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The title of the debate was set on such a broad basis as to enable all those noble Lords who wished to speak on certain matters to find a means of doing so. I am glad that we have had such a wide-ranging debate covering many subjects of importance.
I also thank the Minister for answering the debate. The fact that I focused my speech on the Pergau Dam project—and I believe that there is a problem there—does not mean that I do not have the highest regard for the work of the ODA and the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Criminal Injuries: Compensation System
8.43 p.m.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether their plans (contained in the White Paper Compensating victims of violent crime, Cm.2434) to
1072
replace common law and statutory principles of compensation by a tariff system will give effect to the intention of Parliament expressed in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and will ensure that all victims receive no less favourable compensation than at present.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, for almost the past 30 years, successive governments have acted with reasonable generosity towards victims of violent crime by providing them with a scheme operated by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board with compensation based on what the victim would have received if he or she had successfully sued the criminal in the civil courts. That has been known as the common law basis for damages for personal injuries.
On Good Friday, the Government intend to repudiate their obligation contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to put the scheme on a statutory basis and, without first obtaining any parliamentary approval, to replace it with an entirely different non-statutory scheme—a tariff scheme providing merely what is described as,
"a tangible recognition of society's sympathy and concern".
I wish to make three submissions to your Lordships. The first is that the Government, in asserting that their new scheme will,
"provide a better service to victims", are guilty of hypocrisy. This is a cost-cutting exercise.
My second submission is that the proposed scheme is grossly unfair since those who suffer the more serious injuries and the more substantial losses—that is, the most vulnerable—will receive but a fraction of the compensation which is now provided. Thirdly and lastly, I submit that the Government's proposed action is an abuse of power.
Before addressing your Lordships further, perhaps I may say how delighted I am that my noble and learned and old friend Lord Nolan is choosing this Unstarred Question as an opportunity to make his maiden speech. I have known him all his professional life. Our chambers were on the same staircase in Pump Court. We are members of the same Inn, the Middle Temple, and I know that, having had an outstanding judicial career, he will be able to bring wisdom to your Lordships' House on all matters, including in this case on the assessment of damages for personal injuries as provided in the civil courts.
There are certain factors in the history of this matter which I think that it would be convenient if I referred to, taking them as quickly as I can. I believe that they are relevant. In March 1964, the Government, having considered the report of a working party set up by the Home Secretary in 1961, set out in a White Paper, Cmnd.2323, the arrangements which they proposed to make for compensating the victims of crimes of violence. Compensation was to be administered by a board and, subject to three exceptions, assessed on the basis of common law damages. Perhaps the most important exception was that the rate of loss of earnings was not to exceed twice—I believe that it is now one-and-a-half times—the average of industrial earnings at the time that the injury was sustained. In the case of fatal injury, any compensation awarded to the spouse or dependants would be assessed on the same principles as a claim under the fatal accidents Acts, except that the

1073
total income of the deceased to be taken into account would be subject to the limitation to which I have just referred.
I wish to stress what I think is an important point. Since there was virtually no previous experience on which to draw in assessing how a compensation scheme would work in practice, the White Paper proposed that it would be an experimental and non-statutory scheme, the compensation being paid ex gratia.
The next stage was that on 24th June 1964 in your Lordships' House it was announced that a board, to be called the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, would be set up. The scheme in the White Paper, with certain amendments, would be put into force and the first applications would be dealt with on and after 1st August 1964.
Things proceeded smoothly for some 15 years with annual reports being made by the board, until the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury, the Pearson Commission, reported in 1979. It had considered and commended the scheme, but recommended that it should be put on a statutory basis.
In paragraph 1: 589 of its report it drew attention to the fact that similar schemes, usually statutory, had been set up in New Zealand, the Federal Republic of Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Australia, most of the provinces of Canada and several states of the USA. It observed that the Council of Europe had recently adopted a resolution inviting its members to make special provision for criminal injury compensation.
In July 1979, a few months later, the Home Secretary confirmed the Government's acceptance of the recommendation of the Pearson Commission that the scheme should be put on a statutory basis and that compensation under the scheme should continue to be based on common law damages.
In December 1983 in a debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale who, among his many other distinction;, was a member of the Pearson Commission, attention was called to the need to put the scheme on a statutory basis, it having by then operated on an ex gratia basis for some 19 years. At the end of the debate the Government confirmed what they had already confirmed: it was their intention to do exactly that
In July 1987 the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill, which became the Criminal Justice Act 1988, took place in your Lordships' House. The Bill contained inter alia clauses implementing the undertaking of the Government given some four years previously to make the scheme statutory. Detailed provisions concerning the scheme are to be found in Sections 108 to 117, Schedule 6 and Schedule 7. Section 171 places a statutory obligation upon the Home Secretary to bring the relevant sections into force.
In 1989, because of the unprecedented rise in applications and the very sizeable backlog of cases with consequent delays to all claims, it was decided that to make the scheme statutory at that date would disrupt the work and add to arrears. It was therefore agreed not yet to make the scheme statutory but to streamline it in certain respects.
1074
I now turn to the proposed tariff scheme. On 23rd November 1992 the then Home Secretary, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, announcing the scheme, said that it offered,
"the best prospect of providing quicker payments to claimants through a means that is fair, straightforward and understandable".
In December 1993 the Government presented their White Paper, Cm.2434, setting out plans in more detail. The opening paragraph stated:
"The aim would be to provide a better service to victims".
Perhaps I may now refer to the unfairness of the scheme. As recently as Tuesday of last week my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, when answering a Starred Question, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, relative to the high quanturn of damages awarded to litigants in the civil actions, agreed with me that by far the major part of such awards reflected loss of income, loss of pension, medical treatment and often the large expenses involved in making the establishment in which the injured person lives capable of being used properly by him.
The accuracy of the propositions which I put to the Lord Chancellor and of his confirmatory answers is well borne out by a recent case in which the board awarded a man in his mid-40s, who was paralysed from the neck down, £ 1,153,000. Of that figure, £ 72,000 was attributable to future loss of earnings, that is, £ 6,000 per year over a 12-year period; future medical and care costs of £ 726,000 over 15 years; and special damages for the adaptation of the house, special needs and transport of £ 255,000. Under the Government's tariff none of those heads of loss would be payable since compensation will no longer be assessed on the basis of common law damages. Accordingly, there will be no separate payments for loss of earnings or medical expenses or any other special damage.
As the Government have conceded, the new scheme is not intended to provide compensation to reflect a particular victim's losses. The effects on the particular individual of his injuries are irrelevant. All victims would be lumped together and would receive a payment based solely on the category of injury without regard to the age or sex of the victim. Victims will either receive too much or too little, and those who lose out most are the most vulnerable, that is to say, those whose injuries and loss are the greatest. They fall into the following three categories: first, those who have suffered the most severe injuries; secondly, those whose injuries have resulted in significant impairment of earning capacity and loss of employment; and thirdly, families of victims of murder and manslaughter. As I shall seek to show by reference to a very few decided cases, all the above categories will receive but a fraction of what is currently being paid.
I have given my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie a lengthy list of recently reported cases. In the time available I shall refer to a few only. I choose first from the list which I provided one of the cases of paraplegia—Tansley—decided in January 1992. His loss of past earnings was £ 30,852; loss of future earnings over £ 97,000; past care £ 35,000:, and future care £ 250,000. The total award, involving the special damages referred to, was £ 689,000. Under the new scheme he would get £ 175,000.

1075
I now refer to one of the cases of brain injury, the case of Burleigh, decided in September 1992, a case in which the victim required continuous care day and night, the strain of which proved too much for his wife, with the result that they separated. The total award was over £ 510,000 of which future care accounted for £ 234,000. Under the new scheme he would receive £ 40,000 which in no way recognises the need for care of the victim, even if provided for by relatives, nor the effect on the family, particularly in cases such as this of marriage breakdown.
I now refer to my second category of cases where the injury, although not of the greatest severity, significantly impairs the earning capacity and involves loss of employment. The first case, Holton, decided in April 1993, concerned a female psychiatric nursing sister aged 35 whose arm was badly injured. She was assessed as unfit for any work. She received a total of over £ 126,000 of which only £ 17,720 was attributable to general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. Under the new scheme she would have been awarded £ 5,000 which would account on its own for only three months loss of earnings.
Burrows, decided in March 1933, involved a wrist injury which did not unite properly leaving the applicant with a continuing disability in her dominant right hand. She received a total award of £ 55,000. Under the new scheme she would receive £ 3,000. The award for the injury alone under the old scheme was more than three times the total award under the new scheme.
Stonier, decided in March 1993, involved a back injury to a male police officer aged 34. He received for future loss of earnings over £ 61,000, that is, a little over £ 8,000 per annum times seven. Together with other items of special damage, his total award was £ 121,000. Under the new scheme he would receive £ 7,500.
Lastly, under this heading, Parslow, decided in September 1992, involved a knee injury. At the date of the hearing he was in receipt of a disablement pension following assessment of 30 per cent. disability. He had no prospect of obtaining employment in the future. As he was aged 37, the board applied a multiplier of 11 for future loss of earnings, and his total award, including £ 46,000 for future loss of earnings, amounted to over £ 74,000. Under the current scheme he would receive £ 5,000.
I turn to my third and last category—the families of victims of murder and manslaughter. Under the provisions of the fatal accident Acts, as your Lordships probably know, dependency awards to a wife or dependant children are based largely on an assessment of the amount of financial support provided by the deceased and for how long it would have lasted. Future loss of earnings feature prominently in such calculations. I shall refer to one case, details of which I have provided to my noble and learned friend.
Slater, decided in June 1993, involved a female aged 38 at the time of the hearing who witnessed her husband dying, following a stabbing at the front door of their home. She was married with two young children aged six and four. She suffered the deepest distress as a result of that traumatic experience. She received general
1076
damages of £ 17,500 but, in addition, received nearly £ 120,000 for the loss of dependency, making a total award of over £ 137,000. Under the new scheme, she will receive £ 10,000 by reason of the death of her husband and £ 7,500 for her condition, making a total of £ 17,500 plus funeral expenses.
Those cases illustrate that innocent families of manslaughter and murder victims, whose financial security was previously provided by dependency awards, receive nothing for the future. There are a number of anomalies and oddities about the figures and scales provided but I do not propose to refer to them in view of the time factor.
The Government are proposing to act in defiance of the will of Parliament as expressed in the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Paragraph 38 of the White Paper states:
"Provision was made in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for the scheme to be placed on a statutory footing … With the impending demise of the current scheme the provisions in the 1988 Act will not now be implemented. They will accordingly be repealed when a suitable legislative opportunity occurs".
As your Lordships know, I am a child in these matters but I find it difficult to imagine a more arrogant refusal by a Minister to carry out his statutory duty. I await with interest the first of the set of proceedings for judicial review to test the legality of the Government's action.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, the timing of the noble and learned Lord is impeccable. The whole House should be grateful to him. From 1st April, if not checked, the Government, without any reference to Parliament, will destroy the scheme for compensating victims of violent crime that has stood since 1964. That scheme aims to compensate a victim for the losses that he or she has suffered and will suffer. It treats the individual claimant as an individual. The new tariff scheme represents a government attack on the victims of violent crime whose losses are the greatest.
Before proceeding with my speech, I should say that we look forward from these Benches with keen anticipation to the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, a lawyer of the highest distinction.
I agree with every word that has come from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. The reasoning of the White Paper is so obviously specious that I do not occupy more time by exposing it. It is an insult to the intelligence of its readers. The assertion that the object is,
"to provide a better service to victims",
is humbug. The proposition that,
"everyone sustaining a similar injury will be treated in a similar fashion"
is deceptive if it suggests that like cases will be treated alike. The financial consequences of injury to individuals are infinitely variable. The new scheme is a denial of justice precisely because it will treat fundamentally different cases as though they were the same.
Let us take a different sphere—compensation for personal injuries caused by the negligence of another at the workplace or in the street. Compensation is not

1077
confined to a tariff for the injury itself. Common law damages apply. Loss of past and future earnings are compensated, as was the case in the criminal injuries compensation scheme, until 1st April. There would be public outcry if the workman injured at work due to an employer's negligence or a citizen in the street injured due to the negligence of a driver could not recover for his loss of earnings capacity. Do the Government propose legislative change so that in cases of personal injury caused by the negligence of others, the civil courts should in future be entitled to make an award from a tariff based on the extent of the injury, without any regard to loss of earnings and loss of future earnings capacity?
The answer to that is no, but why should that not be the case if the right award for criminal injuries is a tariff sum based on the nature of the injury? Why should that not he so also in the case of personal injuries caused by negligence? The Government could promote a tariff system as a better service by the courts to the victims of injury at work—to borrow the language of the White Paper and adapt it—and they could sell it to an audience of employers as a welcome reduction in the costs of employment.
Of course, the Government have no intention whatever of altering the basis under which the courts compensate victims in personal injury cases for the loss of income, past and prospective, which each has suffered and will suffer as an individual. The fact is that the Government have decided to introduce a tariff system to discriminate against the victims of violent crime, who suffer the greatest loss, because the Government have to pick up the tab. I ask the Minister where the Government stand in relation to all the calls at the Tory Party conference last October for more to be done for victims of violent crime? Will they acknowledge that they will do so much less for those who suffer the greatest loss from violent crime?
The point about the existing scheme is that the compensation paid distinguishes among victims according to the impact of the injuries upon their individual earning capacities. From 1st April, without a word of parliamentary debate if the Government have their way, this crude tariff scheme will deprive the victims of violent crime, who have lost their livelihoods because of their injuries, of the financial support that they require.
In my contribution tonight, I propose to confine myself to the legality of what the Government propose. I have given the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, advance notice of the two specific points that I propose to make. I look forward to hearing his replies. First, The European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes was ratified by the United Kingdom in 1990. No doubt it was then thought by the Government that it could safely be ratified—safely, because the existing criminal injuries compensation scheme complied with Article 4, which provides:
"Compensation shall cover, according to the case under consideration, at least the following items: loss of earnings, medical and hospitalisation expenses and funeral expenses, and as regard dependants, loss of maintenance".
I ask the noble and learned Lord to tell the House whether, in deciding to introduce a new tariff-based
1078
scheme, the Government had specific regard to their convention obligations and whether they believe that their new scheme will comply with them.
The preamble to the convention records,
"that it is necessary to establish minimum provisions in this field".
As I read Article 4, every case is an individual one which must be considered on its own particular facts; and, as a minimum, compensation must cover—that is, completely defray—"loss of earnings" consequent on violent crime. Yet the White Paper in terms declares as one of,
"the main features of the new arrangements [that) no separate payment will be made for loss of earnings or medical expenses'".
That is two of the heads of loss which Article 4 requires, as a minimum, to be covered. The current compensatory scheme treats every case as an individual case. It has regard to the particular circumstances of each individual victim of violent crime and the loss that he or she has suffered and will suffer. The awards cover, in just the same way as in personal injury awards in these cases, what is called special damage for past losses; for example, earnings and medical expenses, and general damages, compensation for the pain and suffering caused by the injury itself, together with compensation for future loss of earnings.
Under the new scheme, awards are not to be loss related but injury related. The payments are to be related to the nature of the injury suffered. The consequences on the earning power of the individual are not to be addressed. The award will depend solely on the tariff band within which the particular injury falls. It would be hard to devise a scheme of greater crudity. The reasoning of the White Paper is as specious as the scheme it devises is crude. It actually asserts that the new scheme,
"means that people with similar injuries will get the same payment, which is by no means the case under the present system where people can often get radically different awards for similar injuries".
That is a thoroughly deceptive sentence. Precisely because no injury or group of injuries is identical, there are well known guidelines for the assessment of general damages which were published by the Judicial Studies Board in 1992. So there is a range for particular categories of injuries. But because the extent of the disability within the headings varies in the individual case, the guidelines are flexible and allow justice to be done in each case. Inflexible tariffs for classes of injury are not a virtue. Not to compensate specifically for loss of earnings, past and prospective, is a vice.
I turn now to my second and major point. Sections 108 to 117 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 put the existing criminal injuries compensation scheme, which had been established under the Royal prerogative, and the board which administered the scheme on a statutory basis. Paragraph 8 to Schedule 7 provided that the amount of compensation should basically be what would be recoverable for the relevant injuries in a civil action brought against the offender, with a ceiling on loss of earnings of one-and-a-half times the "gross average industrial earnings". Thus, Parliament decided that what had been a system of ex gratia payments based on common law compensatory damages should become

1079
statutory so that claimants should become entitled as of right to payments under the scheme. These provisions were, as the noble and learned Lord said, to come into force by order of the Secretary of State under Section 171(1), but no order has been made. The White Paper feebly states that,
"at the request of the Board the relevant provisions were not brought into force, because this would have disrupted efforts to deal with the heavy workload".
That, surely, was a purely temporary reason for not bringing the provisions into force immediately. In any event, workload problems depend upon the resources that are brought to bear upon them. Any suggestion that the workload problem justifies the Government's failure over six years to implement the will of Parliament is absurd. Although no doubt the board would always wish to improve upon its turn-round figures, the current figure of reaching first decisions in 80 per cent. of cases within nine months of the making of the claim is good and compares favourably with the ordinary courts.
The White Paper then continues:
"With the impending demise of the current scheme the provisions in the 1988 Act will not now be implemented. They will accordingly be repealed when a suitable legislative opportunity presents itself".
That represents, I suggest, a staggering disregard for Parliament. The original authority of the board to grant compensation derived from the prerogative. But for the 1988 Act, the Government could unilaterally have made the changes to the scheme that they have announced with effect from 1st April, but the 1988 Act has changed that. By the 1988 Act Parliament decided two distinct things: first, that the scheme should continue on its existing common law basis with compensation for loss of future earning capacity and, secondly, that it should be put on a statutory basis giving claimants legally enforceable rights to compensation under the existing scheme. Thus, Parliament has decided that the scheme should cease to be based upon the prerogative. But the Secretary of State's decision to change the scheme fundamentally in accordance with the White Paper can only be based upon the prerogative, for he has no other power to which he could lay claim. I submit that the Secretary of State may not lawfully derive power from the prerogative, once Parliament has decided that the scheme should become based on statute, not the prerogative.
The only power that the Secretary of State had in relation to the scheme after the passage of the 1988 Act was to determine when, and not whether, Sections 108 to 117 should be brought into force. He certainly had no power unilaterally to reverse the will of Parliament and fundamentally alter the scheme that Parliament had approved. The White Paper states that the provisions of the 1988 Act will,
"be repealed when a suitable legislative opportunity presents itself'.
Why bother repealing these provisions if the Secretary of State is acting lawfully in changing them unilaterally from 1st April? Why has a suitable legislative opportunity not occurred in the shape of the Criminal Justice Bill now going through the other place? Is it
1080
because the Government fear full exposure by debate in Parliament of their reduction in the rights of victims of violent crime?
Why have the Government wilfully abstained from providing an occasion for parliamentary debate of their proposals to diminish compensation for those who have suffered the greatest loss from violent crime? Why has it been left to the initiative of the noble and learned Lord? If the Government bring in these changes unilaterally on 1st April I agree with the noble and learned Lord that they will be playing with fire and I, for one, would predict that they will get their fingers burnt in court.
This is the latest example, as we see it from these Benches, of overreaching power by a Government who have been in power too long.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will excuse me for one moment. I listened with growing incredulity to what he and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, have said on this subject. I hope my noble friend can help a layman like myself. He thinks the Government will get their fingers burnt. Will there be any remedy for someone who is given an award under the Government's new proposals? Will he be able to take the Government to court and get a decision from the court on the matter? What remedy is he likely to have?
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, the remedy will be in judicial review. The remedy would be available to a complainant who under the new scheme will receive substantially less than he would have received under the previous scheme. The argument will be that the Government are acting unlawfully in setting aside, without reference to Parliament, a compensatory scheme and putting in its place a tariff based scheme which has no specific regard to individual financial loss. I believe I have taken up sufficient of the time of the House.
9.19 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, in taking part in this debate in your Lordships' House tonight I must declare an interest as the Chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. As your Lordships will know, that board consists of 40 part-time members, all of whom are leading practising lawyers. We are a totally independent body, appointed by the Home Secretary, responsible for implementation of the scheme, for deciding whether individual claimants are eligible for compensation and for deciding in each case the amount of that compensation. I am delighted to be able to take part in this debate introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and to have this opportunity to express to the House the considered and unanimous views of the board as to the Government's proposals as set out in their White Paper.
Before I do so I should like to make two general points. First, I accept that the scheme for the compensation of victims of crimes of violence which we have had in this country since 1964 and which aims to provide for the individual the same award as he would have achieved had he sued his assailant in the court, is

1081
a scheme of which we are entitled to be thoroughly proud. As has been said in another House, it is the leading scheme of its kind in the world. It has been the model for many other schemes elsewhere.
Secondly, I say to the Minister that I accept that much has changed over the 30 years that the scheme has been in operation. A scheme which was appropriate in 1964, with five members on the board,2,500 applicants in its first year and paying out compensation of some £ 403,000, is not, I accept, necessarily the appropriate framework for a scheme which has now grown so that we have some 70,000 applications and are dealing with some £ 160 million of compensation.
I can assure the Minister that the board fully understands the anxiety expressed by the Government as to the ever mounting cost of the scheme. We share the aims of the Government in wanting to see an efficient scheme, a scheme which deals with individual cases as reasonably quickly as possible, and one which is readily understandable. But I have to say to the Minister that the board is concerned and dismayed that the Government should decide to change the fundamental basis on which until now compensation has been based without any prior consultation of the board, even as to the practicality of what is being proposed. They have done so in a way which the board considers to be fundamentally flawed, in that we believe that the move to a total tariff system as is proposed will be seen to be manifestly unfair and certainly a far less fair system of compensation than that which at present exists.
Until now, as has been said, under the common law damages system each application is individually considered so as to compensate the individual victim for the loss and injury he has actually sustained. To replace it with a tariff system with one single lump payment for a particular type of injury is, I believe, a retrograde step in that of its very nature a tariff system cannot and does not take account of the vastly differing effects of similar injuries on different people.
A tariff of its nature, for example, means that no regard can be had to such fundamental matters as the age, sex, occupation or way of life of the victim, all of which are reflected enormously in the effect which an injury may have on an individual. Many examples of that have been given. I take only one. The elderly lady mugged in the street, when she is knocked to the ground and her handbag snatched, may suffer very little physical injury, but the effect on her life may be totally devastating. I fear that she may be far more gravely injured than in a similar incident occurring to a fit young person in their twenties. Yet I fear that under the tariff system the elderly lady will probably no longer succeed in achieving any rights to compensation.
Further, in arriving at the tariff figures in the way in which the Government do, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, no proper account has been taken of the loss of earnings or the loss of future earning capacity. The effect of that is that those who have suffered the most will in future be under-compensated, in many cases substantially so.
It is said by the Government that the figures in the tariff are based on an analysis of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board's awards. I accept that. I accept
1082
fully that the figures in the tariff are generally comparable with the pain and suffering element of general damages. I believe that the White Paper is right when it states that many victims will receive the same amount or perhaps slightly more than they would receive under the present scheme. However, it is equally true that many will receive less, and some substantially less, as no proper account has been taken of loss of earnings and earning capacity, or of the cost of future medical care.
The man whose injury means that he is off work for six months will receive no more than the retired or the unemployed person with a similar injury but who has no similar loss. The building worker who has an injury to his ankle or knee which means that he can never work again, or cannot work at the skilled tasks that he now undertakes, again will receive no more than for a similar injury occasioned to a person who has no loss in earning capacity. Surely that cannot be a fair system.
The Government say that there is in each of the awards a degree of loss of earnings. To some extent that is true, but it simply means that those who have no loss of earnings will be compensated slightly more than they are at present, at the direct expense of those individuals who have lost as a result.
We believe that the proposed scheme is unfair. Further, we believe that in many areas the scheme will be shown in practice to be unworkable. There are certain types of offences where the resulting injury caused to the victim varies so widely as to make any tariff system unworkable. I pose certain questions. Let us take the area of child sex abuse. What is the correct tariff figure for sexual abuse? Every case differs. The effect of such cases on any child varies so enormously that it seems to me that each case must require individual assessment. What is said about sex abuse of children can be said equally about many cases of rape. I give another example. The effect of the shock on the bank clerk who is the victim of an armed robbery varies enormously depending on the makeup of the individual concerned. Psychological injury, sexual abuse and rape are, sadly, growing areas of our work.
The final example I take is the whole question of facial scarring. While I accept that the Government have made an effort in their tariff to provide a classification of facial scarring, frankly I do not believe that one can fairly compensate an individual for facial scarring without assessing the effect on that individual of his scars, rather than saying that they are merely medium or severe, or words to that effect. Thus, the board's feeling is that the scheme proposed is unfair and in certain aspects unworkable.
I turn briefly to consider the advantages that the Government see in their proposals. The White Paper says that the scheme will be quicker and more readily understandable. As regards speed, I accept that if each case does not have to be considered individually, there will be some savings. But I am bound to tell the Minister that I do not think that the savings in time will be significant. Delay has always been a problem for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Lack of resources at an earlier stage created a system where in 1989 92 per cent. of applications were not able to be

1083
dealt with in less than nine months from the date of the application. I remind the Minister that that has now dramatically changed and that in 80 per cent. of all our applications a decision is now given to the victim within a nine-month period. I do not believe that a great deal of saving can be made beyond that because the restraints that exist are the need to obtain reports from the police to find out what happened and reports from the doctors to see the effect of the injuries the person received. Those restraints will be there, whatever scheme we have.
As regards the scheme being more readily understandable, I am at a loss as to what the Government mean. I do not know whether they realise that we already send to every applicant a piece of paper which is a guide to the level of awards and which sets out, as the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, said, the pattern of general damages awards that people can expect.
Finally, the cost: again, I accept that there should be some saving in administrative cost. But I think the Minister will agree and the Government will accept that the amount will be unquantifiable. Our costs today are something less than 9 per cent. of our total budget. What of the cost on the compensation scheme? If I may say so, the Government are rather coy there. They say that they will be providing more money in compensation in the next few years than in the current year. I remind noble Lords that the total overall cost depends far more on the volume of violent crime and the number of applications that are made than on the individual amount given to any applicant. But doing the best we can, our calculation is that the new scheme will mean that the amount paid out in compensation will be 20 per cent. less than it would be under the current scheme. Our objection—and I believe it is a fundamental objection—is that the whole of that saving will be made at the expense of the biggest losers. It is those who have borne the worst injuries who will suffer the most. The board believes that that is the wrong way to make the savings. We believe that there are other and better ways. We have expressed our willingness on many occasions to discuss the changes which we think would meet the Government's aims and so far, frankly, we have not been heeded.
I end by saying to the Minister that I hope that the system for compensation of the victims of crimes of violence is outside the ambit of the party political battle. Since its inception, the scheme has been supported by both parties in Government and in Opposition. It has been reviewed twice by the Home Affairs Select Committee, both times with approval. It was put forward, as we have already been reminded in speeches, by the present Government to Parliament in 1987 as the proper basis for a scheme which should be statutory. On 23rd November 1992 the then Home Secretary, without any prior consultation with any of those interested, announced the intention to change the basis of the scheme. At that time he stated that the Government's intention was to publish a White Paper in the early part of last year and introduce the scheme in April of this year.
1084
In replying to an Adjournment debate on 18th March 1993 in another place, the then Minister of State said:
"Of course, there will be an opportunity for the House to consider our proposals when the White Paper is published". —[Official Report, Commons,18/3/93; col.508.]
In the event, the White Paper was not published in the early part of last year. It was published on the eve of Parliament's adjournment for the Christmas Recess on 15th December. The scheme is due to be implemented next month. The effect has been that there has been no time for that informed discussion which the Government said they had intended would take place. The Government claim that the great advantage of a non-statutory scheme is that they can change it at any time without requiring parliamentary legislation or debate.
I hope that, in the light of the criticisms that have been and may still be made tonight, the Government will look again at their proposals, with the clear intention to achieve what I believe to be possible; namely, a scheme that will reflect the changing nature and volume of the board's work, one which will achieve the Government's stated aims but will do so in such a way as to avoid the fundamental flaws which are inherent in a total tariff system such as is now proposed.
9.36 p.m.
Lord Nolan: My Lords, I am very conscious of the fact that a maiden speaker should avoid controversy, and also of the fact that in the present debate that is rather a tall order. I shall do my best to be constructive and not contentious. I have three points to make. The first two are based on my experience of trying personal injuries cases as a Queen's Bench judge. As your Lordships well know, the amounts of the awards made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board are based on the awards made by the courts in these cases.
The White Paper speaks, in paragraph 12, of,
"the very difficult and time consuming task of trying to assign a precisely calculated, but essentially arbitrary, sum to the injury suffered".
It points out that,
"under the present system … people can often get radically different awards for similar injuries".
That is one of the arguments for a simple and uniform tariff.
I should be the last to suggest that the assessment of compensation for personal injuries is an entirely simple and straightforward matter. I wonder, nonetheless, whether there is a danger of over-estimating the difficulties and the differences that are involved.
I should like to speak from my own experience, for what it is worth. When I was at the Bar I specialised in tax law. I did no personal injuries work. When I was appointed to the Bench, the Lord Chancellor, mercifully recognising that tax was getting far too difficult for me, put me in the Queen's Bench Division. There I did virtually no tax work but a great many personal injury cases. Although I was inexperienced, the assessment of damages in those cases was an area—I think probably the only area—in which none of my judgments was ever overturned, or even questioned, on appeal. If that seems a very vain and remarkable thing to say, let me add at once that in my three very busy years in the Court of

1085
Appeal I can remember hearing only one case in which the judge's assessment of damages was challenged, one party saying that it was too high and the other that it was too low. Of course, there were other cases heard by other divisions of the Court of Appeal during that time, but they were rare.
The reason is that certainly at High Court and Court of Appeal level one had the assistance of very experienced barristers and solicitors like the members of the board, although seldom so distinguished. With their help one found that the range within which injuries of the same kind should be compensated was well established. There was a pretty clear upper and lower limit. Within that range, as my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine said, there would be substantial differences according to the irnpact of the particular injury upon the life of the individual concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, has given a number of examples. A young manual worker or a musician, say, who lost the use of his dominant hand, would be at or near the top of the scale. A middle-aged businessman with a chauffeur, a dictating machine and a secretary would be at the lower end of the scale. Examples can be multiplied.
The Judicial Studies Board, as has been said, has put forward proposals for codifying and narrowing the range within which compensation should be awarded for specific injuries. Those proposals are designed for the benefit of recorders and district judges who have to try such cases without the assistance of very experienced advocates. If the White Paper's proposals are to go ahead in their present form—that is a matter of policy and of law on which I say nothing whatever; it would be improper for me to do so—I wonder whether, with the assistance of the Judicial Studies Board's guidelines, it may yet be possible to retain a measure of flexibility in the new arrangements so that compensation can continue to be related to individual loss.
It may be said that that would perpetuate in the new arrangements the uncertainty and unpredictability of the awards made by the courts. There is always an element of unpredictability in litigation. However, in my experience, there are many cases in which the amount of the damages is agreed once the question of liability or entitlement has been answered. I think I am right in saying that the vast majority of personal injuries cases in the courts are settled by agreement once that stage has been reached and once entitlement has been determined.
That brings me to my second point. Normally the most difficult and anxious task for the judge is deciding whether the claimant is entitled to compensation at all and, if he is, whether his entitlement should be reduced because of his misconduct or carelessness. The board has stricter requirements than the courts in that respect. In a recent letter to The Times, Sir John Palmer, a distinguished former member of the board, wrote:
"In a high proportion of cases it must be decided whether or not the applicant's own conduct was wholly or in part responsible for his or her injury and whether or not he or she co-operated with the police. Those ate difficult matters of judgment requiring professional experience in assessing evidence".
For my part I would add that there are also many cases where the victim is all too genuinely and seriously afflicted by suffering but where those sufferings cannot, or cannot all, be linked to the crime committed against
1086
him. Here, too, great skill and experience may be required in assessing the medical evidence and indeed the evidence of the victim. If the verdict goes against the victim, it is necessary to explain to him and to his family exactly why he is to get nothing or a reduced amount. It has been well said that every trial is a trial of the judge. In my experience the judge is never more on trial than when trying to explain his decision in these matters.
The first annex to the White Paper shows that over the 30-year life of the scheme,643,469 cases have been resolved and awards made in 462,561; in other words, nearly 30 per cent. of the applications have been either abandoned or completely rejected. I suggest that that is a most important statistic in both human and financial terms. It reflects the strictness with which the members of the board have applied the rules. Despite the high percentage of disappointed applicants, it is very rare to hear any complaint of unfairness on the part of the board. I suggest that that is hardly surprising in view of the great experience and ability of the board members.
The White Paper envisages that in future disappointed applicants can make use of a two-stage appeal system, first, to a more senior administrator, and secondly, to an independent panel of professionals, businessmen and others. I hope that the community will not be deprived of the wisdom and the experience of the present board members and that at least a number of them, if they are willing, will be invited to serve on the panel.
The third matter I wish to mention is simply this. I have a friend who was an inspector of police. One night, about 14 years ago, he was doing the rounds of his constables on the beat. He came across one of them sorting out a fight outside a public house at closing time. My friend managed to arrest one of the troublemakers but was attacked and brought to the ground. While on the ground he was kicked in the back of the neck by someone who was never identified. He suffered severe injuries to his spine and to the base of his skull. Until then he had never known a day of serious ill-health. Since then he has never known a day of normal good health.
After some three years of diagnosis, surgery, convalescence and prognosis he was awarded £ 60,000 by the board. That has made his life more comfortable in a number of ways. For example, he can take package holidays and swim in warm seas, which he much enjoys. I do not know what he would receive under the new system or when he would receive it. I make no point on that. I merely express the hope, with him and those like him in mind, that whatever the precise form of the new arrangements, we shall continue to have a scheme which makes fair and appropriate provision for those who need and in many cases—one thinks particularly of police officers and of civilians who have a go and who are injured as a result—richly deserve it.
I thank my noble and learned and, if I may say so, old friend Lord Ackner for giving me the opportunity of taking part in this extremely important debate, and I thank your Lordships very much for the patient and courteous hearing you have given me.
9.47 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, when I realised that I had the pleasure and privilege of congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, I must confess that at first it was accompanied with a sigh. The sigh was caused by the fact that I remembered that I had had the great honour of briefing him in years gone by and it seemed as though the years—so far as I was concerned—must have mounted up considerably for me to be paying a compliment to a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary who was that self-same person. The sigh was removed when I looked at the speed of the career of the noble and learned Lord and saw how, after only two years in the Court of Appeal, he has honoured this House, as we honour him, by his being a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. We listened to a delightful and learned speech. We look forward to hearing many more.
I turn immediately to the Minister. It is not with a sigh that I look at him; it is with a sense of sympathy but with a word of respectful advice. I venture the suggestion that he forgets all about the speech that he intended to make and which was prepared for him. With the wisdom that he has always shown, especially as an illustrious lawyer when we were used to calling him the "noble and learned" Lord—I shall not leave out the "learned" on this occasion, even though he now occupies the position of Minister of State and therefore is not strictly entitled to it—I ask him to say, whatever may be contained in the brief, that the Government will consider carefully what has been said in your Lordships' House tonight by those so well qualified to say it. I ask him to say that the Government are prepared to consult those with whom consultation should have taken place but did not take place with a view to ensuring that, although the old scheme may be reformed, it will not necessarily take the shape of the tariff system.
Not only would the noble and learned Lord be wise to follow that respectful advice as a lawyer, he may also wish to follow that advice as a politician. As a lawyer, he may have noticed—the Minister is very observant—that when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg referred to the fact that the Government were trespassing upon very dangerous ground in regard to their legal position and that a remedy of judicial review might be taken, as was stated in answer to the very pertinent question of my noble friend Lord Callaghan, and on good grounds, by someone who was disadvantaged by this new scheme as against the old one, at least four former Lords of Appeal in Ordinary nodded their heads. That was about the best legal opinion gratuitously obtained that the Government could ever expect.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: And free, my Lords.
Lord Mishcon: And gratuitous, my Lords, as I said. It would be very foolish in my view for that gesture, which was made so generously by the noble and learned Lords, to go ignored.
I am going to talk to the Minister as a politician. There are to be some by-elections. I am not going to pretend—it would be hypocrisy—that I feel that the Government are likely to win any of them.
1088
Nevertheless, I want at least a good battle. There is going to be a pretty poor battle in view of all the speeches that have been made and that I have listened to from the Front Bench opposite—not from the Back Benches, which are so often wiser—about law and order. When those on this side have said,"Please, don't fill the prisons any more. Please, in regard to punishment which must be meted out to those who have broken the law, show a little attention to the hope that they will indeed be better people; that they should have community service instead of prison", and so on, we have listened to speeches from Ministers saying,"We are going to show the public that so far as we are concerned it is sympathy for the victim that counts. You are giving too much sympathy to the offender". It will not sound well if on 1st April, before those by-elections are held, the Government proceed with this scheme which shows little support indeed for victims. So I ask the Minister in all seriousness to take this back to his colleagues and say to them that they must think again.
There is another principle that the Government have so often spoken of; that is, open government. Open government means, of course, that you consult and that when appropriate you go to Parliament. I have in front of me a paper which was issued by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, of which the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, has been a notably great chairman. If I may say so, the noble Lord is much too much of a gentleman to have said this in public about what the Government have done. In that paper I find the following sentence:
"The announcement made by the then Home Secretary on 23rd November 1992 to change fundamentally the basis of compensation and replace it with a tariff system was taken without any prior consultation with the board".
That is not only wrong, but bad manners, for this and other consultations, I repeat, to take place. It is not open government to be doing all this with a White Paper issued in December, with no opportunity for debate and talking about the date,1st April. It is not open government.
I conclude by begging the Government not to do something which really makes them look ridiculous. I am certainly not going to take up the time of the House in doing what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, did so much better; namely, reciting cases showing the vast discrepancy between what is proposed under this new scheme and what is there under the old. I shall read out two examples of what the tariff does and the sheer absurdity of it, quite apart from the injustice. Then, I hope with some dramatic effect, I shall sit down.
The examples are these, and I put them forward seriously:
"Sexual and/or Physical abuse of children Not involving rape or buggery, £ 1,000 teeth: loss of one front tooth, £ 1,500".
I give another example and, again, very seriously:
"Rape or buggery: by one person, £ 7,500.
Lower limbs: fractured patella—knee cap, £ 7,500",
which is the same amount. I keep my promise and sit down.
9.56 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, your Lordships have heard sufficient of the history of this matter to know how indebted we are to my noble and

1089
learned friend Lord Ackner for providing Parliament with an opportunity to discuss this scheme. Indeed, it looked as though it was to be the only opportunity that Parliament would have. I do not propose to cover the ground that has been so ably, cogently and devastatingly covered by the speakers who have preceded me.
I shall look a little further than this scheme and its predecessor. As regards the present scheme, I have always heard that its operation is very highly regarded indeed. There has been remarkably little criticism of the way that the board has operated it, and there have been many expressions of appreciation.
The new scheme may look very attractive from Whitehall with its median, its tariff and disregard of all the individual circumstances that are attendant on the injuries with which we are concerned. I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will call to mind the way in which we were invited to approve of the Child Support Act which was similarly a bureaucratic Act. It was felt that the operation of the magistrates' courts varied. Of course they do because the circumstances they had to deal with were infinitely different. They also take account of local conditions. So it is with the way in which the board has operated the present scheme. There is no advantage to have a neat tariff scheme based on medians and to think that one has thereby brought in an improvement.
Going beyond that, I should like to say just this: the White Paper mentions the sympathy and concern of the Government for the victims of crimes of violence. That is quite inadequate. It is a primary duty of society—of the state, indeed—to protect the individual citizen and the body of citizens both from external violence and from internal violence. It is not a matter of sympathy and concern; it is a matter of duty, and the citizen has a right, a commensurate right, which he derives from his own service to the state: financial, by employment, and in other ways. That right should be recognised. It is surely retrograde to go back from a statutory scheme to an ex gratia scheme.
The other thing that I want to say is more controversial. I have had doubts from the very beginning of the scheme about whether we were not differentiating unduly between victims of violent crime and those who lost property by crime. When the time comes—and that means when the means are available—the duty of the state ought to extend also to compensating victims who have suffered loss of property. From the very beginning of the liberal state, the duty of the state to safeguard property has been given a high priority. I know that that is quite impracticable at the moment. The prime duty of the Government is undoubtedly to reduce the overspending of £ 50 million per year as soon as possible; but in the end, when the means are available and after the present scheme has been restored with possibly some minor adjustments, we should look beyond it to see what further duties the state owes to the individual.
In the meantime, as I said at the beginning, the present scheme has been highly regarded. The way in which it has been administered has been much admired. It is a thoroughly deplorable step to go back from the
1090
statutory scheme to the White Paper scheme involving all the injustices that have been spelt out beyond any question in the debate already this evening.
10.3 p.m.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, all the speeches so far have been made by lawyers. In fact, nearly all the remaining speeches will be made by lawyers, with the exceptions of myself, the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, who is to follow me, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford. I very much hope that a speech from a layman will not be unwelcome. Perhaps we look at this from a marginally different point of view.
My interest in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme arises because in my time I have seen far more of the results of violence than I would wish—perhaps not in England, Scotland or Wales, but that does not matter. The effects of violent behaviour are the same wherever it occurs. One cannot help but be interested in a scheme that tries to do something for the victims.
I do not think that there is anyone in this country who feels that what Parliament decided 30 years ago was wrong; namely, that the state should seek to help those who became victims of violent behaviour who had no other remedy because either they could not identify those who had caused their distress or, if they could identify them, those responsible could not in any way recompense the victim for the damage that had been suffered.
Everybody agrees that that is a first-class scheme which should continue. That is not to say that I have not had questions from time to time about the way in which it has been administered, certainly questions about the proposals which we are now discussing.
I want to make three points, and I shall make them in ascending order of importance.
The first concerns the speed with which claims are dealt. Two thousand years ago a Roman poet, whose name I cannot properly pronounce because I am uneducated, said something to the effect that "he gives twice who gives promptly". The reverse applies, He gives only half as much who delays a great deal. There have been occasions in the past, some years ago now, when delays in settling claims were appalling, so that when the claim was settled it was worth much less. I am not talking about inflation; they were worth less because they had taken so long and there had been so much hassle in settling. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Carlisle was right when he said that matters had improved over recent years and become much speedier, but I note that in the White Paper, Cm.2434 which we have before us, in no less than three paragraphs, Nos.8,9 and 41, it is claimed that the new scheme will be even speedier. When my noble friend comes to reply I should very much like him to tell me on what he bases that and how much quicker he thinks it will be. I hope that he will be able to give me some comforting news.
My second point relates to a matter already raised by a number of noble Lords: the tariff which is published as Annex B to the paper. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, gave us some examples, and noble and learned Lords

1091
who have great experience of these matters in the courts have been able to give even more telling examples than I can. I look at it from a layman's point of view.
Perhaps I may tell my noble friend and the House that one particular point struck me straight away. If you look at the proposed tariff you will see that if somebody is killed, not necessarily on the street but perhaps by helping to arrest a criminal, the tariff specifies that his widow will receive £ 10,000, and that if that man is not killed but has the misfortune to lose two fingers he will also receive £ 10,000. I am happy to see that my noble friend on the Front Bench has all his fingers and I hope that he will continue to retain them, but I should like to ask him whether, if he lost two fingers of his left hand, he could not do the same job as he is doing now equally well? Of course he could. I accept that if one happened to be a concert pianist one could not. The loss of two fingers may cause great pain, great trauma and difficulty, and hospitalisation, but it does not impair a man's ability nearly as much as being killed. As a layman, it seems to me ludicrous to say that losing two fingers is the same as losing your life. No doubt many other examples can be given. I just give that simple one.
This leads me on to my third point, which has been referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and by others, about the question of the scheme being non-statutory. The noble and learned Lord gave many examples of when the Government had undertaken to make the scheme statutory. All noble Lords have referred to the 1988 Act. I remember well being told eight years ago that it would be made statutory. On 17th April 1986 I was responsible for raising the issue in a debate in the other place which was answered by the then Home Secretary, Mr. Douglas Hurd. It is quite clear in Hansard that he said that:
"we intend to put the criminal injuries compensation scheme on to a statutory basis".—[Official Report, Commons,17/4/86; col.1150.]
He spoke about introducing legislation next Session, which he did, but it is still a non-statutory scheme.
Many noble Lords have stated why they believe that that is a bad thing. I should like to put forward another reason. A non-statutory scheme, as this is, which relies solely upon the prerogative means that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland can alter it whenever they like without the smallest reference to Parliament.
It is true that Parliament votes the money. That is the only control that Parliament has. And it is quite a lot of money—£ 150 million or £ 160 million per year. The only control that Parliament has is over that money. How is that control exercised? It is exercised merely because the estimate for it is presented to the other place.
I am sure that we all know how that works. Estimates are presented. What can the other place do about those estimates? They can only reduce them by a token or total amount. It cannot say, "We do not like this scheme; we shall not go along with it; and you cannot do it". It can merely say that it does not like the scheme and that the Government must spend less on it.
1092
That is no form of parliamentary control that I can see. If Parliament means anything—and it does and we all know that it does—it should have the right to say to a Minister who proposes to make radical changes to an operation which costs the taxpayer £ 160 million per year,"We do not like this proposal. You must take it away and think about it again". No Member of either House of Parliament has that right, and I cannot believe that is right.
I shall not enter into the discussion about the legality of what the Government are doing because that has been raised already and it may be challenged in the courts. I believe that from a parliamentary point of view, it is high time that the scheme were placed on a statutory footing. I must tell my noble and learned friend that I am dismayed that in the White Paper it merely says that the Government will think about it. I hope that they will think long and hard about it and make the scheme statutory.
10.13 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, I am a lay person and I hope that my contribution will be welcomed in the debate. I do not speak as a lawyer. I speak as someone who has seen the great benefits which the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board scheme has provided for people who would have no other form of redress to compensate them for the injuries that they had received.
I am in good company because not one noble and learned Lord has spoken in favour of the proposal and therefore I am encouraged to continue with my contribution. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for initiating the debate. It is an extremely important subject and many people outside the House will be grateful to him for providing us with the opportunity to discuss the matter.
I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, on his maiden speech. He has shown care, compassion and understanding. His contribution was extremely welcome and I was very interested by it.
In November 1991, in a Written Answer in another place, the then Home Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, said that the Government were anxious to improve services to all victims of crime. He said that a structure was needed which would provide quicker payments and which was fair, straightforward and easy to understand. I suggest that the proposals now before us have none of those virtues. There are fundamental changes across the board. I can only come to one conclusion; namely, that it is really about saving money. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, confirmed that point in respect of the work that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board has been able to do.
In 1992, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board dealt with 252 awards for fatal injuries,25 of which were over £ 10,000. By taking the median, the Government are now arguing that most people will not be worse off with the new tariff of £ 10,000. I suggest that that introduction will deprive a small group of people who are in real need.
I do not want to deal with supposition: let us deal with the facts. I looked at the 1992 report of the CICB.

1093
As a lay person, I am obviously interested in the compensation that was paid. However, I am also interested in the personal circumstances surrounding the particular claims that were lodged with the board. I was concerned to read, for example, about a man who was working as a doorman. He was a married man with two sons. While at work he noticed that an argument was going on in the car park of a public house. He went to help and, in the process of so doing, a car reversed at high speed and he was killed. The award was £ 121,000. Under the proposed tariff it would be £ 10,000.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, mentioned the story of a young woman in her thirties. I should like to read from the report which sets out the details surrounding that case. I believe that it really goes to the heart of the impact on families and children in such circumstances. The young woman, who had two children aged six and four, had gone to bed with her husband. Some time later, there was a knock on the front door. The husband went downstairs to answer. The young woman heard a commotion, got out of bed and went to investigate. She says that she did not see who stabbed her husband but that she did see him struggling with the assailant at the bottom of the stairs. The young woman went to help her husband and was injured as a result. She dragged her husband inside the house and vividly recalls—and, indeed, will recall to the end of her days—the assailant still staring in from the garden path until she closed the door on him.
The young woman telephoned for an ambulance and remained with her husband until it arrived. The two young children were still upstairs in bed unaware of what was happening. She tried to stop the blood flow but her husband was pronounced dead at home. The unknown assailant remained undetected. Understandably, that young wife suffered from post-traumatic disorder of a deep intensity. Moreover, at the same time as trying to rebuild the lives of her two young children, she was awarded £ 137,000 under the scheme. Under the proposed tariff, the young woman would have received £ 10,000 for the death of her husband, and £ 7,000 in respect of her own injuries.
That is what the new tariff will do to families faced with such a situation. It is a cruel decision. I ask the Minister to reconsider what the Government are doing. I cannot believe that it is the Government's intention that families in such a vulnerable position should be faced with that kind of financial hardship.
Regrettably, many people are subjected to criminal assault in the course of their work. The TUC and many unions, especially in the public sector, are concerned about the matter, as, indeed, was the Health and Safety Commission in 1987 when the health service advisory committee examined the issue of violence to employees in the health service. The committee produced a most remarkable figure. It found that 11.5 per cent. of staff in the health service in any one year sustain physical injury because of assault.
The single group most at risk among health service workers are student nurses. In any one year the Royal College of Nursing represents 160 of its members in criminal injuries cases. For example, a psychiatric nurse in Manchester sustained a 15 per cent. Permanent
1094
disability for life as a result of an attack. Her award was £ 127,000. She would receive £ 5,000 under the tariff system. The tariff system puts victims into predetermined bands which take no account of their individual circumstances or individual identities. It is a heartless, cruel proposal that we are faced with. It also abandons the principle of taking into account potential loss of earnings.
The Government say that the intention of the new system is to remove inconsistencies. However, I would suggest it attempts that in a rather bizarre way. Facial scarring has already been mentioned. Some £ 3,500 is awarded for a significant disfigurement whether the victim is a young girl of 17 years of age looking forward to her life ahead or a pensioner in his sixties. A victim receives the same compensation whether his left or right hand is injured and yet the Judicial Studies Board and the courts have recognised that there is a difference between injuring one's right or one's left hand.
Another factor which has not been taken into account is the trauma that flows from rape or child sex abuse cases. A child of 12 in Nottingham was subjected to a vicious sexual assault—I take the case from the report of the criminal injuries board—by her uncle which included penetration with a walking stick. The present scheme provided £ 5,000 compensation. Many may feel that that is not sufficient. However, under the new tariff, the victim of an injury would receive an award of £ 1,000.
A woman of 25 was raped and subjected to a vicious sexual attack for over 12 hours by the lodger in her own home. Her six year-old son witnessed part of the attack. She received £ 42,500 under the present scheme. The woman needed two operations and long psychiatric treatment after the attack. Under the proposed tariff—which will operate from April unless the Government recognise they have made a mistake and change their mind—she would receive £ 1,000.
These are not pleasant stories. But we must face up to the real-life situations behind the statistics. We must also face up to the real impact of the proposed changes. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is all too often the only avenue of support for victims. I cannot believe that the Government really want people to suffer in this manner. I cannot believe that this miserly, heartless route is the one down which the Government, or anyone in a civilised society, wish to proceed.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is against the proposals as are trade unions. I hope that the Government are not so dogmatic as not to listen to the view of the trade unions on this matter. Why is there such a rush? If the Government are determined to introduce a tariff, why not consult people on it? No consultation has taken place. Why do the Government not recognise that people are different and that their circumstances are different? Why do the Government not recognise that people's injuries are different? Victims' loss of earnings must be taken into account:, as must the effect of their injuries on their lives. 'The present scheme is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but it is streets ahead of what is being

1095
proposed. The proposed scheme will have a deeply punitive effect on people who have no other avenue through which to seek help.
10.24 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that at least one lawyer gains a great deal of pleasure from hearing non-lawyers speak on this matter. It appeared from what a Home Office Minister said on the radio last week that the Government are not paying any attention to complaints about the new system because only lawyers have complained about it. It would be unfortunate if only lawyers complained about it.
It is unfortunate that the present members of the board were not consulted. It is unfortunate that the Faculty of Advocates, of whom the noble and learned Lord the Minister who is to reply and I are both members, wrote on 9th July of last year to both the Minister's right honourable friends the Secretaries of State raising the European Convention on Victims of Crime and the European Convention on Human Rights and has yet to receive a reply. The Faculty of Advocates is, of course, a legal organisation. I shall be interested to hear the reply now.
The main difficulty with the new tariff scheme is the total unfairness of the approach. Loss of earnings is not a feature in many claims. There are retired people, housewives, students and the unemployed. There is also a large number of employed people who receive payment when they are off work, whether as a result of a crime of violence or for any other reason. Civil servants and judges are two categories of people who are in that position. However, a great many self-employed people and others are not paid when they are off work. It is of considerable importance to them. Why should I as a judge, breaking an ankle in a crime of violence, receive exactly the same as a man who is off work for three months and receives no earnings during that period? Are our losses exactly the same? That is the effect of the tariff.
To quote paragraph 12 of the White Paper, the tariff,
"means that people with similar injuries will get the same payment, which is by no means the case under the present system where people … get radically different awards for similar injuries".
That is the whole basis of compensation in the civil courts. We compensate for the actual injury that the person has sustained. Do the Government say that the whole system of civil damages is wrong? If so, are we to discard the Pearson Report and everything else?
I was a member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and so in a sense have an interest. I also took part in the debate on what became the 1988 Act. I played a considerable part trying to represent the board. It is discouraging to see that just thrown aside. However, that discouragement could be accepted if this were a better scheme.
Last month I made an award to a steel erector of 50 who will never work again. His damages for loss of earnings, present and future, were £ 147,000 out of a total award of £ 187,000. That same injury could easily
1096
have been sustained in a crime of violence, in which case under the tariff he would receive £ 20,000. Do the Government really consider that that would be fair?
Do the Government really consider that paragraph 25 of the White Paper dealing with fatal injuries is reasonable, just and fair? It states that,
"the new tariff award in fatal cases will, like other awards under the tariff scheme, leave most claimants no worse off than before. Indeed, in fatal cases, most claimants will be rather better off".
One could congratulate the writers of that paragraph for their supreme complacency.
If a police officer of 30 with two children and a wife is killed he will receive £ 10,000. I once prosecuted a drunk driver for killing a policeman who happened to have two children. There is no difficulty in such a case because the motor insurance will take the case. But if that man was killed by stabbing, as was a police officer recently, his widow and children will receive £ 10,000. The Government may say,"Of course the police give pensions to people." What happens if the man is a self-employed plumber who happens to be lending a hand? The sum is still £ 10,000, no matter how many children or however difficult the wife's position.
How does that position square with the European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes? Article 4 states:
"Compensation shall cover…. funeral expenses, and, as regards dependants, loss of maintenance".
With regard to the tariff system, that compensation goes completely.
I had planned to say much that has already been said. Sir John Palmer has been mentioned. I vividly remember him having to make an assessment on scarring on a young lady who was a photographic model and who appeared on occasions on page 3 of certain newspapers. To say that her loss through receiving a scar on the chest was the same as my loss through a scar on the chest is the most absurd piece of nonsense. It is difficult to understand the basis of that argument.
Some years ago the Government introduced a scheme whereby in a certain area everyone, no matter what his means, was to pay the same amount. That scheme became rather unpopularly known as the poll tax. This scheme in effect is a mirror image of that system. The Government are saying that everyone who suffers a broken ankle is to receive the same damages; everyone who suffers an injury to the hand is to receive the same damages, whatever his personal circumstances. There is nothing more blatantly unfair.
10.32 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, in making a contribution to the debate, perhaps I may declare an interest as a serving member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. We are all deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this vital issue which affects the whole community.
I do not believe that it would be wrong for me to say in the context of this debate that so far the Government, in the shape of the Minister, have received a severe mugging, including a judicial mugging. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the tariff to compensate him for that

1097
other than to take up the offer of my noble friend Lord Mishcon and to reconsider this piece of nonsense in the light of what has been said in your Lordships' House.
It is not only the lawyers who object to this iniquitous scheme. I have a letter from the Law Society of Scotland which has taken a stand against it. The letter states that the society has also had indications of support from the Faculty of Advocates—you may say that that is another bunch of lawyers—and ENABLE, which is the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped, and the premier Cornrnunity Law Centre in Glasgow known as the Legal Services Agency. A number of other bodies had indicated support but the writer did not know whether they wished to be named at this stage. Several speakers still have to make a contribution to the debate. There would be moderate surprise if more than one of those speakers supported the Government.
If there is to be a scheme, then it is the essence of justice and fairness that each applicant's application is considered subjectively and assessed on a fair and equitable basis to reflect, first, the wrong done to the individual and the consequences, financial and otherwise, flowing from that wrongdoing. It is correct to say, as has been said in the past, that the state has no legal obligation towards victims of crime. For that reason the scheme is an ex gratia one. But there is a moral duty; and as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, mentioned, the state has a duty towards the citizen to whom wrong is done.
The debate has demonstrated one important matter. The reality of life is that citizens innocent of any misdemeanour or crimes against the state and those who are at the forefront of fighting on society's behalf, the frontline soldiers of the community, will be denied justice from the community in whose name they serve and whom they serve with magnificent courage and resolution in many spheres. I speak of police officers who face danger daily and suffer the consequences. I speak of firemen dealing with arson who sustain serious injuries. I speak of psychiatric nurses and many others who could be added to the list.
Those are specialised fields, but in the absence of a common law scheme under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, as the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, pointed out, those people have no recourse to any other place from which to obtain compensation. Perhaps I may read one sentence from a letter received from the Royal College of Nursing which states:
"A fixed tariff and an expression of sympathy is an inadequate response to the nurses who are injured while caring for others".
Under the tariff scheme, who is to pay the policeman and those people in the examples I gave who suffer serious and permanently disabling injury in the course of duty? Who is to pay the young nurse whose career is brought to an abrupt end in perhaps her early twenties, dealing with a psychiatrically disturbed patient? It is in the nature of the work that those people carry out, in dangerous circumstances on behalf of the state, that they will be disabled to one extent or another and on occasions be rendered completely unfit to work. Under the tariff scheme proposed by the Government, the door of compensation will be firmly closed in their faces without one word of sympathy from the state on behalf
1098
of the community. That action may well be a deterrent in itself to such people carrying out duties efficiently on behalf of the community, although I am sure that they will all continue to do their best.
What of the private citizen? Time and time again over the past few years, private citizens have been exhorted by the Government, in the name of law and order, to go to the assistance of the police. Where they see a police officer being attacked, go and help them; where they see trouble, go to the assistance of the officer. Who will help the person who, in carrying out his public duty and perhaps risking life and limb, sustains a serious injury which disables him for life? Who will pay under the tariff scheme? The answer is no one. The Government, through the scheme, will say: "Thank you very much for your courage and public-spirited actions. Sorry, you can't work any more. Goodbye and good luck". If that is justice, then it is a pretty poor example of justice as perceived under the scheme.
Clearly, as from 1st April 1994, any such minded citizen would be well advised to stay out of the fray. If lives are lost which could have been saved, and if police officers are injured whose injury could have been avoided, and if criminals evade capture, then the fault for that will lie solely at the door of the Government.
Serious questions have to be asked as to whether there is a philosophy behind the tariff. I give the Government the credit of being able to apply some form of philosophy; but what is it? In the search for a philosophy, we have a negative answer. As the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, said, the tariff scheme has been imposed without consultation; 40 senior members of the legal profession with probably 20 to 30 years of experience between them, with a vast reservoir of knowledge of the law on personal injury, were deliberately ignored by the Government who introduced the scheme out of the blue following the matters that have been discussed in relation to the criminal justice Bill.
The Government say they are a listening government. There is another aspect to listening, and that is hearing. If you listen with cloth ears, you hear nothing. This Government have unfortunately—I do not believe this is a party-political issue—demonstrated time and time again that they will not listen. When they are forced to listen, they change their mind. This House has forced an about-turn on various aspects of legislation recently. Even in Scotland new fees have been imposed on the sheriff courts without consultation. They took effect from 1st January this year. In at least one aspect they have been found to be defective, and people are now getting their money back. The scheme was wrong and badly thought out. One sheriff has challenged the whole basis of the scheme. That has all happened because Government will not take time to think.
If I am correct and that is so, then any reasonable person—lawyer or otherwise—is driven to the inevitable conclusion that the proposed tariff is the reflection of a heartless, Treasury-led exercise, paying little if any regard to fairness and equity and the public interest.

1099
The position of the lawyers in the administration of the board is neither here nor there. Lawyers will come and lawyers will go; they will find other spheres of activity in which to entertain themselves (if that is the correct word) or to occupy themselves. But what happens to the victim, to the person in the wheelchair who has not been adequately compensated by this scheme? He or she cannot find another field of activity. He or she can no longer take part in sports; play with the children; dig the garden and do all the things that ordinary people like to do to one degree or another. That person is imprisoned by the wrongful act of another citizen, perhaps while acting on behalf of the community. This scheme says: that is just too bad; you will just have to live with it and get on with your life.
It is important to bear one other factor in mind which I believe has already been touched upon; namely, that the injured person may be—indeed, is more than likely to be—the sole wage-earner in the family. What does this scheme give to that sole wage earner who is deprived of the dignity of work—the ability to work is a matter of dignity, and people regard it as such—who is deprived of the ability to work, of an income and of the dignity of supporting his or her own family? In the absence of the wage loss being taken into account, it gives very little indeed. That has further implications for the community. The community has then to support the family. It is not only the victim who will hold a grievance. His family, also affected by the injury, would be entitled to hold a grievance against a society which had unfairly compensated a well-meaning individual acting without any wrong towards society. That is a sorry state of affairs.
Examples of unfairness have been given, and I do not intend to go over them, apart from perhaps mentioning two cases. One of them has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. I heard a case on the day when this scheme was announced of a labourer who had appealed against an award of £ 2,500. On the tariff he would have got £ 2,500. When he came before the hearing, it turned out that he had an inverted foot, which meant that he could not dig. He could not work on a building site or anywhere requiring manual work, which was his only skill. Manual work on a building is, in fact, a skill, although some people might not accept that. He could not work. Instead of getting £ 2,500, he got £ 70,000 to make up for his inability to work.
Another person who was very badly facially scarred and on whom the plastic surgeons had done a magnificent job, purely on a scarring basis, according to the tariff, might have received £ 6,500. It so happened that that person's occupation heavily involved confronting members of the public and public relations work, in which the person was unable to continue. A sum of over £ 100,000 was awarded. That is proper compensation from the state for those injuries which would never be seen within the tariff. There are various areas, touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, where the tariff scheme cannot work.
One other area that was not mentioned was that of multiple injuries. There is a sliding scale of adding 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. to the major injury, going
1100
through the various injuries. A figure is brought out which would never be awarded in the courts and which is well below the court's award. By some form of tortuous reasoning, the principles of fatal injury awards in England and Wales are applied to Scotland. I do not know anyone who was consulted in Scotland as to whether that reasoning is good or bad.
As has already been pointed out by the noble Baroness, there is the matter of sexual abuse. Do we have a Richter trauma scale for sexual abuse, compiled by what is known as the number-crunching of 20,000 files within the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board? The variety and degree of trauma in sexual abuse cases is unbelievable. It would do a lot of people a lot of good perhaps to sit in the court and listen to what people have to suffer at the hands of their abusers.
In the Scotsman —and for noble Lords who are not familiar with Scottish newspapers, the Scotsman is a Scottish newspaper—for Saturday 26th February 1994, under the headline "Criminal injuries pay plan may alter", the Home Affairs Correspondent writes:
"A Scottish Office spokeswoman said last night that although the changes would come in on 1 April, ministers remain open-minded".
That is nice to know, because up to now they have been closed-minded. The article goes on:
"The new scheme will take effect"—
I ask noble Lords to listen carefully. The item comes from the Scottish Office—
"because the Government has this power and has deemed it so".
What sort of democracy are we living in? The government have deemed it so and therefore it shall be, with no give or take one way or the other. The writer continues:
"but ministers are still listening and debating the detail of it. It is not too late to change the detail before 1 April should they wish to".
An interesting observation to make is that change of detail does not amount to change of principle. They can "futter" about as long as they like with the detail of the tariff without affecting the principle of restoring to injured persons the rights which they previously had under the common law.
The time has come for the Government to take this issue away and have another look at it. They have had plenty of advice so far in this debate, and no doubt they will receive more.
I close by referring to three passages which I believe apply today as equally as they did at the time they appeared. One is from the White Paper that has already been referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. In that paper, referring to a previous White Paper, it was said:
"The assumption that the claims of the victim are sufficiently satisfied if the offender is punished by society becomes less persuasive as society in its dealings with offenders increasingly emphasises the reformative aspects of punishment. Indeed in the public mind the interests of the offender may not infrequently seem to be placed before those of his victim. This is certainly not the correct emphasis".
The White Paper goes on to say at paragraph 8:
"Compensation will be paid ex gratia. The Government do not accept that the State is liable for injuries caused to people by the acts of others. The public does, however, feel a sense of responsibility for and sympathy with the innocent victim, and it is right that this feeling should find practical expression in the provision of compensation on behalf of the community".

1101
Finally, from the first report of the board, paragraph 15 concludes in these terms:
"But no-one who is called to deal with those cases in which a blameless victim his been seriously disabled, sometimes for life, or with those uses in which the elderly and infirm have suffered injury and shock, can fail to feel deeply what a worthwhile part is played in the full administration of justice by the power to award compensation".
Let us return to those principles and apply justice to this scheme.
10.50 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, perhaps I may—somewhat improbably in this debate—begin with a word in praise of the Government. I believe that Conservative governments have a conspicuously good record in the field of criminal injuries compensation. Following, I am glad to say, hard on the heels of a Justice report, it was a Conservative government which introduced the scheme in 1964. It was the first such scheme to be introduced in Europe. It was a Conservative government which decided that the scheme should be put on a statutory basis in the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The scheme is currently as generous as exists anywhere, except possibly in the United States. That, I am sure, is regarded by everyone in your Lordships' House as an admirable record which we would wish to acknowledge.
I also applaud the action of the Government at any time in looking closely at the management of the scheme to see that it gives value for money. Some suggest that the proposal is mere cost-cutting; that it is, in that dreaded phrase,"Treasury led", as though that automatically proved that it was suspect. I am not sure that that is necessarily right.
The eternal complaints against the law are uncertainty, cost and delay. I believe that our formal legal processes are still far too cumbersome and still far too expensive. So I welcome any sensible attempts to introduce a cost-benefit approach to the delivery of justice. But it remains vital to the credibility of justice that the result should be fair and should carry respect. For me, the current proposals fail that test miserably.
well recognise, as did the distinguished chairman of the scheme, that there have been criticisms of the existing scheme. A backlog of cases did build up. And there have been complaints—let us acknowledge them—notably from Victim Support, that the basis of awards is difficult to understand and that the amount awarded is sometimes seen to be unpredictable. Clearly it is important that those complaints should be carefully weighed. We would all agree with the statement in the White Paper that the operation of the scheme should be reasonably speedy and straightforward.
But those concerns would sensibly have led to an improvement and an enhancement of the existing scheme, rather than the radical change which is now contemplated. For I believe, as the White Paper itself acknowledges, that over the years the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board has served a most useful function in dealing with an ever increasing number of claims. As has been said tonight, the board deals with 80 per cent. of cases within nine months of receipt, and the main cause of any further delay is a need to obtain reports
1102
from police and medical authorities. But, as has again been said tonight, all that will be needed under the new scheme. I believe that the scheme, as at present constituted, on the whole meets the criteria of speed and simplicity in so far as it is able to do so and will still do justice.
Perhaps I may also voice a real anxiety about the way in which the reforms are being introduced. Prior to 1988, the scheme existed on an ex gratia basis. No doubt spurred on by the concerns of such as my noble friend Lord Colnbrook—that it was right to make the scheme statutory—the Government therefore did so in the plainest possible terms by Section 108 of the Criminal Justice Act. That Act made absolutely plain that the general principles which had governed the amount of an award should be the same as those which apply in the courts; that they should be the same as those which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, described as the common law basis of damages. Those enable, as we all know, account to be taken of individual circumstances, including loss of earnings. I refer, as did the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, to Section 111 and to Schedule 7, paragraph 8. It is as plain as a pikestaff what Parliament had in mind. It was a very clear endorsement, at the instigation of the Government, of the principles on which this scheme had operated for almost 25 years.
There had been ample experience of the scheme; it was endorsed and Parliament exercised its sovereignty. But what has happened? Because of the absence of statutory procedural rules, the legislative scheme has never been put into effect. It is to be left dangling. unloved, unused and ignored, on the statute book. The Government now propose to ignore what would seem to me to be their clear statutory obligation to bring the scheme into effect. They also propose to depart, again without the consent of Parliament, from the ordinary principles of common law of assessing damages which, as I read the 1988 Act, Parliament expressly enjoined the board to follow. Yet on the radio last week, Mr. David Maclean, the Minister of State at the Home Office, made much of the fact that the scheme he is proposing is a non-statutory one, and that there were no proposals to put it on a statutory basis. Given that we have a statutory scheme, that does not seem to me something of which a Minister ought to be proud.
This departure, without the consent of Parliament, from a scheme enacted by Parliament seems, to put it mildly, surprising. I suspected before the debate that the Government would, if sued by a litigant who could afford to bring proceedings—let us bear in mind the cost—be liable to an action for mandamus requiring them to bring the statutory scheme into effect. But my suspicions have hardened because they have been reinforced by the judgment in this Chamber of at least one distinguished Law Lord. It is always comforting to have a Law Lord on one's side before one has to argue the case.
I thought it right to give my noble and learned friend the Minister notice of my doubts on these constitutional issues so that he could provide the House with the views of the Law Officers as to the legal validity of the present proposal, and I asked whether he would do so. I ask him tonight: have the Government sought their advice; and,

1103
if so, will he allay my concerns and those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, by placing their advice, with of course their consent, before the House?
Many of your Lordships have spoken of the inadequacy of assessing damages for injuries suffered through crime under a tariff scheme. As I understand it, the reason that the Government propose to introduce a tariff is that it will bring greater simplicity to the assessment of damages. But what is the price of simplicity? The price is that it will ignore some of the fundamental considerations which ought to be taken into account in determining fair compensation. Some people will get more than under the existing scheme. That is not necessarily fair. But what is much more unfair is that those who lose most from their injury will lose most from the new scheme. That is at the heart of the concerns that have been expressed tonight and it is that which if implemented would bring the scheme into disrespect.
Feeling as strongly as I did about the mistake, I searched the White Paper very hard to see what one could find by way of justification for this approach. Paragraph 10 of the White Paper rightly says that the assessment of damages cannot be an exact science. But it goes on to say that under the common law:
"the assessment is essentially subjective rather than objective".
I believe that this is a fallacy which lies at the heart of the present proposals. Obviously the assessment of compensation involves judgment, but that judgment, to be a judgment, must seek to take into account all the circumstances of the case. That is what true objectivity and true individual justice—and we are still a society that dispenses individual justice—are all about.
Many of your Lordships have given examples of the wholly unsatisfactory way in which the new scheme would operate. I take just two to illustrate my point. First, the loss of the sight of one eye is valued in the same way whether the victim is a girl of eight or an elderly person of 90. Yet the difference in deprivation over a lifetime will be great. This difference in age is not a matter of so-called subjective assessment; it is straight, hard fact.
Secondly, a 30 year-old pilot, firefighter or manual worker may suffer the same injury as a 70 year-old pensioner but additionally suffer disastrous financial consequences for himself and his family. That loss will not be taken into account. Yet surely those facts, too, are hard, objective facts. They are not subjective at all.
It would have been easy to say much more in this vein. The White Paper appears to believe that justice does not require compensation to be matched to individual circumstances. In saying that, it is rejecting totally the approach developed by the courts for damages for negligence throughout this century. It is ignoring the effects of crime on its victims.
Perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend the Minister some more questions. In one sense I apologise because he has been set a stiff examination paper tonight. Do the Government believe that looking at individual circumstances is less fair than a tariff system? Do they consider that a tariff system, even if buttressed by social security, fairly takes account of the
1104
losses sustained by individuals? And are not those worst hit by their injury going to be the biggest losers? If they are, how can that be a fair acknowledgment by society of the damage suffered by individuals?
Most of the speakers in the debate are lawyers, but I am glad to say that we are buttressed by the good sense of non-lawyers. In the broadcast last week, to which I referred earlier, Mr. David Maclean appeared to suggest that many of the anxieties voiced were being expressed by lawyers and, of course, it was lawyers who stood to lose income by the change. That is an argument, I believe, of some desperation. I wonder on what basis Mr. Maclean would brush aside the anxieties of the nurses which have been expressed to all of us. In responding, I ask my noble and learned friend firmly to disclaim that eccentric argument and to acknowledge that the views of lawyers who have practised in this field have some weight as well as the views of non-lawyers.
I began by praising the Government. I hope that they will be willing to listen. I hope that this debate will give them the chance to think again. I also hope that they will reflect on the fact that Parliament has enacted a statutory scheme which requires that compensation should be assessed by taking account of individual circumstances on a now well-recognised basis.
I conclude as I began. I am proud that the Government I support have a good record, until this day, in this area. I hope that we shall be able to say that after All Fools' Day they will continue to have a good record.
11.4 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I feel abashed in such company although a good and encouraging word has been said about the good sense of non-lawyers. Beside me sits one eminent lawyer and another has just spoken. I believe that they have collaborated very fruitfully in the past. We have all this eminent legal wisdom.
I speak from a slightly different angle, and I am not the only non-lawyer to speak. People often come up to me and say,"You seem very sweet on criminals. What have you done for the victims?" I feel entitled to reply,"I reckon that I have done a lot more than you have", and I am very seldom wrong, if ever.
The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, mentioned with great pride the achievements of the Conservative government in 1964 and said that they were responding to the findings of the committee of Justice. Perhaps it escaped his notice that I was the chairman of that committee and was then, as now, a Labour Member. Soon after that, I introduced the first debate on victims to be held in my time as a Member of your Lordships' House. When the then Lord Chancellor introduced that measure, he acknowledged the influence of the committee of Justice, over which I presided, so I am afraid that I am not going to give the Conservative government a monopoly on glory because of the production of the 1964 measures.
Later, in 1978, I formed a committee; and in 1979 I introduced a Bill into this House. I do not know how many of the eminent people around me have introduced a Bill into this House. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has been a supporter of mine from the early days of the

1105
work of that committee and in connection with that Bill. The Bill was not taken over by the Conservative Party. I withdrew it on the perhaps optimistic assumption that the Government would do something quite big for victims. I should say in passing that that committee and the Bill owe a great deal to the work of the Matthew Trust which has been so very helpful to victims over so many years. Well, years have passed and something has been done for victims but no one would seriously think that it is anything like enough.
Soon after the most recent Conservative Party conference, the impression was gained—I think correctly—that the Government were anxious to do less for criminals and more for victims. It was rather a crude antithesis if that is what was in their minds. If one thinks the matter out at all carefully, one realises that better treatment of prisoners and ex-prisoners would reduce crime and would therefore be in the long-term interests of victims.
However, leaving that aside, the Government took it on themselves to do more for victims—or at least gave the widespread impression that they were going to do more for victims. What have they done? Does anyone, not just in this House but in the country, seriously argue that victims will get an improved deal as a result of the
1106
new arrangements? No one in their senses would say that. A few people might say that the position is unclear and it is possible that things might work out better than we think. But, on the face of it, victims are damaged and what appeared to be a pledge to do something for victims has been betrayed in the recent proposals.
I shall not go on at this time of night. Like others, I have tremendous confidence in Victim Support, a society which devotes itself to the interests of victims. I rely considerably on people such as Mary Tuck, the chairman; Helen Reeve, the director; arid Martin Wright, the policy director. I have received their guidance and I hope that they will not think that I am letting them down or going beyond the brief that they have offered me if I say that their cautious approach, not very statesmanlike, does not, in the light of this debate, take us far enough forward. They are of course bound to be vigorously critical of the proposals, as many of your Lordships will know, but they expressed the hope that I would call on the Government to pause to give time for consultation and reflection before the proposals are brought into operation. In the light of this debate, I hope that they will allow me to go much further than that and to back up all those who have called on the Government to take away this wretched thing and forget all about it.
11.9 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I shall not prolong the debate for more than a few moments because, inevitably, what I say is bound to be repetitive. I feel bound to say that I believe that the White Paper is a misguided attempt to circumvent the will of Parliament. The facts are brief and speak for themselves. A non-statutory scheme was introduced in 1964. It was a term of that scheme that compensation for the victims of criminal violence should be based on the loss and damage suffered. Twenty years later the Government rightly decided that the scheme should be statutory, so the 1988 Act was passed to place the scheme on a proper statutory basis. That Act specifically directed that compensation should continue to be paid on the basis of the loss and damage suffered by the victim. As the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, has said, that is spelt out in clear terms in paragraph 8 of Schedule 7.
Now the Government refuse to bring the statutory scheme into operation. They state that they intend to recast the non-statutory scheme on a basis other than that of the loss and damage suffered by the victim. Is that not a case of the Executive defying the will of Parliament? Is it not the proper course for the Government to introduce a Bill which contains the new tariff-based scheme, if that is what the Government want; a Bill which both Houses of Parliament can debate and amend if desired and, if thought fit, enact in the usual way? Or is the Executive to be allowed to take over the functions of Parliament? As has already been said, there are some £ 150 million at stake. The application of that amount of money should surely be controlled by an Act of Parliament and not by a White Paper.
I am sure that most of us here are extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for introducing this debate. There is just one matter which I wish to add in conclusion. I have been asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, to apologise for the fact that he has had to leave the debate before the end because he has to carry out his duties north of the Border.
11.12 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, it is becoming a regular feature of your Lordships' debates that the Government fail to attract one single supporter from any section of the House on very important issues. That was so on the Bill to privatise the railways on the question of the railway workers' pension scheme and the ability of British Rail to bid for the franchise. It happened on the education Bill in relation to student unions and the control over universities, and again only recently on the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill.
One would think that the Government would learn from that, but they come back like punch-drunk boxers asking for more. The unfortunate Minister who has been put up tonight to accept, as my noble friend Lord Macaulay said, the legal mugging has the sorry task of replying to a debate in which the Government's
1108
proposals have been absolutely taken apart. I cannot imagine for a moment what kind of brief the Minister has been given to enable him to respond to the debate.
I do not bring with me any legal qualifications for speaking in the debate. However, I bring 32 years' experience of helping public sector workers. I declare an interest in that I have retained both an interest in and my membership of the Union of Communication Workers. I should like to speak briefly on its behalf tonight and to express its fears. I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lady Dean raise the question of nurses. My noble friend Lord Macaulay and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, in an admirable maiden speech, raised the question of police officers.
I wish to refer to one more sector of public service workers; namely, postal workers. Over the past three years the Union of Communication Workers has sent 1,200 to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for its consideration; namely, postmen, postwomen and counter clerks. In the previous three years the number was much smaller. The fact that 1,200 cases have been sent over the past three year is an indication of the increasing violence that society in this country has to tolerate.
My union is deeply concerned about the proposed tariff scheme to be introduced on 1st April. Examples have been given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who I thank for initiating the debate this evening. I should like to cite three examples from the casework of the Union of Communication Workers, which has a specialist department—the legal and medical department—dealing with those matters.
In Sheffield recently there was the tragic case of a postman aged 52 years, David Hinds. He was going about his duty in one of the Sheffield suburbs, clearing mail from a postbox. He was attacked viciously by a violent thug, beaten unconscious and then, it is suspected, was run over by his own postal van. Tragically, the culprit who committed that heinous crime has not yet been apprehended. That man had provided 31 excellent years' service as a postman. The reward for the apprehension of the person who committed the crime was £ 50,000 made up of £ 25,000 from the Post Office, doubled to £ 50,000 by the Daily Mirror. Both organisations are to be commended for their public-spiritedness in putting up such a reward. But the irony is that the reward for the apprehension and conviction of the criminal is three-and-a-half times the amount which the victim's widow will receive under the scheme which the Government propose to introduce on 1st April. That cannot be right. The reward is right but the tariff scheme cannot possibly stand up to that kind of examination.
A postman who was delivering valuable packages in the West Midlands was beaten so badly over the head with an iron bar some years ago that he is now receiving constant medical care and attention because of the serious injuries that he sustained. Under the old scheme that was taken into consideration and the award was made accordingly. Under the new scheme that constant care is not allowed for.
Here in London a counter clerk, a lady, had acid thrown in her face. Fortunately, she recovered from the

1109
injuries that she received as a result of that; but she did not recover from the scars on her mind. Again, that lady is in need of constant attention for a psychiatric problem. She is being taken care of under the existing scheme; but she would certainly not be under the tariff scheme which will be introduced on 1st April.
I could go on quoting case after case where the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board has considered and awarded on merit the requests that were made as a result of a case being referred. But that will not happen under the proposed new scheme. It may be a little ungenerous of me, but I cannot avoid the feeling that somewhere someone in the Treasury has the impression that anyone who receives £ 250,000 from the CICB has somehow or other won the pools. The money does not heal the sick and it does not cure the damaged mind, but it does help to make life a little more tolerable for the victims of violent crime.
I shall turn now to the parliamentary situation. It is outrageous. There can be no defence for what the Government are doing without parliamentary approval. A Minister rises at the Dispatch Box in another place and sets aside a scheme that has been in place, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, said, since 1964. There is no parliamentary order; indeed, we do not even have the opportunity to oppose an order under the negative resolution procedure.
As regards the request of my noble friend who spoke before me, the Government will not introduce legislation for the tariff because that would put it on a statutory basis. That is the very thing that the Government are seeking to avoid as Mr. Maclean said in his radio interview. As I said, there is no parliamentary procedure involved. The Minister merely rises at the Dispatch Box, sets aside a scheme that has been in place since 1964, and tells us that the tariffs will come into effect on 1st April.
In an attempt to be helpful to the Minister, my noble friend Lord Mishcon made a few suggestions. I shall follow his good example and try to be equally helpful to the Minister. My noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg made the point that the Criminal Justice Bill is before another place at present. On Monday of this week, the Government tabled 17 new clauses to that Bill. I suggest to the Minister that they should put forward one more new clause. If the Government are so sure of their ground and if they are so confident that they could command majority support in both Houses for the proposals, I ask the Minister to table a further new clause to the Criminal Justice Bill repealing the appropriate section of the 1988 Act. That would give both Houses the opportunity to debate, consider and decide the matter. In many ways, it would get the Government off the hook.
However, my view is that the Government know that they cannot command majority support for what they are doing and, therefore, they will not table a new clause. There will not be another legislative opportunity to repeal the appropriate section of the 1988 Act. They have the legislative opportunity at present through the Criminal Justice Bill. As my noble friend Lord Mishcon said, the Minister should throw away the brief that has been written for him. For goodness sake! I hope that he
1110
does not read it. He should just rise to his feet and tell us that the scheme will not be implemented until Parliament has decided to repeal the appropriate section of the 1988 Act. That is not long in the future; indeed, it could be done before we rise for the Summer Recess. It would not mean a long delay. It is a reasonable proposition.
The Minister has no grounds for refusing the proposition that I put to him. If the scheme is introduced on 1st April without any consultation—and there has been no consultation—not only will trade unions be up in arms about it, but people the length and breadth of the country who are the victims of crime in all its forms will oppose what the Government are doing. The Government will have neither the consent of Parliament nor that of the people.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: My Lords, I shall take up only one minute. I had not put down my name to speak in this debate because I had every confidence that those who had would make all the points that needed to be made, and that confidence was fully justified. I rise for one reason only and that is because, as far as I can see, I am the only lawyer in the House who has not uttered, and I am suddenly assailed by the hideous thought that my silence might be interpreted as dissent. Far from dissenting, I cordially agree with everything that has been said by other members of my profession.
I cannot understand how any member of the profession could fail to condemn the White Paper's theme. I find it incomprehensible that anyone, lawyer or layman alike, should think it fair and right that the victims of criminal violence should be substantially less generously compensated at the expense of the. taxpayer than the victims of civil torts are compensated at the expense of those who pay insurance premiums. There are two lawyers still to speak. I suspect that one of them will certainly be on my side and I wish I thought the other one was too.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, has started a bad habit, because how can I be left out now? I have followed the noble and learned Lord, as he knows, on many occasions and indeed regard my conscience as very much in his keeping. I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Lord says and I want the Minister to know that he has no friend in me. I ask him seriously to deal with the question which I put to my noble friend earlier as to whether the Government will get in deep legal waters on this matter. I hope he will also answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, about the advice of the Law Officers on a matter of this kind. I say that in no cynical spirit.
11.27 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I wonder whether the best service I can do for the House is to remain seated for as long as possible so that other noble Lords may also intervene. We are all greatly indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for having made possible this quite remarkable debate His Question tests not only the extent of the Government's commitment to the interests of the victims of violent

1111
crime but also the extent of the Government's commitment to the most cherished principles of our unwritten but still paramount constitution; namely, to parliamentary sovereignty and to the rule of law.
The Government did not intend that there should be any parliamentary debate before their proposals for replacing the existing scheme came into force. That was made quite clear in the reply of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to my Starred Question on 20th January. But for the initiative of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, there would have been no parliamentary debate about these controversial proposals to replace common law and statutory principles with a mechanical, unfairly discriminatory and devalued tariff system.
The debate has demonstrated deep anxiety and justifiable concern from all parts of the House, both as regards what the Government are doing and also about the manner in which they are seeking to do it. Statements of commanding authority have been made by eminent judicial members of the House. I wish to pay my own tribute to the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, who has spoken with such charm, clarity and persuasive force, reinforcing, in the non-contentious way customary for maiden speeches, the trenchant, quite devastating and unanswerable criticisms made by four Law Lords: the noble and learned Lords, Lord Ackner, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, Lord Brightman and Lord Bridge of Harwich, together with a distinguished member of the Court of Session, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and the devastating criticisms from the Labour Benches by the noble Lords, Lord Irving of Lairg and Lord Mishcon, the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lords, Lord Macaulay and Lord Ewing. Powerful and well-informed anxiety has also been voiced by the outstanding Chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and by loyal supporters of the Government, including the noble Lords, Lord Colnbrook and Lord Alexander of Weedon.
The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, speaks for justice—with a capital as well as a small "j". As the noble Lord reminded us, it was Justice whose all-party committee, chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, made pioneering proposals for a fair and workable scheme in 1963.
Given the lateness of the hour, I shall concentrate on the constitutional impropriety of what is proposed. I shall not repeat what has already been said about the manifest unfairness and injustice of what the Government intend for the greatest victims of violent crime. The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, called it a heartless and cruel approach.
Nor will I respond to the unworthy suggestion made on the radio last week by the Minister of State at the Home Office, Mr. David Maclean, that the strong tide of public opposition to the Government's proposals reflects the interests of the legal profession rather than the interests of the victims of violent crime.
Even when the scheme was first introduced 30 years ago real doubts were expressed in this House by Lord Gardiner, Baroness Wootton, Lord Parker of
1112
Waddington and Lord Silkin and in the other place by Sir Frank Soskice and Mr. Niall MacDermot about the constitutional propriety of acting under prerogative powers rather than seeking statutory authority. Those doubts were also the focus of a debate in this House in December 1983 initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, with powerful support from, among others, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
In her reply to that debate the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, very properly accepted on the Government's behalf that Parliament should have the opportunity to consider in detail and to approve in formal legislation the general composition, functions and procedures of a board in which was placed such trust and responsibility.
Five years later, as your Lordships have repeatedly emphasised, Parliament enacted a comprehensive scheme based on common law principles of compensation which have full regard to the particular circumstances of individual victims. It did so in the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The statutory provisions were described by the then Home Secretary, Mr. Hurd, as being designed to improve the circumstances of the victims of violent crime.
The enactment of those provisions in 1988 meant two things: first, that Parliament had at last removed the unique constitutional anomaly whereby many millions of pounds of public funds were being spent under prerogative powers without any parliamentary approval of the substance of the scheme itself; and, secondly, that what had for 24 years been a mere privilege or expectation of receiving compensation as some form of government bounty became a right to compensation—a matter of statutory entitlement, a right, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, indicated, which is inherent in belonging to a liberal society.
All that remained was for the Home Secretary to exercise his power, as Parliament clearly intended, to bring the relevant provisions of the 1988 Act into force by statutory instrument so as to translate them into enforceable statutory rights. That was surely the reasonable expectation created by the Government in asking Parliament to enact a statutory scheme. That was surely what Parliament expected would happen.
However, Parliament might just as well have written the statutory language in water; for what the present Home Secretary, like his predecessor Mr Kenneth Clarke, has decided to do is to flout the will of Parliament, to frustrate the purpose of the statute, and to act in breach of the legitimate expectations of victims of violent crime that they would continue to be compensated on the basis of the just principles of the common law.
Mr Howard has announced that he will never bring the statutory scheme into force but will ask Parliament to repeal the statutory provisions upon some future and as yet unspecified occasion. The Home Secretary has informed Parliament, via his White Paper rather than in person, that he will use his ministerial prerogative powers to introduce an entirely different scheme, no longer focused on the particular circumstances of the individual victim: a scheme which gives the victim no

1113
statutory right to compensation, and which can therefore be changed again at the pleasure of Ministers if the Treasury and the Home Secretary think fit.
If the Home Secretary has his way, Parliament will not he asked to approve these proposals, except, as the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, said in the formal and technical sense that parliamentary approval will be needed under the next Appropriation Act after the scheme has been brought into force on 1st April for expenditure meanwhile incurred under the new scheme. I am wholly unclear as to the basis upon which the Government intend to obtain proper parliamentary authority for expenditure incurred meanwhile under this wholly new scheme. I should be grateful if that were clarified in the noble and learned Lord's reply. Last year's Appropriation Act authorised expenditure under the existing scheme. But where, I wonder, is the legislative authority meanwhile for expenditure upon this new and entirely different scheme?
When Parliament has intervened and has provided by statute for powers previously within the prerogative to be exercised in a particular manner, and subject to the limitations and provisions contained in the statute, it is not self-evident that the Home Secretary can, merely at his pleasure, disregard the statute and fall back on the prerogative, without parliamentary authority, to introduce a wholly different scheme.
I therefore share the very great doubts expressed by so many of your Lordships, including four Law Lords and a member of the Scottish Court of Session, and the noble Lords, Lord Irvine and Lord Alexander, about the constitutional and legal propriety of what is here intended. By purporting to act under the prerogative the Home Secretary no doubt hopes to avoid or weaken the possibility of judicial review, contending that he is taking a decision which is not justiciable and that what he does is a political matter wholly for Parliament. Yet at the same time he refuses to obtain parliamentary approval for his abandonment of the 1988 scheme and for his abandonment of the common law principles in the existing ex graiia scheme.
The. Home Secretary thereby seeks to avoid both effective judicial review and effective parliamentary scrutiny. He seeks to do so even in the absence of war or of a state of public emergency which might justify such a major departure from the essential principles and conventions of the modern British constitution. As yet he has given no reason for acting under the prerogative, without seeking parliamentary authority, or without seeking to repeal the statutory scheme which he treats as stillborn.
There is a yet farther objection to what the Home Secretary proposes. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, have quoted from Article 4 of the European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes. I agree with them that Article 4 plainly requires the United Kingdom to provide compensation which covers,
"according to the case under consideration"—
that: is, according to the particular circumstances of the individual case—
1114
"at least … loss of earnings … and, as regards dependants, loss of maintenance".
Like the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, I do not understand how the tariff scheme, which merely reflects an element of loss of earnings based on the board's past award levels, can properly satisfy this treaty obligation which is binding upon the United Kingdom in international law.
Like several of your Lordships, I have therefore written to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, giving notice of my doubts on the constitutional and legal issues, so that he can provide the House with the views of the Law Officers on those matters. The specific questions in the examination which I have raised are these, and they are two: first, how is the Government's proposal to introduce a new scheme under the prerogative, without obtaining prior parliamentary approval, (a) consistent with the intention of Parliament in enacting the relevant provisions of the 1988 Act; (b) in accordance with the constitutional requirement of clear statutory authority for public expenditure; and (c) in accordance with the principle of parliamentary sovereignty or supremacy?
My second question is: how is the Government's proposal to introduce a compensation scheme not based on the individual circumstances of particular victims in accordance with the international obligations imposed on the United Kingdom when ratifying the European Convention?
I look forward to hearing the noble and learned Lord's response to these questions and to the many other questions raised by your Lordships. I am the sixteenth speaker in this debate. Not one of us has felt able to support the Government's intended course of action:. not even one. If parliamentary government and ministerial accountability mean anything, the Government should surely take note of their unsplendid isolation in this wise, fair-minded and independent-minded House. I hope that even at this very late hour the Government may think again, for the sake of the victims of crimes of violence and for the sake of the constitutional rights and liberties of us all. If not, then I submit that there will be a pressing need for Parliament to exercise its sovereign powers to prevent the serious misuse of ministerial powers—quite unprecedented in peacetime. Otherwise, in the memorable words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, the Executive will have taken over Parliament.
11.42 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for giving us this extended opportunity, as it has turned out to be, to debate the Government's plans for changing the system of compensating those who are injured as a result of violent crime. Perhaps I may join in paying my compliments to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, on his maiden speech. It was not only calm and learned; it was delivered with such forensic skill that his powerful contribution was heard without in any sense offending the conventions of the House in respect of such a speech.

1115
This is an area of considerable interest and concern, as has been evident from the many contributions made to the debate. That is as it should be, since we are talking about a matter which affects those who have the misfortune to become the innocent victims of crime. I hope, and I am sure, that all your Lordships share the Government's concern to safeguard the interests of such victims. That concern is manifested in many ways—by accepting all the Royal Commission's recommendations relating to victims; by introducing measures in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill which is currently before another place; by providing generous financial support to the national charity, Victim Support; and by supporting the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme itself.
We are not the richest country in the world and we are certainly not the most violent. Nevertheless, our current scheme pays out in compensation more than all European Union countries put together. It is indeed the most generous scheme anywhere in the world, as my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon pointed out. It is a scheme of which we can be proud.
It is also a scheme which was designed for a different time and which now needs to change to reflect current circumstances. When the scheme was introduced the number of applications with which it had to deal was very much less—something like 2,500 in the first full year. It dealt with about 66,000 applications in 1992– 93 and the number is likely to approach 70,000 in the current year,1993– 94.
Even looking back over a shorter period there has been a dramatic change. In 1987– 88—a year obviously of some significance in this context—the scheme made awards in about 21,000 cases. Five years later, by 1992– 93, there had been a 75 per cent. increase in the number of awards, coupled with a threefold increase in the amount of compensation paid.
And, of course, victims' expectations have changed. They want their awards to be paid quickly so that they can try to put the incident behind them and, in common with other members of society, they want—and are entitled to expect—systems to be both open and understandable. For all those reasons we believe that the current system needs to change. We believe that others share that view, including those within Victim Support, although there are many differences of opinion about significant details of the changes.
The new scheme will be simpler and easier for the victim to understand. A victim applying for compensation under the new scheme will know with some certainty what level of award he or she might receive. This is not the case at present when each case has to be considered in detail to arrive at a figure which attempts to reflect the special circumstances of the individual.
The new scheme will also be quicker. Despite the best efforts of my noble friend Lord Carlisle and his colleagues—I pay tribute to them for the greater efficiency that they have achieved in recent years—there remain inevitable delays that are built into the current system. Many cases still take over a year to resolve and some drag on for years. The very issue which has caused so much controversy, namely, the question of whether
1116
loss of earnings should be specifically allowed for, is one which accounts for considerable delay under the current scheme since detailed information is required from different sources and complex calculations have to be carried out. That will no longer be necessary.
Nor will it be necessary for medical reports to be as detailed as in the past. And it should be possible to speed up police reports. No reductions will be made to take account of benefits, thus removing the need for no fewer than 27,000 inquiries made annually to the Department of Social Security. All of this means that applications should be decided more quickly. Some noble Lords, like my noble friend Lord Colnbrook, may question whether this speeding up will actually happen. All that I can say is that we believe that it will; and in order to help ensure that it does, we shall be setting the new authority some demanding targets, which will of course be made public.
There will also be a new system for reviewing decisions. Unlike the current system, under which the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is seen to act as both judge and jury, there will be a separate appeals panel, which is to be chaired by Mr. Michael Lewer QC, a respected member of the existing board who will bring much valuable experience with him. To the noble Lord, Lord Nolan, who asked whether others from that board might join him, I would say that that is very much in contemplation. There will therefore be a wholly independent system of appeal and one that will be seen to be so.
Although the basis of the scheme is being changed, the rules of eligibility will be broadly the same as at present, so that anyone who currently qualifies for an award will be likely to do so under the new scheme. Indeed, the rules of eligibility are being relaxed in one or two respects.
Finally but very importantly in this matter, we estimate that the majority of applicants will receive as much or more under the new scheme as they would have done under the existing one. Current estimates suggest that about 54 per cent. of applicants will be in that position. That will be achieved while at the same time making future costs more predictable and producing some cost savings in the longer term. Bearing in mind the spiralling costs in the past, some action is needed. Once the changeover to the new scheme has been completed, expenditure on compensation will continue to rise, but not at the same rate as might have been expected under the current scheme.
By the end of the decade we expect to be spending something in the region of a quarter of a billion pounds annually under the new scheme. Without the change, the annual total could be at least double that sum. Even then, ours will remain, as it is at present, the most generous scheme anywhere. It is only right that we should seek to provide a scheme which is fair to both victims and the taxpayers who fund it. I trust that those who wish to retain the status quo will have both the intellectual and political honesty to acknowledge that there are very significant costs involved, and if they wish to retain the status quo, their commitment to its funding will indeed be unequivocal.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, suggested, and in customary style argued

1117
vigorously, that such compensation might extend beyond personal injuries. Given the figures that I have already indicated, the cost would seem to me to be prohibitive.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow me to remind him that I expressly said that that could not be done now.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Indeed, that is what I was at the point of indicating. It would indeed be prohibitive.
It has been suggested that, by changing the scheme in the way now proposed, the Government are disregard-ing the wishes of Parliament, and indeed that the Government are acting improperly. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, with an unusual figure of speech for him, described what we were doing as an abuse of power. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, if I recollect correctly, indicated that it was a misguided attempt to circumvent the will of Parliament.
It is true that we have not brought into force the provisions affecting criminal injuries in the Criminal Justice Act 1988—because initially the Criminal Injuries Board specifically asked us not to do so—but we do not believe that, in failing to implement those provisions and in introducing a new scheme, the Government are in any way acting improperly.
When Parliament made provision for the existing scheme to be placed on a statutory basis, it placed no obligation on the Secretary of State as to when such a scheme should be implemented. We must all recognise that as time passes, so circumstances change. The figures that I have already given of the increase in cost and number of applications are there for all to see. That has certainly been the case. The fact that an unimplemented scheme remains on the statute book cannot and must not inhibit the Government from taking what they now believe to be the right course of action. The current scheme is an executive one. It can be, and has been in the past, amended by executive action.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, indicated that he considered that the Government would get their fingers burnt in the courts. I was interested to hear what a distinguished lawyer had to say of the matter and was interested to know whether what he said was a general proposition or one chat applied in this matter alone. I regret to say that I did not see, as did the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, four heads nodding in agreement with him. I wish that I had.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord allow me to ask a question? During the course of the debate several noble Lords raised the point that we had given notice of questions and asking that the Law Officers' opinion be placed before the House. The noble and learned Lord indicated that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, is a distinguished lawyer—as indeed he is—but it would be helpful to the whole House if one could have the opinion of the Law Officers as to the legal and constitutional propriety of what is proposed placed before us. Several noble Lords made the point that the circumventing of parliamentary
1118
authority seems to be unconstitutional and unlawful. It would be extremely helpful for the opinion of the Law Officers to be given to the House on that question.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as a former Law Officer I am well aware of the conventions that attach to their opinions. I am certainly not in a position either to confirm or deny having received such advice. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, appreciates, I certainly could not do that without their consent, and that I do not have.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, who has, as he said himself, been a senior Law Officer. Surely the opinion of law is frequently cited to Parliament. There is a famous example in relation to an amendment to the Maastricht Treaty, and there are many more recent examples.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord rose to his feet before I concluded what I was saying. I remember that incident well enough. I also remember an earlier occasion on which an opinion of a Law Officer was cited without his explicit approval, with rather drastic consequences.
What I say to the House is that we do not believe that we are acting improperly. We do not accept that anything has been done which breaches the law or that what we have done is inappropriate. Obviously, unless or until that is tested in the courts—if that is what some individual wishes to do—it cannot be a wholly definitive view.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow me to intervene, which I do with great reluctance on this matter. But it seems to me that this is a matter that concerns parliamentarians as well as lawyers. Does not the noble and learned Lord think it right that he should convey to the Law Officers the concern expressed in the House tonight? Can he secure from them release of their opinion?
It seems to me, if I may say so, with respect, that the Government may be plunging into uncharted waters on this matter. The House has the right, surely, to ask that the Minister convey that feeling to the Law Officer, and that Parliament be informed whether or not the Law Officer has given an opinion. If so, why cannot it be released? If there is a good reason why it cannot be released, then we shall understand. But it is an important constitutional issue in which those of us who are not lawyers are just as much concerned as those who are.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I shall certainly convey that view. But I must be clear, as I indicated earlier, that I neither confirm nor deny, as I think I am bound to, whether or not such an opinion has already been obtained. I was also interested to discover exactly what it is that your Lordships' House wishes to ascertain. As I am sure the noble Lord will know from his long experience, there are many statutes that have been passed in recent decades, whole parts of which have never suffered or received—
Lord Ackner: My Lords, it is not the non-passing of the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 of which one is complaining. There may be many reasons for delay in not carrying out Parliament's intention. We are concerned with repudiating Parliament's intention by saying,"We refuse to carry out Parliament's intention. We propose to go off on a frolic of our own without any parliamentary support". I should be very grateful if my noble and learned friend would address his attention to that part of the complaint; the refusal to carry out what is laid down in the 1988 Act and the assertion of an entitlement to do something different, deferring the accepted obligation, as set out in paragraph 38, some time to get the provisions revoked in Parliament.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I can only say at this time that the Government do not consider that anything they have done, or propose to do from 1st April, would be improper. However, I am most grateful once again to the noble and learned Lord for so clearly articulating the point that he considers ought to be addressed. I can only say to him though, as I have already said, that, whatever view might be expressed within government or indeed with the high authority of Law Officers, ultimately any definitive view on such a matter would have to be expressed in the courts. If I may say so, as it is now after the hour of midnight, perhaps I may carry on to my conclusion.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am bound to intervene once again, and it will be the last time. A number of us have, on paper, asked the noble and learned Lord, with good advance notice, to indicate how he justifies the Government's assertion that they are acting lawfully. All he has done is constantly to repeat that the Government take the view that they are acting lawfully. Our question was: would you tell us on what basis you justify that assertion? To that we have had no reply, and that is within the Unstarred Question.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord may think that it is an unsatisfactory answer. But I have indicated that the particular provision of the 1988 Act has not been commenced. The Government accordingly believe that the current scheme, which remains a scheme that does not have a statutory basis, is an executive one and can be thus amended by executive action, as indeed has been done in the past. If there are noble Lords, or indeed if there are individuals outwith the House, who believe that that proposition is an incorrect one, I can only say in repetition that the way to secure a definitive answer to the point is to take the matter before the courts. I do not really believe I can elaborate upon it any further.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, if my noble and learned friend is leaving this matter, he again reiterated the fact that he said that the request that the 1988 Act should not be implemented had come specifically from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Will he make it clear to the House that that was based on the fact that it was felt that to implement it at that particular moment of time would cause consider-able delays when we were facing an increasing backlog and had just taken on a number of new staff? Will he
1120
accept from me that it was never the intention of either of the parties—certainly not of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and, as far as I know, certainly not of the Government at that stage—that the scheme would not be implemented at the appropriate moment? In answer to the views of the Select Committee which said that they were satisfied that the scheme should not be put on a statutory basis at present, the Home Office said:
"The Government welcomes the Committee's agreement that the Scheme should not be put on a statutory footing for the time being".
Was not that intended to imply that at the appropriate moment it would in fact be put on a statutory basis by the commencement order being implemented?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, in first referring to the view of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, if I did not say originally that it was not implemented as a result of that request I am more than content to accept that the narrative that my noble friend has given to your Lordships explaining why it was that request was made and why, I believe, he gave evidence to the Select Committee, is indeed a correct one. I hope that there is no dubiety about that.
A further aspect of this matter relating to legal or constitutional issues was in relation to the European Convention which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and others, raised. We do not accept the argument that by breaking the link with common law damages and not including a separate element for loss of earnings, we are in effect producing an unfair scheme or one which contravenes the European Convention on the compensa-tion of victims of violent crime. I assure both him and the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, that we are sending full details of the new scheme to the Council of Europe, as we are required to do in discharge of our international obligations under that convention. We shall naturally take careful note of anything it has to say in reply.
In any event, we would argue that the tariff scheme, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, seemed to appreciate, incorporates an element for loss of earnings and other heads of damage currently payable, although these heads are no longer assessed separately. The tariff levels were set by reference to awards made in the recent past by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Those awards include loss of earnings so the tariff awards similarly include an element for loss of earnings although it may be an unquantified one.
As regards the criticism that many people will be worse off because of the change, that is not the case. We have left the lower limit for awards at £ 1,000. That was a figure which was set about two years ago. As I said, the rules of eligibility are broadly left untouched, so the same range of applicants remain eligible for awards.
We have set the upper limit at the very high level of £ 250,000 to cater for the most serious category of injury. Our estimate is this: about 70 per cent. of applicants will either gain or lose no more than £ 500. The simple fact is that most awards are for comparatively small amounts. In 1992– 93,74 per cent. of awards were under £ 3,000; 85 per cent. were under £ 5,000 and only 5 per cent. exceeded £ 10,000. Fortunately, the very serious incapacitating or life-changing injuries are rare indeed. In the past three

1121
years just 21 awards exceeded the upper limit of £ 250,000. Obviously, cases of this sort are very distressing and we all have immense sympathy for anyone unfortunate enough to have suffered such major injury.
But such people can look to other sources or to state help. They can and do receive generous and long-term help from the National Health Service and from the Department of Social Security, as indeed can anyone who has sustained a non-criminal injury or who is unfortunate enough to suffer some comparable misfortune.
It has also been suggested that a tariff scheme cannot take into account differing degrees of injury or cope adequately with certain types of injury such as shock, child abuse and sexual offences. When we looked at the results of the extensive sampling exercise which was undertaken—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, referred to it—involving about 20,000 people, the awards made by the board showed that these anxieties were, broadly, not borne out.
The sampling exercise showed clearly that the sorts of injuries mentioned could satisfactorily be categorised and slotted into a tariff scheme with an appropriate level of award. Different degrees of injury could be dealt with by gradations of award for appropriate injuries such as burns, scarring, broken limbs and shock. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Carlisle for appreciating that the tariff began as a result of the accumulated wisdom of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board itself.
It was implied that in some respects the award levels in the new scheme were incapable of assessing the seriousness which attached to particular injuries. I can fully understand that. People will have strong and sometimes conflicting views, particularly in relation to child abuse, about which injuries should attract the largest awards. Teat is why we did not attempt to impose our own views; instead we used a tariff system, based on the average awards recently made by the board. A number of examples were given, some of which included a degree of shock. Those who are concerned about the matter may care to look at the tariff which has been prepared where they will see that such a head is included.
We have, of course, considered the alternative approaches suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and others, such as the possibility of having a hybrid system which would apply a system on the retained basis of common law damages to the more serious cases but possibly dealing with minor cases on a tariff approach. Having looked at that and considered whether it would work, we concluded that it would not deliver the simpler and quicker service that we wish to achieve. Nor would it be a system that could be understood by victims. The crossover point would be almost impossible to detennine.
In this complicated field, I am confident that the new scheme is the right way forward. However, I would not wish to claim any monopoly of wisdom. There may well prove to be improvements which can be made in due course. We certainly undertake to monitor the new scheme carefully and to listen to the views of those experienced in the field. Indeed, my right honourable
1122
friend the Home Secretary will be meeting the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, shortly and will consider carefully any points that he may wish to make. We shall also be ready to consider any longer term developments. I have already indicated to the House that I shall pass on the views that have been expressed with regard to the legal[and constitutional propriety of what we did—
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I wonder whether he would be good enough to confirm that the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill which is now in the other place provides a legislative opportunity now for dealing with these matters. Will he explain why that opportunity is not being taken by the Government?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord seeks to open up the matter yet again. I have indicated that the provisions of the 1988 Act have not been commenced. They rest. I should have thought that what I said some minutes ago was quite clear. It will, of course, be open to the noble Lord, if he wishes, to take the opportunity to make an unequivocal commitment to the costing of the status quo when that Bill reaches your Lordships' House.
I trust that we can now draw this debate to a conclusion—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords—
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have given way at least 15 times and now, well after the hour of midnight, it seems to me that I have answered as much as I can, particularly when, as I said, I shall be passing on a number of matters to those involved in offering advice to the Government on these legal and constitutional matters.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, and despite his charm, perhaps I may briefly raise one matter before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, raises a point.
I am sorry to return to the charge, but I should like to raise a point about the advice of the law officers on which I am puzzled and would be grateful for my noble and learned friend's further help. He has told us that he can neither confirm nor deny that the advice of the Law Officers has been taken. That does not tell us very much. I wrote to him on 16th February asking if he would help us tonight and I ended by saying
"preferably with the benefit of the advice of the Law Officers".
I should like to ask two questions. First, in the light of that letter, did he ask for the advice of the Law Officers? Secondly, did he ask for the consent of the Law Officers to disclose that advice to the House?
I apologise to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for jumping in ahead of him.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, can do no more than return to what I have said and, at the risk of repeating myself, indicate where the Government stand. The noble Lord asked me to indicate whether or not the Law Officers' advice has been obtained. I have indicated that I neither confirm nor deny that. That must be where I rest on this.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord a question which I think has not been answered. Can he explain exactly why the new scheme is to be introduced by a White Paper and not by an Act of Parliament drafted with appropriate flexibility?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I invite the noble and learned Lord to read what I have said. I may not have said it very eloquently or elegantly but I have indeed repeatedly attempted to answer that question by saying that it is an executive scheme. It has been modified in the past by executive action, and that is what is proposed to be done in the present circumstances. The noble Lord may not care for it, but I hope that is an explanation for the basis on which it has been done.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord has had an arduous task, to say the least, but will he explain why the Government are afraid
1124
of taking a vote in Parliament? What is his fear? Is his fear that because everybody who has spoken in this debate has shown that they do not favour this scheme it will not get through Parliament? Is that the reason?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, we are beginning to go round the same circle yet again. I was asked a question from the Opposition Front Bench as to whether the Bill that is presently in another place provides such an opportunity. The noble Lord has great ingenuity in putting matters before the House and securing a vote. I have no doubt that if that is what he feels is an appropriate way forward he will exercise that ingenuity for which he is well famed.

British Railways (No.4) Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past midnight.