Lords Sitting of 11 May 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.
Lord Forteviot—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Red Mercury: Channel Four Report
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What information they have concerning the Red Mercury report in the Channel Four "Dispatches" programme on 13th April and whether a small portable nuclear weapon capable of destroying Westminster has been made or is being developed.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, to date, given the available evidence, we view the Red Mercury saga as a scam or hoax which is aimed at obtaining money from those wishing to obtain nuclear materials and developing their own nuclear weapons.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the programme on Channel Four was based upon a visit to Moscow by a British group which included such people as Professor Frank Barnaby, who is nobody's fool? They came back convinced that the development of a portable nuclear weapon of great brutality was, if not already developed, very much on the way to development. Under those circumstances, should not the Government seriously examine the matter before they come up with a conclusion which seems to me to be rather facile?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we take claims of this kind extremely seriously. We are always ready to consider any new information that arises. However, stories of Red Mercury have been running in the press since the late 1970s. Nothing that we have seen or heard since that time indicates any conclusion other than the one I gave in my Answer.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it not the case that President Yeltsin of Russia signed an authorisation to Mr. Sadykov, the alleged producer of the alleged material, Red Mercury, allowing him to export it? Is it not further the case that he has done a deal with an admittedly obscure United States company based in California for large quantities of the substance? Given the involvement of President Yeltsin, have the Government taken up the matter with the Russian Government?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I too saw that part of the programme to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, refers. We understand that the Russian authorities are aware of the claims made for this material. However, we have no evidence whatever of Russian or former Soviet
1558
authorities being involved in either its manufacture or export. As we do not believe that Red Mercury is a substance with any unique or significant properties, the question of representations to the Russian authorities does not arise.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to come back to the noble Earl. My point was that if the president of Russia signed a document authorising this gentleman to export this material—whatever it may be —is not that a case for representations being made to the Russian Government?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the operative word in the noble Lord's question is "if". We have not seen the document in question. If a copy can be produced we shall study it. I have my doubts, in view of our conclusions on the nature of the substance, that the document contains the information the noble Lord says it does.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, as one who did not see the programme, can my noble friend enlighten me and the rest of the House as to what Red Mercury is alleged to be? Is it the name of a newspaper or a chemical substance? If it is a chemical substance, what is it made of?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the "Dispatches" programme alleged that a substance known as Red Mercury with unique and significant properties was developed some years ago in the former Soviet Union and that the technology was then developed to construct a miniature nuclear device incorporating the substance. Both claims we strongly believe to be completely untrue.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that whether or not the report is correct—there already seem to me to be good grounds for at least examining the situation a little more carefully than the Government have done—the development of a portable nuclear weapon is within sight? Is the Minister aware that a back-pack nuclear weapon was manufactured in the United States and put into service to the extent of training? In those circumstances, even if the noble Earl does not agree with nuclear disarmament, does he not agree that the nuclear weapon is not under effective international control? More effective international control should be introduced very quickly.
Earl Howe: My Lords, any possibility of nuclear proliferation is one that we must take extremely seriously. But this is not such an instance. With regard to the size of any purported nuclear device, the programme mentioned by the noble Lord suggested that a nuclear device the size of a teacup could be constructed. That is technically impossible. It would not even be possible to construct one as small as a shoebox. Much of the material in the programme should be looked at with a sceptical eye.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, may have got the date wrong and that it should have read 1st April?

NHS Supplies Authority Appointments
2.44 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the present appointments of the five non-executive members of the NHS Supplies Authority were made under the same regulations as govern appointments to other NHS bodies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): No, my Lords.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I appreciate the very lengthy Answer that the Minister has just given me. In her Answer on Monday to a similar question she indicated that there are a multiplicity of conditions to the regulations governing appointments to various bodies in the National Health Service. In order to avoid any confusion in future, would it not be better if one set of regulations was used for these appointments? That would prevent a repetition of what has happened. The people mentioned in my Question today hold three positions: one in their own right as their first appointments in National Health Service jobs; one as non-executive directors of the NHS Supplies Authority; and four of them are on the audit committee of the NHS Supplies Authority. Can the Minister tell the House whether they are enjoying the privilege of three salaries; and if not, how many salaries are they being paid?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, in answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question, we see the NHS Supplies Authority as being different from a district health authority or a trust. We welcome cross-membership because those members on the NHS Supplies Authority have experience of the National Health Service. They represent the customers of the service on that authority in its attempt to keep down costs. On the second part of the question, members of the supplies authority, if they are already serving on another health authority, will receive two sets of remuneration, but they do not receive any additional remuneration for serving on the audit committee. That is part and parcel of the authority's work.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does not the Minister feel that sometimes her right honourable friend the Secretary of State shows a form of tunnel vision in the wide range of appointments that she has at her disposal? Too often there are those who are linked to the government in power. Does she not recognise that this is a National Health Service and that there are people in many disciplines, in many parties and with many ranges of experience who should be drawn upon in filling posts within the NHS?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, in making appointments my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health looks for the best people for the job regardless of where they come from and regardless of political affiliation.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am glad that the Minister acknowledges that appointments to the NHS Supplies Authority are different from those to district health authorities and other authorities within the health service. But does she not agree that it is inappropriate that people, although they are there for cross-fertilisation, as she described it, of ideas and thinking, should receive two salaries from the NHS? It is, after all, only very recently that members of health authorities or of any NHS authority received any remuneration at all.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, these are people of considerable calibre who are very busy. The work that they do on the supplies authority clearly takes up their time. We think it is appropriate that they should be recompensed for the time that they spend. Looking at the work of the authority, I have to say that it has been an outstanding success. Its operating costs have been reduced by £4.7 million since it started. They are now below 5 per cent. of expenditure. The organisation is now self-financing. Staff numbers have been reduced by almost 7 per cent. and the number of stockholding sites has been reduced from 47 to 26. It should not be National Health Service Supplies; it should be National Health Success for Supplies.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sorry to persist with this, but would it not be appropriate for the Minister's right honourable friend the Secretary of State to ask those people who serve on more than one authority and receive these double salaries whether they would be prepared to do this in a public service capacity?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I think I have answered that question very fully. If people are prepared to spend a lot of time and energy on the National Health Service we think it is right that they should receive some remuneration for doing so.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the Minister mentioned savings of around 4 per cent. and a reduction in manpower of around 7 per cent. Is not the implication that low-paid workers have been thrown out of jobs and that presumably some of the savings made have been used to pay the salaries of people who, as has been pointed out, in previous times would have done the job for free as a matter of public service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the issue here is whether one has an efficient organisation for supplies for the National Health Service or an inefficient one. The major role of the National Health Service is not that of an employment service. It is to provide health care for the population. We want to see it become more efficient and use taxpayers' money to much better effect.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper is not specifically about the performance of the National Health Service Supplies Authority. The Minister herself has chosen to introduce that body as a success story. However, she must be aware that the chairman of one of the biggest health trusts in the country, who is a supporter of the Government's party, has chaired a working party of the

1561
chairmen of the National Health Trust hospitals which is quite critical of the performance of the NHS Supplies Authority. They wish to do their own purchasing. If that is the case (and I know that it is) does that not indicate that there is not such a success story as the Minister claims?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is a success story, although I know that there was one individual who was critical of the NHS Supplies Authority. He is a trust chairman and he has every right not to use the authority if that is his wish. However, for some aspects of their purchasing 99 per cent. of the trusts use the NHS Supplies Authority, which is a fact that speaks for itself.

Greyhounds: Welfare
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make available some of the receipts from the greyhound betting levy to improve the curves in greyhound racing tracks so as to reduce the incidence of injury among greyhounds.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, there is no statutory levy in greyhound racing. The British Greyhound Racing Fund, which is a voluntary fund, was set up by the greyhound and bookmaking industries. This has provided money for improvements to tracks and is helping to raise standards in the sport. The welfare of racing greyhounds and the operation of the tracks are matters for the sport itself.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his kind, comprehensive, if not unexpected, reply; and for his personal generosity in being here to answer my Question. I admit that Her Majesty's Government are not in the business of rescuing and caring for old greyhounds. However, is my noble friend aware that on 28th April the National Canine Defence League hosted a meeting of all interested parties including NGRC Race Course Promoters Limited, British Greyhound Racing Trust Fund, the Independent Track Promoters Association, the Greyhound Breeders Forum, the National Association of Greyhound Owners, the RSPCA, the British Veterinary Association, the Blue Cross, the Kennel Club, Battersea Dogs' Home and Wood Green Animal Shelter? They all agree on a charter for greyhounds and they all pressed for a betting levy to give them parity with race horses, who are also dumb animals, but with a stronger lobby.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I am delighted to answer a Question at any stage from my noble friend. From the list of organisations mentioned by my noble friend, there would already appear to be plenty of support for greyhounds.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the noble Baroness's kind heart is misleading her? Is he further aware that every single application to the British Greyhound Racing Fund for improvements to
1562
the track, whether it is to the running surface or in the safety facilities, has been met promptly by the fund with a 50 per cent. grant towards the costs? As my noble friend has said, there is no levy. At the request of the Government, the money comes from the return by the bookmakers of 25 per cent. of the off-course betting duty which is given to the fund for the benefit of the sport.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his remarks. The Government are fully aware of the splendid job which he is doing as chairman of the fund. We were pleased to learn of his reappointment earlier in the year. The fund has led to improvements in standards in greyhound racing. We are surprised to hear that some of the tracks are so well off that they can afford to look a gift horse in the mouth.
Lord Peston: My Lords., it is quite a few years since I first went to the "dogs". I am very intrigued by the Question. As someone who went racing, I do not recall finding that the curves on the track were a problem. Can the noble Lord enlighten us as to whether the tightness of the bends is a serious risk to the dogs? Is this a situation which has persisted and nothing has been done about it? I seem to remember that the dogs negotiated the bends rather well and that that was the whole point of the exercise. Can the Minister say whether there is any factual basis to the Question at all?
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I understand from the recent forum run by the National Canine Defence League that this point was brought up. Over the racing life of a greyhound, which is four years at the most, there can be effects on the muscles and bones.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, since I understand that there are more discarded former racing greyhounds passing through dog rescue organisations than any other single breed, will the Minister accept that there is no room for complacency about the present position? What further steps are Her Majesty's Government proposing to take to encourage the greyhound racing industry to make proper provision for those dogs when their short careers are over?
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I share the noble Baroness's anxiety on this subject; but what happens to dogs after their racing careers have ended is a matter for the owners themselves. It is not against the law to have a dog humanely destroyed. For most people, owning and running a greyhound is a hobby which they enjoy. It is not a great money-making exercise.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I have looked after a discarded dog after its racing years (and there are many of them). Can the Minister say whether the money could go from the running of greyhound races on Sundays to a benevolent fund for ex-racing greyhounds?
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that interesting question. At the moment there are no plans to do that because the fund which we have already discussed is donating money towards the welfare of greyhounds.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that gallant old dog lover, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, with whom I spoke this morning, also supports this Question? He hopes to be with your Lordships, to whom he sends his greetings, next month.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, we welcome the good news of the noble and dog loving Lord and look forward to his return.

The Auditing Profession
2.57 p.m.
Lord Spens Lord Spens asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is in the public interest to maintain a strong and financially viable auditing profession.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government recognise that an effective auditing profession is crucial to public confidence in company accounts. The vitality of the profession may be judged from the fact that some 18,000 firms of accountants have reached the standard required for registration by the regulatory bodies as statutory company auditors.
Lord Spens: My Lords, before I proceed to my supplementary question I should declare an interest in that, somewhat surprisingly, I am still a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. My supplementary question is this: is the Minister aware that the current exposure to legal liability for each of the partners in the top six or seven auditing firms is running at a figure between £7 million and £8 million per partner? Does he agree that a transfer of liability from a limited liability corporation to an unlimited liability partnership is taking place and that Section 310 of the Companies Act 1985 badly needs to be amended to rectify that problem?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Spens, mentioned, it is suggested by some parties that liability is a threat to effective audit. We do not believe that that is an overriding anxiety. There are others who take a contrary view and therefore we are considering very carefully the proposals which have been put before us.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in auditing, as far as public expenditure is concerned—which is the largest spender of money in this country—that the setting up of the National Audit Commission by this Government has been very welcome? Does he further agree that the very fact that the National Audit Commission not only audits but also looks into value for money—which has saved the taxpayer many millions of pounds—is something for which we should congratulate the Government and also thank them for setting up that organisation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his remarks. I entirely agree with him.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, without passing any comment at all on the six firms to which the
1564
noble Lord, Lord Spens, referred, is the Minister aware that there is a very real danger of unreasonable demands being made on those who conduct the profession of auditing? Is he further aware that in the normal course of an audit, in the absence of suspicious circumstances, the auditor is entitled to rely on the explanations given to him by the directors of the company? Does the Minister agree that it is quite unreasonable, in the absence of suspicious circumstances, to require the auditors to go way outside their ambit into suspecting alleged fraud? Does the noble Viscount further agree that it is quite unrealistic that the auditors should be saddled with that responsibility which involves very considerable extra cost and effort which may not have been included in the original tender price of a normal audit?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, on the question of burdens on auditors, we believe that it is right that those carrying out the important statutory function of auditing the published accounts of limited companies should satisfy a supervisory professional body that their qualifications and practices meet the necessary standard. Of course, we recognise that since the costs of that process are ultimately born by business it should be conducted economically as well as effectively.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, although I agree with everything that the noble Viscount has just said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, may I ask him whether he accepts that the rash of major actions, involving many millions of pounds, against a number of major companies must be causing considerable concern about their viability and that, whatever the rights and wrongs of it, that must be a potential threat to the discipline of the audit profession?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I note the points raised by the noble Lord. The Government have taken such points on board. To take that to the extreme, the Government recognise that the potential collapse of an auditing firm would be a serious matter for the clients of that firm as well as for the firm itself and perhaps more widely. That is why we are taking the proposals seriously.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that too often auditors are so influenced by company managements that they forget their prime responsibility to shareholders?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, companies benefit when they have the greatest choice of providers of services from which to choose. On the question of independence, accountants with prior knowledge of a company can advise it better on other matters.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as is clear from the interventions so far, this is a serious issue. I have been the recipient of audits rather than involved in auditing. The noble Viscount said that this is a serious issue and that the Government are considering it. Do the Government intend bringing forward proposals in the next Companies Bill to deal with this question?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the position is that representations have been made to the Government. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs is considering those proposals. We await definitive written proposals from the various organisations that are pressing for a change.
Lord Peston: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount to elucidate on exactly that point? There seems to be a serious conflict of interest between the auditors who want to earn the enormous fees that they earn but who at the moment look as they do not want to carry the responsibilities that go with that—I have in mind the people who are making representations to the department—and the position of directors of companies who feel that they ought to be able to rely on the auditors for a totally honest view of the business. This seems to be a matter that requires the Government, first, not to listen merely to the auditors, but to listen much more widely to representations. Can the noble Viscount assure us that the Government are listening to a much wider group of people? Secondly, following the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, at some point will the Government tell your Lordships what the results of those representations are because this is a matter of the utmost seriousness to British industry?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I note the noble Lord's comments. The view that he has expressed has been put to the Government. We recognise the importance of the contrary view and the concerns of shareholders and others who believe that the limitation of auditors' liability would not be in their best interests or in the wider public interest. That is why we will consider both sides of the argument carefully.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, does not the noble Viscount agree that instead of limiting the liability of auditors it might be better to limit the number of auditors? There seem to be an awful lot of them around.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the number of auditors shows that there is healthy competition within the profession. That is a good thing for companies and for auditors.

Dyslexics: Workplace Problems
3.4 p.m.
Lord Addington Lord Addington rose to call attention to problems in the workplace encountered by adult dyslexics; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this debate is about the problems of adult dyslexics in the workplace. I felt that it was important to seek a debate on this subject and on this aspect of the disability—and dyslexia is a disability—for the simple reason that when we normally discuss dyslexia we are discussing school children and those who are still in the education system and who thus have a much better chance of receiving some help.
I start by thanking all noble Lords who have put down their names to speak in the debate, and particularly all those noble Lords who would not normally be expected to speak in such a debate because,
1566
as I have said, we normally discuss dyslexia in the context of education. It is therefore refreshing to be addressing a different Minister on the Government Front Bench, as opposed to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. That is because we are now dealing with the problem from a different angle.
The subject of dyslexia leads me to remember a joke that was made by the father of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. He said that whenever he made a speech in your Lordships's House he was in danger of making it on the subject of dyslexia. On that occasion, I too spoke on dyslexia. Since then, the area of study has moved on. We have made great gains in the educational provision for dyslexics. Children who are going through the education system today stand a far better chance of having their problem identified and of receiving appropriate help than was the case 10 years ago. The improvements are even greater when compared with 20 years ago when many people had never even heard of the problem of dyslexia. Indeed, many people did not think that it existed because we always relate problems to our own experience. That led people to think, "If I can read, somebody else should be able to read also". However, that is not the case.
Dyslexia is caused by a different construction of the brain. It is a neurological problem. There have been many descriptions of it, including that the two hemispheres of the brain are more evenly balanced and that the neurological connections within the brain are different in dyslexics. What is absolutely sure, however, is that dyslexia is caused by a different construction of the brain. There is no question of someone overcoming dyslexia or of recovering from it. There is no way in which that can happen. You can learn to deal with it and you can have strategies to help you to handle the problem, but you cannot get better. Dyslexia is there for life. On those grounds, it qualifies as a disability.
There are a great many myths attached to dyslexia. Many people have said to me that they have read articles saying that we now know how to deal with dyslexia. That is not the case—and for one very simple reason. Dyslexia is not only an inherent condition; it is also as diverse as, say, bad eyesight. If I said that somebody had bad eyesight, you might say, "Can they see at all or do they have to squint vaguely when identifying a car number plate at 30 yards? Are they short-sighted or long-sighted? Is the problem more severe in one eye or the other?"
That diversity is at least matched in dyslexia. There are dozens of different manifestations of the problem and dozens of different levels of severity. Therefore, when people say, "Isn't it the case that: if you look through certain coloured lenses, the problem can be dealt with?", the answer is invariably, "Yes, for some people". People also ask, "Isn't it the case that the problem can be dealt with by certain lessons?", to which the answer is again, "Yes, for certain people". There is not just one identifiable problem, but a range of problems. They have a similar cause, but dyslexia manifests itself in many different ways.
We also have to deal with a series of misconceptions about what people with dyslexia can do. I have often been asked, "Are not all dyslexics very intelligent?" If

1567
only that were the case. Some dyslexics are very intelligent, and that is often easily spotted. If they have a severe problem which manifests itself in reading and writing because they are under-achieving compared to their potential ability, they are spotted easily. It is also said that dyslexics are very creative. Some of them do tend to have strong creative abilities. They have a good feeling for space in the design field and good reasoning, but not all of them have a level of ability which will make a considerable difference to their employment opportunities or any academic study before employment. They may have a huge range of skills.
The main thrust of what I shall say will be about those whose disability is sufficient to impair attainment but who have insufficient compensating factors to make up for that. Many brilliant people in the design field have some form of dyslexia, but if they are brilliant and talented, people make exceptions for them. Someone who has merely some ability will not have that ability recognised if they have great difficulty in reading or writing.
The first way to recognise adults with this problem is when they are confronted with forms. Every time one has to fill up a form one has to be able to read and write accurately. Even if only a yes or no answer is required, a great deal of pressure is placed upon the person to read through the form correctly and to answer it correctly so as to make the meaning clear. People in every aspect of life have to fill out forms almost on a daily basis. As the workplace becomes associated more with the office as opposed to the factory production line, it becomes more common that people have to read and write accurately. That means there is no room for mistakes. One has to ensure that one knows what one is dealing with. Someone who has difficulty in processing written symbols and expressing themselves in written symbols is at a huge disadvantage.
I know that other noble Lords will be commenting upon the advances that have been made in information technology, but for the foreseeable future we shall require reading and Writing skills. Someone who does not have those skills has tremendous difficulties fitting into the workplace. A waiter is an example of a person who needs those skills but who is not normally associated with them. A waiter in a restaurant has to be able to record accurately what someone is ordering. He then has to be able to convey that information to the person who has to prepare the food, and then ensure that he has kept an accurate note of who requires what and then serve that person. It is almost inconceivable that that can be done without writing down the order. If someone makes a mistake in one of those processes then that person will be unable to fulfil that task.
If one wants to be able to record telephone numbers accurately one must be able to phase numbers. As a rule, dyslexics are very bad at putting numbers into sequence. One can imagine the problems caused to someone in an office who has to answer the telephone, take down numbers accurately, and associate them with someone else. That means writing down a name and recording a number accurately. The problem is accentuated if one has to take several names and numbers within a few
1568
minutes. The problems become incredibly diverse; for example, has one got the right name and the right number?
I can put my hand on my heart and say that I lost a girlfriend because I lost the one diary in which I had her telephone number. I could not remember it despite the fact that we had been going out together for four months. That excuse was not easily believed at the other end of the telephone line. If such pressures are put on dyslexics they will start to break down.
Dyslexics will also often have had bad experiences at school. That means they tend to be bad about taking on training and new ideas. They tend to be resistant to new ideas and being told what to do. That must be added to the problems caused by the more menial forms of employment which are available. What jobs do not entail a certain amount of reading and writing? From that one can see that dyslexics have fewer opportunities for initial employment and also for progressing in any employment.
If we combine all those factors it is not surprising to discover that a high proportion of the prison population in many countries—the evidence suggests this country as well —has problems with dyslexia. The prison population is affected by many other things such as social conditions and whether the people have been brought up in an area where crime is effectively the only realistic or viable option. That is not an excuse, but it is something that we should bear in mind when considering why we have such a large prison population. Prisoners are economic failures. They take the line of least resistance, and find themselves in confrontation with the law. The problem starts to snowball.
If we are to deal with the problem we must ultimately have some type of vetting for adults, not just for school children. Dyslexic children do not achieve at school and are resistant to achievement. They put up barriers and avoid school either by leaving early or by not attending when they should. That might explain why dyslexia is often thought to be a middle class disease. Middle class parents have higher expectations and traditions of educational achievement. They keep their children at school and therefore the problem can be identified. In the working class environment less emphasis is placed on academic achievement. There are, of course, exceptions to that, but it is easy to see why we have the myth that all dyslexics come from Surrey and all live in at least semi-detached houses. If one projects that to the workplace where there are greater demands for skills and training one can once again see why dyslexics are at an incredible disadvantage. Everything revolves around the fact that we are still dependent upon the interpretation of the written and printed symbol.
The Government could help many of those people by introducing an effective screening process in job centres, young offender units and other places which deal with people who are seeking work and have a literacy problem. It is worth noting that only a certain percentage of people with literacy problems are dyslexic. They amount to 10 per cent. of the population at most. If we can identify those people we can start to do things with them. First, we can tell them that they

1569
have a problem and that their under-achievement is not their fault. It is not a case of, "You should have worked harder when you were at school". Adults in particular need help because, it will increase their self-esteem. Adults no longer have the support of parents. They will no longer have the support mechanism of parents and teachers to assist them. They must be told why they have a problem and that they can take action to assist them to overcome it and to deal with it on a day-to-day basis.
The Learning Methods Project report, published last year, was an adult dyslexia screening feasibility study. The report concluded that it was possible to install a screening process at various levels of interaction with the general public. Ultimately, it would be cost effective because fewer people would be lost to the job market. If such a system can be introduced we shall be stopping a certain amount of wastage and a potential drag on the rest of the economic community.
I conclude by saying that unless we gear up support systems for adults within the workplace we shall place those who suffer from this problem in a situation where they will never be able properly to achieve. Furthermore, they will not understand why. The under-achievement is bad enough but unless they understand why they will never be able to relate to that under-achievement. They will never have an idea of self worth and will suffer from all the associated problems.
Will the Government draw up a working definition of the levels of dyslexia so that those who suffer severely can be classified as disabled? There is no universally accepted definition of the various levels. It is odd to think that we have accepted the problem in our schools system but not in the workplace. I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for bringing forward this subject for debate today. It is one of considerable importance. The noble Lord has a deep understanding of the problem and has introduced the debate with great eloquence. He illustrated the advantage of having a touch of dyslexia about one; for 17 minutes he spoke with great eloquence and without a single note in his hand. That is a great advantage in your Lordships' House or anywhere else, and it is not copied by many people.
The problem that we are debating is serious. I have been fairly close to dyslexia since the days when it was not understood at all. They were the days of Alf Morris's disablement Bill, when the late Lady Phillips defined the subject in the Bill as a "chronic disease". That is not what it is; it is a disability. With care, the individual can learn to live with it and to succeed as well as anyone.
Some disabilities are simple to deal with and are recognisable. If one has lost an arm or a leg, for instance, the factory owner or whoever can see that and try to make life easier. However, dyslexia is an invisible disability and does not attract such attention. People are not alerted to the fact that concessions should be made and life should be made easier. Seldom has the
1570
workplace responded well to the situation. The disability is a language disorder, as everyone now realises. Reading and writing, numeracy and knowing left from right can be difficult.
The disability has always existed and was discovered in America in 1860, which is long before we ever thought about it. In the old days when I started work —admittedly on a farm, which was a simple place—the working person did not have to read and write. We worked with horses and two tractors of the most simple nature and there was no problem. In fact, one or two of the older members of the workforce who were illiterate got on very well and became foremen and the like.
Today, it would be highly dangerous to have someone working on a farm who could not read or write. Everywhere there is machinery of the most complicated and expensive nature and danger is round every corner, quite apart from bills of lading for corn, the noting of cattle numbers and so on as required by the Community. Reading and writing must be done by everyone all down the line.
One must think carefully about the workplace. We are considering a wide area; it could be the office, the factory floor, transport, airlines, prison and so on. However, right down the line I can see difficulties for people who cannot read or write. I see only one ray of hope, which is important. We are moving from pen and paper to keyboard skills, which the dyslexic person is good at. Often the institute finds that such skills are a way to bring people forward and to make use of them. Today, one can buy small computers which can be operated on one's lap and dyslexic people respond to that. It provides a little hope but it does not stretch to every corner of the workplace.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned older people. I agree that youngsters are well provided for in Part III of the 1993 Act. Younger people have a better chance, although I would not say that it is very good, but I shall return to that point in a moment. The people who have left school and are still dyslexic do not have a good chance at all. I once met a lady from the North who had been through the whole school system without being able to read or write. She was obviously of good intelligence and I had to satisfy myself as to what had happened to her during all her years at school. During her spare time she had produced a large volume of good poetry. She had recited it to a friend who had written it down. I read quite a lot of it and it was pleasant and good. However, in answering my question about what she did during all her school years, she said, "I did a bit of gardening and colouring". She was given a book in which small children have to colour in outlined pictures. Obviously, she will have difficulty if she wishes to work in a factory, an office or anywhere of that kind.
The people who knew something about dyslexia—even before the Department for Education—were those in the Army. During the period of conscription they discovered the severe danger of taking people in the Army who could not read or write: they turned the wrong way towards the battle or the wrong way against it; they could not read signs saying "danger" and they could not understand what they meant. A very good unit

1571
was established, under a major, of which a number of people outside the Army, who were interested in trying to deal with that disability, took advantage.
In this day and age, it is very difficult to adapt the workplace for the dyslexic person. Therefore, we must turn back to education. A dyslexic person must be able to adapt to industry and he needs a very particular education in order to be able to do that. That course must be pursued with great vigour.
Of course, there are problems. The problem that I see is that at the moment there are just not enough teachers to deal with the situation. In the past, many of the teachers have come through the voluntary sector and are then fed back into either the grant-maintained or state system. The noble Lord mentioned a figure of 10 per cent. Therefore, the number of teachers available is a mere trickle, but one needs a flood if the situation is to be dealt with properly.
I do not know how that will be achieved. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an idea of the size of the problem. The Dyslexia Foundation, of which I am president, has a validated course at Kingston University. But taking together youngsters and teacher training, we are able to deal with only 3,000 to 4,000 people per year. I need hardly say that there are financial constraints.
I wish to ask the Minister a question. In my stupidity, I thought that this was an education debate, but perhaps my noble friend Lord Henley will pass on my question to my noble friend Lady Blatch. What role does my noble friend Lady Blatch see the voluntary agencies, of which there are a number, fulfilling in the future? Also, how much money can be made available to voluntary agencies that teach in a proper way, either under the provisions of the Bill which is going through the Commons at present and which passed through this House some time ago or under Part III of the 1993 Act? This is an opportunity to follow up the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. By returning to education, adults could make themselves useful and fulfil their potential.
Perhaps I may end on a reasonably happy note. On the whole, I believe that the situation has improved hugely. When I started as chairman of the British Dyslexia Association, as it was then, there were about eight powerful ladies for the most part who had dyslexic children. Those ladies could get absolutely nothing done for their children. More than nothing is being done now, but it would be very good if we could do a great deal more.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, your Lordships will be indebted, as I am, to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for tabling this Motion this afternoon. I am most certainly grateful to him, as I suspect are other noble Lords, because I need to be reminded regularly that disabled people are people first of all. They have talents and rights, as do the rest of us, and that applies of course to people with dyslexia.
Secondly, unlike noble Lords who have spoken already, many of us, myself included, are fairly ignorant as to what is involved in relation to dyslexia. I vaguely
1572
think of dyslexics as people who have difficulties with reading, writing and spelling, but I had not given much thought to the employment implications of that. Thanks to the initiative taken by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I have read some papers prepared by the British Dyslexia Association and I have listened with great interest to the two previous speakers.
Two factors have struck me in particular; first, there are very large numbers of people who suffer from dyslexia. I am told that the best part of 2 million people suffer from it in various degrees. Some suffer from it very slightly; and some suffer from it in a very profound form indeed. As the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said, a great many people suffering from it are hidden from the rest of us by the fact that the disability cannot be cured by putting on a splint or prescribing spectacles.
The second factor which struck me, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, is that dyslexia does not, as many of us had half thought, equate with thickness or laziness. It can go hand in hand with a very high degree of intelligence and achievement. I understand that Michael Heseltine is a dyslexic, as is Richard Rogers and the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
Underlying the Motion seems to be an optimistic assumption that if a problem exists and it is recognised, then something will be done about it. One has to be fairly optimistic to ask an employer, or indeed employees for that matter, to do anything at all for disabled groups. I understand that the employment prospects for some dyslexics can be transformed by properly directed training. As has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, computer programs for learning, reading and spelling can revolutionise the lives of some dyslexic people.
Dyslexic people become successful in the same way as the rest of us; namely, by developing the skills that they need and by creating for themselves, but with help, special strategies to compensate for their own areas of weakness. Many dyslexic people can learn and work very well, but sometimes they need to learn differently from other people.
When I read the papers that were provided to me over the weekend, I read in particular of one man called Peter Savage. He went right through school without knowing that he was dyslexic. Like many others, he was regarded as thick, stupid and unwilling to learn. It was only when he started his first job that it was recognised that he was dyslexic.
Peter Savage was lucky in two ways. First, his employer was not put off by the fact that he was dyslexic because his own son had dyslexia. Secondly, he was lucky because he was given support by his employer to have special lessons. He took a City & Guilds examination and achieved Class 1 distinction in lorry driving and diesel fitting. He now drives lorries all over the country. That man is not unique, but he is fairly exceptional. His problem was identified and his employer reacted with understanding.
There are three broad ways in which to persuade an employer to react positively to the needs of disabled people. First, you can appeal to his better nature. There are a few employers who take seriously equal

1573
opportunities policies. But, quite frankly, you cannot rely upon the better nature of employers to respond in that way, or not for the most part.
Secondly, you can appeal to the employer's self-interest; that is, either enlightened or unenlightened self-interest. Like many other disabled people, dyslexics bring special qualities to work, especially a willingness to try harder. I say that because the fact that they have overcome a disability often gives them that added commitment to solve problems and to get stuck in. That is worth trying, although there are limits to it.
That leads me to the third approach to employers which is that of friendly persuasion. At the end of the road, we shall probably need legislation to make a reality of equal opportunities for disabled people. What happened last Friday in the other place as regards the civil rights Bill was very sad indeed. But, at least, bad news can be good news in the sense that it might bring to the attention of a wider range of people the problems of the disabled at work and in other respects, and the need to take action. However, I do not wish to pursue that particular subject this afternoon.
Even if legislation is introduced, that cannot be the end of the story. We need to get into the heads of employers and employees the fact that disabled people have as much right to a job and as much right to a decent income as the rest of us. That is the message that we must get home. It is a message of basic rights. An instrument for so doing is already at hand in industry. From my perspective, trade unions should be much more active in putting the issues, and the needs of disabled people, including dyslexics, on the negotiating agenda. The first obstacle to be overcome is the attitude of some employees. Some employees are apathetic; some are positively hostile to disabled people, including dyslexics; and some are just afraid of disabled people.
'With the greatest respect, I would suggest to noble Lords that it should not be too difficult for the British Dyslexia Association to identify some of its members who are active trade unionists and to get them to raise the issue of the employment and support of dyslexic people in their branches or in their factory groups. It could be suggested to them that they might arrange for a speaker on dyslexia to be invited to the branch meeting so as to inform people of what is involved. A motion could be put down for the inclusion of such an issue in the next round of negotiations or on the agenda of the annual conference of the union concerned. In such a way, the message could be sent that dyslexia is as valid an item for the negotiating table as is pensions and, indeed, health and safety.
If dyslexic people are willing to help themselves, as many of them conspicuously are, then their fellow employees should be willing to back their demands for jobs and supportive training. Perhaps even governments could be persuaded to take a more positive attitude towards supporting people who have shown that they are ready to help themselves and to help one another.
3.43 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, I, too, welcome most sincerely the Motion tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. The noble Lord said
1574
that there is no cure for dyslexia, but I certainly believe that there is a way around it and a way to live with it. As someone who has throughout his life been aware that he has learning problems, I find it extremely difficult to live with the words "dyslexia" or "dyslexics". I believe that both words are far too wide. Moreover, it is dangerous to use them, especially so far as concerns employment in the market place.
I believe that people see someone, identify him as dyslexic and then put up their hands and debar him from work. That is why today's debate is so important. I should like to pay tribute to the British Dyslexia Association and the many other bodies which work tirelessly on behalf of those with learning difficulties. I should also like to pay tribute to the many remedial teachers throughout the country whom I have met over the years. They seem to be coping admirably with a rising tide of people who have learning difficulties.
I believe that the problem starts at school. Some schools have very caring teachers who are readily able to assess a pupil's learning problems, while other schools adopt a different attitude and say, "Oh, he is a thicko. He can go to the back of the class; we won't worry about him". Those are the people who become a problem for future generations.
This country has taken a great step forward in dealing with learning problems by way of remedial treatment and, indeed, job counselling for the future. We prepare our young who have learning problems—and, as we have already heard, learning problems come in many different forms—to face the future and to cope with the world outside.
My military experience tells me that the Armed Forces have many soldiers, sailors and airmen who have learning problems. On the whole, they are very caring people, they cope very well and do extremely well themselves. Indeed, there are several senior officers in the Armed Forces today who have experienced learning problems in the past. However, as in the case of all people with learning problems, they need to gain confidence. They need to realise and understand their own ability.
In my own case, I have to say that I never realised that I had a learning difficulty until I went to the Regular Commissions Board at Westbury. I heard two education officers talking between themselves discussing me and saying, "Well, there is obviously something wrong with this man, but he is the son of a Field Marshal and the nephew of a Field Marshal so, therefore, he must be OK". That is the only reason that I got into the Army. I think that I would have been a dustman if I had not been the subject of such a discussion between two education officers. That alerted me to the fact that I had problems. From then on, I learnt to live with them.
I submit that it is important for adults to understand and to learn to live with their problems; and to cope with them in the outside world as best they can. The Motion refers to "problems in the workplace". Undoubtedly, those with problems attract bullying and no more so —although, I am sure, many people will not agree with me—in the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces are very sheltered communities and people living in such communities are very close to one another.

1575
It may interest your Lordships to know that, despite the adverse publicity regarding Options for Change and further cuts in the Armed Forces, the Army this year is looking for 10,000 men and a further 1,000 apprentices; that is, nearly 12,000 men. In relation to the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, it is interesting to note that the testing for all those people who are coming into the Army—and not the Army or the Air Force—is based on keyboard skills by way of something called the BARB test (the British Army Recruit Battery Test). That is basically a touch screen whereby one touches the "yes" or the "no" command and the screen produces the answer. My recent research has shown that those with learning difficulties cope extremely well with that test. Some of them do not always get the jobs that they want, but when they have mastered the keyboard skills and the way that the test is operated, those with learning difficulties usually cope very well. It is a form of computer testing that is proving to be very effective.
I believe that there are far more people in the country with learning difficulties who have problems in the workplace which are not of their making. Such problems will continue but, I submit, in order to cope with them, young people need to know and understand the nature of their problems. I urge the Government, if possible, to set up in due course an assessment board to which adult people who realise that they have learning problems and who are finding it difficult to secure employment can apply and be assessed so as to find out exactly what are their problems. In that way they can obtain guidance on the way to cope in employment if they have not received such guidance from their schools. I believe that would certainly help those with learning disabilities in the future. If that were to happen and there were further remedial teaching for adults—I know this is an educational problem—it would be a great step forward in helping this country.
3.50 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, may I first apologise in that I fear I shall not be present to hear the Minister's reply at the end of the debate as I have an engagement at 4.30 p.m. that was entered into long before I knew about this debate and I am afraid I shall have to leave to attend that meeting.
Not long ago one of the publications of the Institute of Personnel Management contained an extremely interesting article in which it was pointed out that industry was losing a great deal by failing to make use of dyslexic people of considerable ability. It was interesting that the article appeared in that particular journal. It is a journal for people who are, after all, charged with the responsibility of recruiting people into industry and, indeed, are charged with the training programmes for the companies to which those people go.
The article pointed out—I am sure this is well known to all who have studied the problem but I am certain it is not known to a large number of the general public or to the people who suffer from dyslexia—that many dyslexic people, while having certain limitations, have great strengths in other directions. I read the list of the
1576
qualities that a dyslexic person often possesses. It included imagination, creativeness and lateral thinking. The list went on and on. I really began to think that industry ought to be advertising for dyslexics rather than rejecting them.
Without exaggerating this matter, the article makes a point of considerable importance. Industry's job, after all, is to make the best use of the talents which people have and if industry is failing to understand the strengths of dyslexics then the point of the article—that a great deal of waste is occurring—is surely very well founded. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, and, by implication, other speakers, spoke about industry's responsibility in this direction. I accept that it has a responsibility—the kind of responsibility that is reflected in the article. But I also make the point that it is not industry's job to make good the deficiencies of the public services which ought to be doing the work that they are not doing, consequently landing industry with problems outside its responsibility. After all, industry has enough to undertake in finding employment, creating wealth and all the other things it has to do.
When I was chairman of an area manpower board under the old MSC and we were running the early stages of the youth training service, company after company complained that they were being forced to spend a great deal of time rectifying the weaknesses of youngsters who came from school totally inadequately equipped for the kind of skill training that the companies were capable of delivering, and which it was their responsibility to deliver. It was not their responsibility to add to the educational activities which should have been undertaken in the schools. This matter is of great relevance as regards how we should be dealing with dyslexics in society and how they can release their potential, thus enabling them to contribute to the economy and, in so doing, be able to build a decent livelihood for themselves.
The point is that we accept that many dyslexics are of high intelligence and have the other qualities referred to in the article that I mentioned. Surely it is up to the schools and those organisations which offer careers advice to pupils, and later to adults, to identify the strengths of people with dyslexia and to guide them towards the training and the job applications where their abilities and their strengths can be utilised. But, as we have heard from other speakers, dyslexics lack confidence arising from not being able to cope well at school, because of their deficiency, and do not know what their strengths are. Unless they receive guidance they will not apply for the right kind of training and the right kind of jobs. This matter really starts in the schools and in the colleges.
I can give one example of this from personal experience. A woman returning to employment was taken on by a TOPS scheme. That cost the TOPS programme quite a lot of public money. The woman is semi-dyslexic. Of all the jobs she should not have been steered towards, a secretarial job surely came pretty high at the top of the list. However, she has considerable artistic skills and, indeed, organisational skills but secretarial skills rank very low. If, when that TOPS scheme was being run—this would apply to any scheme

1577
being run by the public service—she had been properly assessed, she would have been steered away from the jobs for which she was so patently not qualified and towards training in areas in which her very marked strengths could have been utilised to her own and everyone else's benefit. It is a false economy of the first order to economise on careers advice at all levels in the educational system.
I quote from a useful recent publication of the Adult Dyslexia Organisation which states:
"Many F.E. colleges have been very sympathetic towards support for dyslexic students. However, from April 1st 1993, further Education Colleges were given corporate status and have moved out of county council control. They now operate under a form of independently controlled financing. The Government is also looking at cutting back Disability Allowances.
This means that assessments will have to be bought in: previous access to the Educational Psychology Service is no longer taken for granted and most LEA Psychology Services will charge for assessment. This may be around £45 which is considerably cheaper than a private assessment but is still a cost per head which the College may be reluctant to meet".
Assuming that to be a correct statement—and I have no reason to believe that it is not—that is surely a classic example of false economy in failing to invest money to guide people into the areas in which they can be successful and, let us say, tax paying citizens.
My noble friend Lord Addington referred to the number of people in prison who are dyslexic. This is not in the least surprising. We know that people who cannot obtain employment are far more likely to commit offences than people who can obtain employment. We know that people who have been in prison are far more likely to go back into prison. We know that, at the cheapest level, it costs about £400 a week to keep someone in prison. However, compare that with the amount paid to local education psychology services to stop dyslexics becoming unemployed and therefore prevent a disproportionate percentage of them finding themselves among the prison population at a cost of £400 a week. I understand that if they enter the really high quality crime world it costs £1,000 a week to keep each person in prison. Surely the money spent on the education psychology services is money which even the Government will see is well spent.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Renwick: My Lords, this has already been a fascinating debate and I am very much looking forward to hearing the rest of it. I wonder whether, after the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Radnor, there is anything much that I can add. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on starting this excellent debate and on many of the things he said about dyslexics. I was delighted that he brought out the point that not all dyslexics have spatial skills such as Richard Rogers or special skills such as Michael Heseltine. But then not all great politicians and all great architects are dyslexic, so we must keep these matters in perspective.
I should like to remind my noble friend Lord Radnor, who modestly said that he had something to do with dyslexia, that it was just over 19 years ago that he and I made our maiden speeches in this House, in a debate on literacy introduced by the noble Lord, Lord
1578
Maybray-King. I remember it well and I am sure that my noble friend does too. I took the opportunity this morning to read what we said. We had hoped that this House would play some part in helping to improve the lot of the dyslexic in attaining those levels of literacy which were mentioned by the other speakers in that very interesting debate on 5th February, 1975. I think we are now somewhere near there.
As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, there have been gains in educational provision. I remember the Education Act 1981. I remember the lovely phrase created by Sir Rhodes Boyson in the debates on the. Bill in the other place: he said that special educational provision should be made for those with special educational needs, whatever the cause. That brought in dyslexia, for once and for all time. I reminded him of that when I met him the other day.
I have mixed feelings about my noble friend Lord Radnor because it was he, who back in 1978 was chairman of the British Dyslexia Association and President of the British Dyslexia Foundation. became chairman of the British Dyslexia Association and have been involved with it ever since. I maintain an interest in the subject, especially in the educational side. It is very timely that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, should draw our attention to the fate of the dyslexic in the workplace.
It is very interesting that my noble friend the Minister is to answer the debate on behalf of the Department of Employment. We had tremendous support from my noble friend Lady Blatch and the Minister, Mr. Eric Forth, in relation to the Education Act 1993. I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say on behalf of the Department of Employment. About 10 or 12 years ago I visited one of his predecessors at the department, who was a Member of this House. I remember that I was in a great hurry because I had to go to Southampton. In explaining his job the Minister said that his role was to get people jobs. I was at the department because in 1982 the. psychologists who were skilled at identifying the jobs which would suit individuals, especially dyslexics and those with other difficulties, were being taken from the job service. I asked the Minister whether it was, understood that probably there were more people in this country who were in unsuitable jobs than at that tune were unemployed. I thought of that point as this debate was taking place. I remember thinking how very true that was and how much more resources were needed by the Manpower Services Commission, as it was at that time, to place people in the right job rather than merely a job.
Even in those days technology was being introduced to develop a form of question and answer on a touch screen, which I was very interested to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, mention. He quite rightly said that people with dyslexia and learning disabilities are very adept at using such technology.
Also, I believe that the time is fast approaching, if it has not already arrived, when information technology will be developed to help dyslexics greatly. There is a system of learning called the integrated learning system (ILS) which is on trial in this country. It provides a

1579
half-hour training session for a child, or an adult, each day. One machine can provide training for 20 to 30 children. They are each identified by their own personal number. There is continuous assessment in the two subjects which they learn in the half hour; a quarter of an hour is given to each subject. It is astonishing how the children are fascinated by the system. It has completely eliminated truancy in many deprived areas where it is on trial, because the children have their sessions on the ILS on a daily basis. They then have individual assessment at the end of the lesson to see how they have progressed.
I believe that it is only a matter of time before the development of proper teaching programmes and software will enable teachers to cover the whole range of learning styles. I suggest that dyslexia is a learning style which has not been well covered by our standard provision of education.
I declare another interest, in that I am chairman of the Dyslexia Educational Trust, which for the past 10 years or so has been giving bursaries to teachers in both the private and public sectors to take the British Dyslexia Association diploma course in the identification, assessment and teaching of dyslexics. They are able to provide better teaching for ordinary pupils as a result of the diploma course.
In the old days before the course started, a teacher would find that in a class of 25—we are talking about 4 per cent. of the population—there would be one child (usually a boy because, astonishingly, three times as many boys as girls suffer from dyslexia) sitting at the back of the class of whom the teacher would say, "There is something wrong with little Jimmy at the back of the class. I can't get my lessons through to him. There must be something wrong with the child". Now we see more and more that teachers feel that if they cannot get their lessons across to the child at the back of the room there must be something wrong with their teaching. That is most heartening and exciting.
When I became chairman of the British Dyslexia Association, I remember thinking that there was no problem, and that what we must do was to impress the teachers of the teachers. If one gets through to the teachers of the teachers, then all the teachers coming into the education system will eventually, after 10 to 15 years, understand the problems of dyslexia. I went to my first meeting as a member of the National Council of Educational Technology earlier this week and found that that idea is still being taken on board. I hope that there will be much greater awareness in our education system of this difference of ability. I like to think of it as a difference of ability rather than a disability. It is the lack of understanding of that difference of ability that causes handicap.
With regard to employment perhaps I may refer to the lack of awareness. I read a rather nice article recently about a man who applied for a job. At the end of the application he stated that, although he was able to do the job well, he was dyslexic. Within two days, he received a letter back saying, "I am sorry. You cannot have the job. We are on the first floor and therefore we are not
1580
accessible for wheelchairs". Although I am sure that such lack of awareness does not apply everywhere, it indicates the level of the problem of dyslexia.
After the major strides taken by the Department for Education, I shall be delighted to hear that the Department of Employment will be as helpful to those adults who suffer from dyslexia.
4.10 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, it is my pleasure, too, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for giving us the opportunity to deal with this important matter in the context of employment. I have to apologise to noble Lords. I may not be able to stay until the end of the debate owing to other business pressures. I shall stay as long as I can, and I apologise to noble Lords who may speak later.
I can claim no detailed knowledge of dyslexia or its manifestations. However, in response to the point made by my noble friend Lord Allenby, I strongly suspect that we all suffer from defects in our powers of learning and comprehension. I have to use notes in order to deliver a speech to your Lordships. Perversely, many of the afflictions which medical science can now identify with a considerable degree of accuracy are those which, by not being obvious, are hardest for society generally to come to terms with. It is hard to accept and assimilate sufferers into society because the afflictions are not infirmities or disabilities as we commonly understand them. We are all familiar with the orange logo with the wheelchair symbol which labels—perhaps sometimes unfortunately—those who are physically disabled. It has taken years to achieve a proper approach to access to buildings and to toilet facilities, and to integrate the needs of such sufferers into everyday thinking and into the design of the working/leisure environment.
However, it is a different matter when one is dealing with colour blindness, illiteracy, lack of numeracy and, yes, dyslexia; the problem risks becoming a dark secret —often concealed—for fear that it may provide grounds for non-employment, dismissal or circumstances of grave misunderstanding in the workplace. And so it is with dyslexia: the outward manifestations are, if anything, even less obvious.
When faced with such afflictions, the able bodied tend not to react in a helpful manner. My noble friend Lord Allenby referred to the issue. I suspect that that reaction is because the elements of such problems as dyslexia are concealed within all of us to a greater or lesser degree. As the demands of society, our daily life, and our high technology creep up on us, so to a greater or lesser extent all of us stand to be caught out by that process. It is a factor that we would rather not admit to. Yet, as we have heard, many famous people have been and are dyslexics and have reached the pinnacle of achievement by any standards in the comprehension and expression of ideas. I was glad to attend recently an art exhibition organised by the Adult Dyslexia Organisation, and I can testify to the ability of the exhibitors.
I am a small employer. I am also chairman of a chamber of commerce in Sussex. It is especially important that in opening the door to physical

1581
accessibility, we do not leave the door to intellectual access firmly closed. But that is what will happen if we fail to understand that the grasp of words and figures, and the recognition of ranking and sequential standards are not matters that should always necessarily be of the essence in business, the professions, the arts, management or administration.
The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, will relate to my next comment; I share with him an involvement with agriculture. I have always divided agricultural workers into two categories: they were either machine men or livestock men. If they were machine men, they could not judge whether a cow was on heat or anything to do with livestock. If they were livestock men, they did not understand that if one banged down the full load of a tractor one did expensive and often irreparable damage. As a practising chartered surveyor, my line of business is mainly to do with property. A fellow chartered surveyor once said that there were three categories of people in the property industry. They were known as finders, minders and grinders. The finders were the dealers at the front end, the guys who negotiated the transaction. They were always known to be totally useless at putting together figures or reports, or stringing together a letter. Yet those people were the mainspring of many firms so they were not to be ignored.
We have heard about technological advances; they have started to come to our assistance. I was particularly pleased to receive recently some details of voice recognition systems with direct relevance to computer applications. I believe that those systems can and will revolutionise the ability of dyslexics and others to contribute fully and effectively to the workplace and to society at large. I believe that such a lead from the front has to be a better way than more regulation and legislation. I firmly believe that anti-discrimination measures have a nasty habit of backfiring and themselves becoming discriminatory. They are to be avoided if at all possible.
The technological revolution also affects the conventional business environment, not just those who suffer from dyslexia but the employed population generally. We have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, about keyboard operation. But technology is now moving beyond the keyboard approach. It is being bypassed where it is too slow, inconvenient or inappropriate, having regard to the environment. Icons in computer software have removed the need for an instruction book, for instance. The mouse, and, more recently, the trackball have already provided shortcuts to keyboard operation. I believe that voice recognition in time will add another dimension which will make part of the keyboard function past technology. That will benefit the able and less able alike. It may free some from the need to have conventional office-bound jobs. It will open up a new dimension in employment. We heard recently that by the end of the century about 80 per cent. of business communications will be by electronic mail and that the information superhighways (as they are referred to) are with us and are being used for transactions and communication purposes.
I applaud the work that is being done in this important area of development and in the educational
1582
applications that go with it. We have heard from the British Dyslexia Association which works in the field and I pay tribute to it and others such as the National Literacy Trust. We all need to come to terms with dyslexia. Although that is good news for those who are in full-time education, we also have to consider those whom the educational system in its old technological form has failed. We need to realise that there are now dyslexic adults who are outside the classroom and lecture hall who are often parents and thus teachers of a new generation in their own terms. They must not be overlooked.
So it is important that in breaking the cycle of non-achievement and the feeling among sufferers that they will never achieve, we must tackle the adult literacy problem. How many of us can really say that we understand half the computer manuals and similar documents which have been translated thrice, which are a rich seam of transatlantic computer-speak and gobbledegook, to boot? We all need clarity and simplicity and the fact that we do not succeed in getting the message across, is at least in part our responsibility. I hope that the Government will give active support to that kind of work, particularly where in the case of voice recognition techniques there has been a happy juxtaposition of improved facilities for those who suffer from a disability, as well as being of great advantage to business and commerce in the conventional sense.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I rise with great pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on the subject of dyslexia, in particular in the workplace. First, the two words which come to my mind when thinking about the subject are "understanding" and "support" for those who have an obstacle or hurdle to overcome. Perhaps that is a nicer way to think of it than as a handicap. Initially, anyway, it is an obstacle or hurdle for them to overcome and one which, as we know, is not necessarily realised at first. It may take some time for it to be discovered, not only by the sufferer but by others. It is an unseen obstacle until, for some reason or another, it is discovered because of the person's reading, writing or some action.
It is when this unseen obstacle or hurdle becomes apparent, when someone senses that he or she has a problem to tackle, that one hopes something positive may be done. Prevention may also come about so that the unseen obstacle or hurdle does not become a handicap. That handicap is to do with reading, writing, spelling, numeracy and other difficulties such as poor concentration, lack of physical co-ordination or clumsiness. More than ever now, those difficulties can be disastrous in the world of high technology and communications which can be complicated. Computer guides and similar documents can explain subjects to me, but soon afterwards I have not much better idea of how to manage them. It is interesting to hear that those with dyslexia have an ability which the rest of us lack in such subjects.
A person may cross the obstacle or hurdle or fall at it, as occurs with many other problems which beset people. They may be able to cross them or tackle them,

1583
or else they fall, especially if the symptoms of dyslexia are mistaken for some other complaint, as can happen. I have some idea of the difficulties of dyslexia because a young nephew of mine has it.
Do we allow people with that complaint to be hindered by it or enable them to overcome the obstacle or hurdle? We should allow them to use any talents or skills that they have for positive ends. As we know from what we have been told and have read and gathered about dyslexia, they have skills and talents. That is a fact. I went to the art exhibition mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and was impressed by what I saw. We need to show sufferers patience, understanding and appreciation of any skills or talents which they possess, whether in art, literature or administration or other skills.
The increase in the expertise, knowledge and appreciation of how dyslexia can be tackled is good and should be even better. A partnership between schools, parents, the British Dyslexia Association, the Department for Education and perhaps the Department of the Environment with science and business is vital for all those who in one way or another will be involved with a man or woman, boy or girl who has dyslexia. The disease must not prevent them from being able to participate fully in life.
Some of the invisible obstacles and hurdles can prevent such participation unless we are careful. I quote from the publication Access the Word, Access the World —Dyslexia:
"Dyslexic people struggle in a world where effective written communication is essential. However the existence of dyslexia, or specific learning difficulties, has only recently been recognised. It is now widely accepted by most people in education.
"But there is a huge gap between accepting that dyslexia exists and actually doing something about it. The vast majority of young dyslexics are caught by this gap".
As we know, there is a long way to go, but we have been given much information which shows that there is some hope. I quote from a newspaper article headed "Machine lifts dyslexia pain". It says:
"A Cambridge scientist has invented a machine to help people with dyslexia or other sight problems to read more easily".
A further article by Alastair Stewart is headed:
"Defeating dyslexia—the story of Britain's premier architect".
It states:
"The most crushing barrier to the child is the erosion of self-confidence".
In fact it can also be the most crushing barrier for an adult if his or her self-confidence is eroded. Another document is headed: "Striking a chord with dyslexics". It says:
"A dyslexic musician is planning to help others with the disorder by teaching them to play the guitar".
Then there is a newspaper article which is perhaps not so good:
"Minister refuses to help Mensa girl: Lucinda Cash-Gibson, who became the youngest member of Mensa at the age of four, has been refused state help with her school fees because civil servants say she is not bright enough to need special treatment".
Perhaps I may quote these words. Some noble Lords may realise where they come from—at least I hope so.
"let righteousness roll down as waters, and justice as a mighty stream".
1584
I am sure that some of those present know that the quotation is from the Book of Amos in the Old Testament. The quotation is relevant to many subjects, but particularly to this one. It applies to dyslexia sufferers as much as any other concerns in life. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to give us some assurances. It can be most disheartening when tackling a hindrance to encounter the scorn or laughter of one's fellows. Surely there are many adults in the workplace who know that. And, as we know, there are many young boys and girls who also know that. Let us see that dyslexia does not become a handicap. I hope that we shall have some good, healthy, hopeful reassurances from my noble friend Lord Henley when he gives the Government's outlook on the subject.
4.31 p.m.
The Earl of Macclesfield: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for raising this topic. My knowledge of the subject comes from having a daughter in her twenties who is dyslexic and an employee in his twenties who is also dyslexic. They are from totally different backgrounds. What I have learnt, and what I see, having thought about the way forward, is that to involve the Department for Education as much as the Department of Employment—there are problems which intertwine—might well be helpful.
My employee went straight through the state system, undiagnosed and untreated. As I am not qualified to diagnose dyslexia, I should not really say this, but I am quite certain that he is dyslexic. My daughter was diagnosed aged six—and basically that was a fluke. Fortunately, my former wife had taught children of that age. When collecting her daughter from school she was somewhat surprised to find that Tanya would not look her mother in the eye. Normally, on these occasions, from the other side of the fence, she had no doubt seen little children who were only too delighted to see the back of teacher and get away to mummy. Taking the view that there was nothing abnormal in herself, and as a result of one or two odd things that she had seen in writing, my wife referred the matter to a parent friend who was a remedial teacher. She took one look at my daughter's written words and said, "There is a problem here. I cannot tell you what it is, but this is where you go." One interesting point is that my daughter's condition was never actually picked up by a teacher. It will be of value that those who teach children of that age can pick up as a matter of diagnosis this type of problem and refer such children into the right system. It needs to be done as early as that.
I mentioned that Tanya would not look her mother in the eye. That is the first of the behavioural problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred. At the end of the line is borstal. Let us think of what goes on in the mind of a dyslexic. At that age you feel that you are the same as your peers; you are doing everything the same; everything goes well; and you can talk equally well. The moment teacher puts a pen into your hand, whatever goes wrong (and I cannot describe it) goes wrong. As a six, seven or eight year-old, there is no way that you can turn to your teacher, even if you have the words, and say, "This is a fog. It has gone wrong. I am

1585
doing my best". At that age the child knows jolly well that the teacher will turn round and say, "Of course you're not. Don't be so silly", and you have to take the matter from there.
I have seen the funny things that come out from dyslexics—rather more from my employee. He came to me basically for a manual job. I did not realise until he had been with me for some time what I actually had on my hands—given that I had an understanding of this problem. I would rather use the word "problem" for a great many of these people than any other word. Let us not use the word "disability" until we get to a certain level, above which special treatment is required. Below that level, we all have "problems". As in Yorkshire, everybody has their problems, and even those are a bit suspect. If we can hold the matter at that level, we can start in the adult world trying to convince all and sundry that the problem is just a problem, that it pertains to the person in question, and that your own problem is another matter. It is as simple as that.
How do we achieve that? We do not achieve it until adults and teachers can see what the problem is. We have heard reference to the "invisible problems". Yes, they are—until you see what happens on paper. I—fortunately perhaps—see this regularly because I work with a dyslexic. It is a matter of curiosity. When I get back this evening, if he has taken some messages, I shall not know what the spelling will be until I get there. He will not know what he is going to write until it is down on the page. I have seen the same word written three different ways in one paragraph. That is typical. It does not upset me. I knew about it before I employed him as a result of learning about my daughter. Until all that is taken partly on board and aired, there are problems all round.
How do we start? Once we have the diagnosis, those who have only "problems" can go back into class. One hopes they will have the encouragement of the standard teacher as well as of the remedial teacher.
Certainly, with my daughter we ran into what I am convinced was a barrier: the head teacher of the junior school was not going to accept the diagnosis. If we wanted to, that was fine by her. But she did not believe in dyslexia. That approach is no good. One has to generate a certain amount of self-confidence. If a standard teacher accepts the situation, then it will be accepted in class and the personality of the teacher will simply mean that the problem is indeed accepted as a problem. There would be no bullying then. One would have defused the whole situation, and it would be out in the open. "Fine, it's your turn to go and write on the board. Oh, that word's wrong. Somebody put it right. I don't want the headmaster coming in here and seeing that word wrong on the board". That is all that has to be said to defuse the whole situation. When my daughter was diagnosed, I simply turned round to her and said, "Your brain is connected up differently. You have to be taught differently". With body language, she said, "That's fine, Daddy. Now I really do not mind if younger children catch up with me". In many respects, that is what we are talking about in trying to keep dyslexics on a level plane. They will have their problems. Somebody will turn round and say, "That's
1586
wrong". Their answer is, "Yes, I'm dyslexic'''. Providing that we can get them to say that, we have taken a step forward with them.
Noble Lords have mentioned the forms that have to be filled in. Sometimes they have to be filled in on the spot and handed over at a post office. Either you fill it in, hand it over and say, "I'm dyslexic. Please will you check the spelling", or you say, "I'm dyslexic. What has to be written here?" Nobody will refuse that request. It is a question of getting that self-confidence into those children.
In the adult world, exactly the same thing applies. I would guess that the best that we can do for adults is to get them diagnosed and to give them self-confidence. They may be in their twenties, thirties and forties. We must remove the stigma. To themselves they will appear to be "thick"—although they have got through on their own to the workplace without rolling into borstal. That is one step in the right direction. It will be some relief for them to know that their problems are, as has been said, not of their making.
I have a feeling that that is the way in which my employee has matured, if that is the right word, over the years. I should like to think that he feels easier in himself because I have said, "You needn't worry. It is not your fault. Just put it down on paper. I will sort it out later on. If you try to rely on your memory and I do not happen to come back and you forget to write it clown, then we are all in a lot of trouble". No longer does he try and avoid his problem. He knows that I understand it, and he puts the words down. That happens to give me a certain amount of understanding, and it would give me an understanding as an employer if I employed a lot of men or women. Under those circumstances I would be prepared to talk to the union representative of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, on the subject. Would he have the knowledge to talk to me?
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: With pleasure.
The Earl of Macclesfield: No, I asked whether he would have the knowledge.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: I shall try and persuade him.
The Earl of Macclesfield: Unless he has an understanding of dyslexia; unless he has worked with and seen the funny things dyslexic people do, can he say to me, "I think they can do so-and-so"? Assuming the employer has no knowledge, can the representative say, "He has this limitation, but if we stick him there he is perfectly all right and will do a good job for you".
It means educating the adult world about dyslexia and educating employees so that they understand. If we can start that process in the classroom with the other 11 children out of the 12 seeing the problems the 12th child has and seeing words being written wrongly on the board—not being able to understand why, but accepting that it happens—it will be a step in the right direction.
I shall tell your Lordships a silly story from the past, the significance of which I did not appreciate at the time. Esther Rantzen's "That's Life" programme showed a road with what should have been a large "STOP" sign. In fact it said "SOTP", the middle two letters being

1587
transposed. I did not realise at the time that it was simply the dyslexic local council worker being let loose with a paintbrush; somebody had not put the stencil down for him. It is clear that that is what happened. Nobody on that programme had the faintest idea that it was an example of dyslexia—it may have been a slip, but I feel it was dyslexia—stuck out in the road for all to see.
It must be accepted that there are certain jobs dyslexics will not be able to do and will not necessarily want to do. Adults reach a certain limit. If we take the lid off the pressure under which even those of a relatively placid nature work and help them to see that the problem is caused by the make-up of their brain, then everybody will rally round because that is human nature. That will be another step in the right direction.
The Department of Employment may be able to take a step backwards because the employer understands the problem. He has seen it. The union representative understands the problem because he has experience of it and does not go forward without that experience. It would not be any good somebody without experience coming to me. I would turn round and say, "I cannot hold this discussion. I know more about the problem than you. You do not even know how many dyslexics there are, what their problems are, what their limitations are, and whether I can help them".
Confrontation is not the way forward. Educating people as to what the problem is and how people with the problem can be assimilated into the workplace is the way forward.
4.42 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am sure the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for bringing this particular issue to our attention and for introducing the debate, and certainly for the way in which he introduced it. As he rightly says, dyslexia is a condition that few people know much about—and I include myself in that category.
It is true that in the past I worked with colleagues who turned out to be dyslexic. The two people I particularly have in mind were both extremely bright people who had worked very hard at eliminating what they saw as a disability—and had almost succeeded. One was a young woman with a good law degree who was appointed by me to a position in the union's legal department. I suspected dyslexia, but she did not tell me about it immediately. However, it did not matter in the job that she was doing. She had the assistance of an audio typist and was able to function not only well, but exceptionally well.
The other was a colleague who was a full-time official. He had no problem at all with numbers; in fact, he was exceptionally quick at arithmetical calculations —some dyslexics are. It was the written word which was a problem for him. Unlike some dyslexics, he became a very good public speaker as well as a negotiator. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, illustrated this afternoon, some dyslexics clearly have a high level of verbal skills. Again, that individual had secretarial assistance.
1588
I make those points because it is not always understood that people suffering from this condition are frequently very bright people. It is really in an employer's interests, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, to make use of their talents even if it means giving them some help in certain directions. Moreover, there is not necessarily a problem with reading, writing and spelling, although that does occur in some cases. Many dyslexic adults can read, write and spell competently. However there is an underlying defect associated with the way information is processed which can sometimes affect organisational ability and general memory.
But those are not insurmountable barriers, as my reference to my two former colleagues testifies. How can people with these drawbacks become successful, particularly in our present highly competitive world? In many ways, when they are successful it is because they have worked hard to overcome what they see as a disability. Many are extremely sensitive about admitting that they have this condition. They develop strategies to enable them to compensate for their areas of weakness. Competence in literary skills is important, but not overwhelmingly so in all jobs. Being able to read aloud accurately and fluently is necessary in some occupations —perhaps in your Lordships' House, though I must say that I am frequently envious of those like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who can speak long and fluently without the need to refer to a single note. But it is not always necessary to have the facility to read fluently and accurately in all occupations.
What is important in many jobs is the ability to extract relevant information from text quickly. Many dyslexic people develop such skills to a high level—perhaps higher than some others who do not start out with their disadvantage. They become exceptionally well organised in order to mask their original lack of organisational skills. It is important also to develop complementary skills. Those include the use of electronic calculators, spell checkers and personal organisers. Good keyboard skills enable dyslexic people to use word processors efficiently. As we heard from a number of noble Lords this afternoon, it is clear that many dyslexic people are extremely good at developing those skills. A tape recorder is a good way to record notes and was used extensively by the people to whom I referred earlier.
The use of office technologies, which are now widely in operation, should make it more possible for employers to engage people who are dyslexic. There is no reason why they should not be trained in the use of such technology and no reason why they should not turn out to be just as good as people who do not start out with their disadvantage. There can in fact be advantages in employing a dyslexic person, particularly one who has achieved a good academic standard, as some do. The mere fact that he or she has actually made the short list for an appointment requiring qualifications indicates that the interviewee may have qualities of persistence in the face of difficulties and the determination to overcome hurdles in the way of progress that others not similarly tested may not possess. Employers therefore need to set aside their prejudices and give dyslexic applicants the opportunity to prove their worth.

1589
Before preparing for this debate I obtained some information from the Adult Dyslexia Organisation. That organisation was formed in 1991 because it was realised that there was a lack of recognition and support for adult dyslexics. The aim is to build up links in research and technology to secure better opportunities in education and training. However, it became clear early on that dyslexia in the workplace is a key issue: 66 per cent. of the calls which ADO received in the quarterly period October to December 1993 were from people in full or part-time employment; 26 per cent. of those felt under pressure from their employment, fearing to lose their jobs or of being demoted or passed over for promotion; 12 per cent. were in self-employment, which they had undertaken as they feared being in the employ of someone else, and 22 per cent. were under pressure from employers as they had admitted to being dyslexic and feared what that would mean for their future.
I understand that around 2.5 million people in Great 13ritain are thought to be dyslexic. As we heard, it is a disability affecting the brain and its processing of words and symbols. Government policy recognises it as a special need and obliges local education authorities to examine children with such needs and to draw up programmes of remedial action. As a number of noble Lords said this afternoon, progress for children seems to be being made. However, one of the problems is that the condition is not always recognised for what it is, or that remedial programmes will be of great assistance in enabling such children to overcome their difficulties. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, there remain problems with adult dyslexics. Many adults who are dyslexic have great difficulty in obtaining employment or keeping it when they have it. Surely the decline in manual employment has magnified those difficulties. Something needs to be done in that direction.
As many noble Lords said during the debate, there are many famous people who have been dyslexic. The actress Susan Hampshire has supported campaigns to assist dyslexics because of her own experiences. The actress Sarah Miles, in an article in Woman, describes her lack of education, despite being sent to expensive schools. Until quite recently she had never read a book, because she just could not manage it. But she trained her memory and was able to learn parts in drama off by heart, and now she has just written a book. She said that in her day dyslexia was not invented, so she had to go through the pain of ignorance because there was no such word. But now she and her young son have been diagnosed as severely dyslexic. She has had remedial treatment and she says it is a shame that it has taken half a century for her to get this far.
Clearly, she has had a great deal more assistance than many adult dyslexics have been able to have. She and other famous people—Michael Heseltine has been referred to and Albert Einstein is also said to have been dyslexic—have managed, often with much help, to break through. But there are many others who remain undiagnosed or unassisted and who, if help were given, would be able to break through and realise their own potential and creativity. I must say how much I agree with my noble friend Lord Murray who referred to the
1590
kind of steps that unions can take to ensure that people in the workplace know what dyslexia is and are able to assist in programmes to help dyslexic people. My union has a programme on disability and a disablement committee. We do our best to ensure that our membership is aware of the problems faced by such employees.
The Government have a policy, but much more needs to be done to educate employers in dyslexia and to ensure that they employ dyslexic people in appropriate jobs and give them appropriate training. It may well be, as my noble friend Lord Murray said, that we shall ultimately need legislation. But before we have that, much more surely needs to be done in the way of education and in the way of bringing government policy more to the attention of employers and more to the attention of all those concerned with operating in the workplace. In the meantime, I once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for allowing the House to debate this very important subject.
4.53 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on introducing this debate. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, I also congratulate the noble Lord on speaking without notes and other noble Lords on speaking without notes. Like the noble Baroness, I must apologise for making use of notes and making use of fairly extensive notes. It was a great pleasure that so many noble Lords were able to speak, bringing their great experience, both personal and otherwise, to the debate. There are many other noble Lords apart from those who spoke today who take a keen interest in matters relating to dyslexia and who I hope very much will study the report of this afternoon's proceedings.
I was disappointed that, due to previous diary commitments, I was unable to attend the reception held by the British Dyslexia Association in the House on 23rd February when it welcomed its new president, the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. I am pleased to see that she has been able to be present this afternoon. I know that the association does some quite remarkable work, both nationally and locally through the network of local associations and professional organisations, to draw attention to the issue of dyslexia and what it means to the people concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, is a vice-president of the association and I believe that my noble friend Lord Renwick is also a vice-president and a former chairman.
As is quite clear from what has been said in the debate, all too often dyslexia is misunderstood or its effects misinterpreted. Until dyslexia is diagnosed, and help given, someone with dyslexia may well be treated as if their intellectual capacity has been impaired or they have the wrong attitude, as the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, made perfectly clear. We believe that the problem is not rare. Estimates suggest that between 4 per cent. and 10 per cent. of the population has some form of dyslexia. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, made clear, the range of disability that that can induce

1591
can be very wide. As the noble Earl, Lord Macclesfield, said, in many cases it does not even lead to disability as such. I said that estimates vary between 4 per cent. and 10 per cent. Of those, around 40 per cent. will need some kind of assistance. In the past, as has been made clear—the noble Lord, Lord Addington, was the first to make it more than clear—dyslexia has been blamed on all manner of things—for example laziness or bad teaching, but neither is true. It is independent of background or intelligence.
Although not rare, dyslexia may elude early identification. The Government believe that all children with special educational needs, including dyslexia, should be identified and assessed as early as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, stressed quite rightly that the debate this afternoon is about the problems encountered by dyslexics in the workplace. He said that on other occasions when this matter had been raised it had been largely from an educational point of view. We would all accept that education has to be the most important aspect and affects how people get on later in terms of where they will end up in the workplace. Very often the wrong or an inappropriate education can lead to the wrong kind of job or inappropriate employment being pursued later on.
All I want to do on the subject of education is to remind the House that my noble friend Lady Blatch introduced the Department for Education's code of practice which was debated in the House on Monday. It offers guidance to all schools and local education authorities on their responsibilities towards pupils with special needs of all kinds, including dyslexia. It will come into effect on 1st September. The codes of practice was very much welcomed by all those who spoke.
As regards the other remarks concerning education, I noted particularly the remarks of my noble friend Lord Radnor on education and the voluntary sector and on grants under the 1993 Act. There were other remarks from my noble friend Lord Milverton and the noble Earl, Lord Macclesfield. I shall certainly bring those to the attention of my noble friend Lady Blatch. It may be that she would like to respond to them, but in my position it would not necessarily be appropriate for me to respond this afternoon.
Nevertheless, we recognise that the demands of school and work are very different. The fact that an individual may have had a specific learning difficulty in school does not necessarily mean that he will have the same difficulties in a training or work environment. Equally there will be those individuals who may not be aware of any difficulties until they come to light during the time spent on a training programme or in a job or, as the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, put it, when they are about to join the Army.
There are no specific kinds of work that people with dyslexia simply have to avoid and simply cannot do. As has been made clear, there are some jobs or parts of jobs that they would find difficult to do, but that would depend very much on the type and severity of their dyslexia. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made clear, some forms of work would possibly be inappropriate. Some might find it difficult to cope with
1592
a job that required a close and detailed reading of a document or that required accurate spelling or skill with numbers. Other people's dyslexia might manifest itself in difficulties in remembering work sequences or patterns. It may be that the job is easy enough to do but that they would have difficulty in reading the job advertisement.
So the major question I wish to address is this: what can my Department of Employment do? I slightly reject the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that we do nothing. It is one of the more important aims of my department to assist people with disabilities to obtain and retain employment. We believe that disabled people should be given a fair chance to find employment. We believe that it is in everyone's interests to concentrate on people's abilities rather than to look at their disabilities. I greatly welcomed the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, that we must appeal to the employers' self-interest. To that I can only say, "Hear, hear". That was underlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, when she spoke of some research possibly suggesting how much employers were losing out by failing to take on dyslexic people. That can be said throughout the entire field of disabilities. Employers who do not take a positive attitude towards the employment of disabled people very often risk losing out on a very large section of potential workers.
I believe that the noble Lord then went on to praise my department. We have taken a number of steps to educate and persuade employers to think and act positively about the employment of disabled people. We now have about 800 firms which have signed up and agreed to adopt our disability symbol and have therefore demonstrated their commitment to disabled people. I also know that several of the employment service's ability development centres have produced material for familiarising both specialist and mainstream staff in Job Centres with information about dyslexia and its effects.
It may help if I explain a little more what this involves. Disabled people are able to use all of our main employment and training services and programmes alongside non-disabled people. The majority of people with dyslexia whom we help use these services and schemes. Many of our employment and training programmes have relaxed eligibility criteria for people with disabilities. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked whether there was any screening at the Job Centres to find people who are dyslexic. There is no specific screening process in the Job Centres, but I can give a categoric assurance to the noble Lord that our staff are being trained in recognising when people are disabled, including when they are dyslexic—that is to say a form of disability, as other noble Lords have put it, which is not so blindingly obvious as are other forms of disability. They are being trained to recognise disability which might need some specialist help. I can also give an assurance that some of the PACTs (Placing, Assessment and Counselling Teams) have contracted with the Dyslexia Institute to provide both assessment and employment rehabilitation. That assessment can very much help to identify training that may be needed, as appropriate, for disabled people. It may also identify the type of work which it might be wise for them to

1593
pursue or rather, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, put it, to direct them away from work which would be inappropriate.
All disabled people have priority for a place on the main schemes and programmes. These include the Jobclubs, restart courses, training for work, the job interview guarantee scheme and the work placement schemes. Obviously, sometimes specialist help is necessary. That can often be provided through the national network of locally-based PACT teams which I have just mentioned. Within those PACTs, disability employment advisers (DEAs) work with employers to encourage, influence and assist them in implementing good policies and practices in this area. For someone with dyslexia, that could mean that a DEA would be available to help an employer understand the effects of dyslexia on that person or help the individual with the forms. That was a problem highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. The DEA could also provide the employer with advice and help on ways of overcoming any difficulties or limitations which the dyslexia might cause.
The disability employment advisers can also offer advice and practical help to people with disabilities to assist them in obtaining and retaining suitable employment, including access to the schemes and services which I have already mentioned as well as to the specialist help which may be appropriate.
This specialist support could involve assessment of an individual's employment needs, employment rehabilitation or access to the department's special schemes. These special schemes will include the loan of special aids and equipment. I can give an assurance to my noble friend Lord Radnor and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who spoke about information technology, and the noble Earl, Lord Macclesfield, who mentioned voice processing, that the provision of equipment could be included in that kind of help. It would be up to the individual, together with assistance from the DEAs, to decide exactly what kind of help would be best given.
From 6th June this year all the schemes will be brought together and extended by the new access to work scheme which many noble Lords know about. This will provide more flexible help and enable a wider range of people with disabilities to be assisted by looking at and addressing the obstacles that prevent an individual from obtaining and retaining a job. For the first time this certainly could include assistance at interviews and personal support at work for someone who is dyslexic. These are additional forms of help which are not available at the moment. Obviously, we shall be able to continue to provide help in the ways I described earlier in terms of the special aids and equipment which might be of use to dyslexic people.
The local Training and Enterprise Council (TEC) for a given area may be able to help people with dyslexia acquire the skills needed by local employers. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, was right to stress the importance of training. It is obviously important for all of us, but particularly for dyslexics. Trainees with dyslexia may need support in learning skills and teaching not dependent on reading and writing words and numbers. Some may also need specialist
1594
teaching in foundation skills. TECs are charged with providing suitable training for people with special needs.
I believe that they are well placed at local level to provide the appropriate training opportunities, with the necessary support, for those who are diagnosed as dyslexic. Through the development of a local network of schools, career services and training providers, including specialist training, we believe that most individual needs can be met. I reject the allegations of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, of inadequacy in this particular field of careers advice and the kind of training which is available. I believe that that help should ensure that the individual's potential is realised and that maximum benefit can be achieved by employers and employees. People with dyslexia may also benefit from training with specially-trained literacy tutors.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked whether there was any working definition of dyslexia that could ensure that people 'were adequately recognised as disabled if they were dyslexic. Anyone who is substantially handicapped in realising his or her potential in the labour market as a result of some impairment such as dyslexia, falls within the definition which we use in providing employment help for disabled people. I can therefore assure the noble Lord that the PACTs that I mentioned earlier will provide help to people with dyslexia in getting jobs, as they do for many other people with disabilities.
Much the same is true as regards benefits. There is no need for a specific definition of dyslexia or, for that matter, of any other disablement when it comes to benefits. It is the effect of dyslexia or of any particular disablement which is most important in deciding whether there should be entitlement to benefits and, similarly, whether there should be entitlement to help from either the PACTs, a disablement employment adviser or all the other specialist ranges of services that are proved by my department.
I hope that I have been able to give the House some idea of how the Department of Employment's services and employment training programme can help people with dyslexia and, for that matter, other disabilities in both getting a job and remaining in a job. The programmes and services are very wide ranging so I could describe them only briefly. However, I believe that what has proved most important about this afternoon's debate is that it has provided an opportunity to highlight the issues relating to dyslexia and, I hope, to sweep away some of the many misconceptions that surround it. I believe that the debate has also drawn attention to the fact that while we cannot and must not be complacent, progress is being made; progress has been made; and progress will continue to be made.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I should first like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken for their contributions to the debate. It has been very nice to open up the subject of dyslexia not only to a new department of government, but also to a different group of noble

1595
Lords who are concerned about this subject as it affects the largest part of the dyslexic population—that is, adults, and not just children.
I should also like to thank all those noble Lords who complimented me on speaking without notes. When it comes to dyslexia I can safely say that it is what the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, described as being "differently able". I cannot read notes accurately, therefore I do not use them. "Making a virtue out of necessity" might be another way of putting it.
I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his answer. He started to put some flesh onto the bones of the situation facing adult dyslexics. He put down markers about where organisations such as the Adult Dyslexia Organisation, which has already been mentioned, can start to try to find the appropriate help. I hope that the Minister's words will be a guideline for all those in his department who give assistance to those with dyslexia.
I could launch into another speech and say all the things that I missed out the first time round, but I do not feel that that would be appropriate, so I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Church of Scotland (Properties and Investments) Order Confirmation Bill
5.12 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Human Genetic Manipulation
5.13 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet rose to call attention to the threats posed and the benefits offered to humankind by human genetic manipulation and assisted procreation; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the second Motion to emerge from the ballot for debate today draws attention to a part of the current revolution in molecular biology. I believe that that revolution will require continuous hard thought from the world's parliaments quite soon.
I shall call it the "bio-revolution" for short. Revolutions in science, and the new technologies which follow them, are giddyingly familiar. They have become endemic in the last half century. This one, because it is about what human bodies and minds are made of, will touch every aspect of human life. We Parliamentarians here, and throughout the world, and governments, singly and in groups, need to think now. Every day we read of a new discovery, a new process, a new policy proposal put forward or rescinded. The field is vast and foggy, but we are unavoidably moving into it and we must get our bearings. Better: we must probably create our bearings as we go.
The bio-revolution is changing the relations between people, between societies and between generations. Not surprisingly, there are calls for legislation and regulation, some of which have been met, and there will be many more that must be met, if possible coherently.
The last scientific revolution to raise issues on this scale and with this existential charge was the revolution in nuclear physics. That one changed relations between states, and between states and their citizens. The demand for regulation or legislation was only partly met because there were, and still are, no supranational structures which could legislate or regulate in the common interest. Nor were there even within states the structures to foresee the problems. Clearing up after the nuclear military both in the United States and in the ex-Soviet Union has become a mega-burden to which we mostly shut our eyes. I mention all that because we must do better this time. The nuclear revolution gave us the ability to wipe ourselves out. Species suicide became possible. This one will give us the power to change ourselves physically. Species revision will become possible.
Germline gene therapy is not yet with us, and the relevant government-appointed advisory committee has advised that at least for the moment it should not be attempted. That is obviously right, but it is of course bolting the stable door before the horse is born. It is my view that when germline therapy does become attractive, which may be quite soon, society will not reject it out of hand.
Our first care must be for the relationship between the available knowledge about human genetics and sufficient knowledge to make massive application of genetic therapy legitimate. Will genetic practitioners know enough to say, hand on heart, "I know what I am doing, unto the third and fourth generation of them that I am creating or altering, and it will be good. I need to know no more"?
Genetic screening is already enabling us to know or, if we prefer, to refuse to know, how likely we or our children are to die of some disease or be incapacitated by it at a certain age. Self-knowledge, and thus personal identity, is being fundamentally changed for some people, and will be for many more. In the future gene mapping will, roughly speaking, enable us to remake others and to generate some of us in test-tubes.
Relations between person and person are also changing; between potential parents; and between them and their potential children; between natural and nurturing parents; and the genetic and the non-genetic children of the same parents; between natural persons and donated cousins or even sibs of whose existence the natural persons will sometimes not know. Most recently, an extraordinary new person has been advertised: a person developed from ovarian tissue taken from an aborted foetus. The relation between such people and the established chain of being, even including IVF donor people, is an extraordinary challenge to the imagination. They would know nothing of their mothers except that their grandmothers killed them. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York has said well of this:

1597
"What sort of society is it that kills its unwanted foetuses and then turns them into parents?"
Relations between single persons and collective persons will also be changed by the knowledge obtained from genetic screening, which will no doubt usually be correct but cannot hope to be always. These will include the individual's relations with the medical profession, with his or her employer, with the private sector insurance and mortgage companies, and with the community itself as provider of health care and national insurance, and as the maker of law and its enforcer: in short, between the individual and the state.
Then also relations will be changed between entire categories of persons: medicine and the state, medicine and industry, and among industrial interests, especially pharmaceutical companies. These last will be investing large sums on basic and applied research, and on testing their product, and will want to patent what they develop as they go along, and profit from their investment. Those huge transactions will fertilise the existing breeding ground for injustice which lies between the developed and the developing world wherever modern medicine comes on the scene. The companies have a right to know, and to know soon, what society wants them to do, and will allow them to do.
Among the institutions which the bio-revolution looks like sweeping away is the present patent system. There are three things in that system which are incompatible with the biotechnology of the future. First: the distinction between discovery and invention will have to be redefined; secondly, so will the distinction between matter and process; and, thirdly, the present multiple and incompatible patent jurisdictions are going to have to be swept away in favour of a single world one. I lack both time and knowledge to go further into this.
At every interface in those relations, and many others there lives a layer, a complex folded layer, of ethical realities and political puzzles, many of which will in due course require legislation or regulation at one level or another: national, continental or global.
Now, germline therapy will quite soon be possible, and then we shall really have to think what we want. Perhaps the discussion will take this form.
The benefits could be colossal: within a generation congenital disease could be entirely eliminated from those populations which can afford it. But it also poses two very alarming risks. First, the whole thing might go physically wrong; and, secondly, it might be applied towards a wrong goal.
Let us take them in turn: going physically wrong. The purpose will be to make ill people well, and to cause more babies to be born well. That always has been, is, and always will be the purpose of medicine. In the past, plenty of promising medical innovations have proved unsuccessful, and the result has been that ill people have not been made well. Bad luck. Try again. What's so different? So say the progressivists.
The natural pietists say, "Germline therapy is indeed fundamentally different. Every time in this bio-revolution that a veil has been stripped from between us and understanding, seven new veils have appeared. What mutations will the envisaged genetic manipulation trigger?" The complexity of the human genome, and the
1598
unknown and perhaps unknowable relationships between different genes and groups of genes, do not suggest that theoretical knowledge will ever be sufficient to justify the undertaking. Animal analogies look flimsier than ever at that level. Pragmatic knowledge will not be obtainable until too late. Even in the simpler and less contentious field of IVF, which is already with us, the people born have not yet shown whether their fertility is normal, because they are not fruit-flies. One expert in this field fears that the use of inadequate sperm in artificial insemination (husband) may produce a disaster in the next generation: "At present", she says, "no one is much looking at that".
So the natural pietists say, "May not a treated germline surprise the practitioner, or rather the practitioner's great grandchildren, by suddenly going berserk and producing —if not actually monsters—at least unexpected, and possibly unidentifiable, results?"
The answer of the progressivists is twofold: there is no reason to think that could happen, and if it did one could just change that germline back to where it started. I have actually heard that.
That is the physical risk. Then there is the social risk of the wrong goal being adopted, the spectre of eugenics. For Galton, eugenics was,
"the scientific study of the biological and social factors which improve or impair the inborn qualities of human beings".
But the word has now come to mean the ruthless and destructive use of the results of that study: it has become a boo-word, and I suppose it has got to remain one.
There are slopes of all sorts in this discussion, and they are of varying slipperiness. The argument: that on a slippery slope one can stop whenever one likes has one great weakness: the number of occasions when people who ought to have stopped did not.
We already have with us the flippant demand for children of a particular colouring or sex, and the increasingly sinister gradations of pre-conception selection, intra-uterine cull, and finally, in India and China and probably elsewhere, mass female infanticide.
Galton himself went too far in his writings. So did Sir Winston Churchill. The United States went too far in practice in the 1920s and 1930s, and in the 1930s and 1940s Germany provided that great example of the slippery slope which still dominates this debate, as it surely must for as long as it is remembered. Everybody, medical scientist or not, must remember that, medical scientists in Germany, individuals like us, succumbed to the persuasion.
In China at the moment, the compulsory sterilisation of "congenitally retarded people" is reported to be a matter of course under local law in some poorer provinces, including Gansu. A draft national law which included enforced abortion has recently been withdrawn, but in favour of what remains to be seen. The rhetoric has been that of the palaeo-eugenics preached in the West at the beginning of this century. In the meantime, provincial law continues as before.
It is thus in the presence of a living tradition of eugenics in the second worst sense that we have to decide what to do. Of course, the worst sense of all would be the deliberate creation of a population of uncomplaining helots, à la Brave New World. It seems

1599
to me unavoidable that different countries will do different things; that tolerance and common sense require us to admit that this is so, and that detestation of what we perceive as deliberate or blasphemous cruelty will place yet another strain on our flimsy mechanisms for keeping peace between states. We still have the weapons with which to commit species suicide.
Now let us look again at the bright side. How would it be if in the far future we were offered the elimination of seasickness at will, or alcoholism? Or even more striking, the removal of violence from among the modes of human action, without side effects?
What would be demanded of the power structures of that future time? Would those offers from science be ones which democracy could refuse? In such a world, what would the power structures be, anyhow? It is obvious that they will depend in part on what decisions are being taken in this very field. They will not necessarily be democratic.
Another problem: if it is acceptable to improve the health of a family or a population, is it not also acceptable to improve its intelligence? It is harder to define intelligence than to define health, but many would agree that gross differences of intelligence exist and are not difficult to perceive, and that the dumbest often have the worst time on this earth.
Since in general there cannot be advance evidence of the long-term effects of a given piece of gene therapy, the right course of action is one which takes account of that fact. You will not get the evidence. The uncertainty analysis in the case of fallout from nuclear weapons tests was, we now know, all wrong. Harm was caused. Looking into the double helix was a bit like looking into the nucleus of the atom. Shall we have learned that technology is not innocent until proved guilty, that it can no longer be allowed the benefit of the doubt? Uncertainty analysis should now be the branch of study which receives most attention and help from Parliaments and governments.
Some new problems are already with us. One is the vast increase in the numbers of people who may know, or may choose not to know, that their children in general, or each in particular, have a given likelihood of getting some disease before birth, at birth, in childhood, or in middle age.
There are also large-scale social problems coming soon that to the best of my knowledge are not being addressed. How many of us will be deemed truly healthy when we are all screened for everything? A definition of "the normal" would arise, deviation from which might be grounds for abortion in the case of a foetus. Procrustean therapies of various kinds would bring the eccentric and the not-quite-normal among us within acceptable bounds.
Will the taxpayers not want to be sure that those whose education and training they fund will last beyond 25? Will a new sub-class arise—those who are going to develop conditions that are held to designate them unemployable, especially in an economy where unemployment may finally be admitted to be a tool of
1600
policy, and therefore not worth educating because they will not survive long enough to provide "value for money"?
Well, legislation caps all, and it is now urgent to bring the skills of moral philosophy more directly to bear on it. Moral philosophy is still emerging, at least in this country, from a half century of neglect. There are many in Parliament who are contributing greatly to that emergence but there are some who still believe that ethics does not exist, or that it is something quite other than what it is. They are therefore left at the mercy of their individual apprehensions of common sense.
Examples are before us every day. It sometimes seems that the whole fabric of Western thinking about what we ought to do and how we ought to live, from the pre-Socratics on, has been judged inconvenient, perhaps as standing in the way of modern goals. These goals were first, in the 1930s, science, which was supposed to be real in a way that ethics could not be; and more recently the pursuit of wealth in economic freedom, which alone has been supposed to constitute a real good. If that is one's scale of values then of course the only way to derive policy from judgment is by deep excision of the offending matter of ethics from personal consciousness.
As an example of a mistaken account of ethics I offer the following from a recent report on the regulation of clinical procedures commissioned by the Government:
"Ethics are the moral convictions of thoughtful, conscientious and informed people [deriving] from a compound of natural philosophy and religion".
The text goes on to say that natural philosophy and religion are intuitive and that "rules and duties" are derived from "utilitarian principles".
This seems to be a way of saying that ethics are fuzzy beliefs entertained by good-natured people. One cannot say this if one has any acquaintance with ethics as part of philosophy in general, and understands that philosophy is, in the words of R.G. Collingwood,
"organised and systematic thought directed towards the discovery of truths concerning a definite subject-matter".
In the case of ethics, that sort of thought is quite difficult, but there are people who can do it.
National ethics committees are a convenient method of bringing such people to the fore. The non-governmental Nuffield Council on Bioethics is a good beginning. If properly constituted, such committees will have a membership which is able to juxtapose conflicting insights in moral philosophy, wring out the elements of pseudo-conflict and agree on a submission or opinion which brings out the true conflicts in measured and comprehensible terms. Committees tackling ethical or ethico-legal problems without moral philosophers on board—and in this country they are the rule not the exception—are like committees designing bridges without an engineer.
It would be wrong to rely only on chosen specialist bodies; we should also consult the people directly. In this field Denmark is, among the European Union countries, undoubtedly the most experienced. The consensus conference system, set up and operated by the Danish Parliament, is simple in purpose and highly sophisticated in execution. All our countries and their parliaments would be the better for learning from it. A

1601
very first demonstration run of the same kind is even now being prepared in this country. It is led by the Science Museum, and good luck to it. Something similar on crime was published in the last Independent on Sunday, and very interesting it was. But these are not devised by Parliament for the use of Parliament in legislation, as they should be.
Alongside the consensus conference, we should also consider various more traditionally British or American alternatives which are now being canvassed in the pharmaceutical industry and elsewhere. One of these is to have something like a planning inquiry when any alarming new treatment or product is proposed. Progressivists and natural pietists would put their cases under neutral chairmanship, and all would be widely reported.
The pharmaceutical industry is multinational in its location, in its shareholders and in its markets, and the question of European harmonisation is already posing itself. Is harmonisation necessary? So far each country has gone its own way, but the European Commission, the Council of Europe, and UNESCO are all in the process of examining the issues.
Certain questions present themselves for discussion. What are the pros and cons of a plurality of regimes as opposed to a single regime, considered irrespective of where they might be; as for instance Britain, Western Europe, East Asia, the world and so on?
Are the following among the advantages of the present plurality: that humanity is naturally diverse and its traditions, including ethical traditions, various; that more people in total may be pleased by diverse local regimes than would he pleased by a single one; that it is more important for smaller exclusive groups to feel at home with their laws than for larger inclusive ones to do so; and that opinion varies over time in a different way from country to country?
And are the following among the advantages of a single, harmonised, European regime: the convenience of pharmaceutical companies developing the relevant substances and treatments; a single regulatory approach to licensing arrangements with countries outside Europe; the preclusion of "medical tourism"—that is, going to a country with a more relaxed attitude and buying the treatment that you want there, if you can afford it; and, lastly, freeing resources, including ingenuity, to bring the benefits of the bio-revolution to the third world? All these things will give rise to their own extremely complicated debates, and so will others there is no time for. It does seem likely that we should not hurry.
Yet how can we not hurry, given the huge breadth of the scientific programmes and their rushing acceleration, epitomised by the human genome programme? The coexistence of the scientific hare and the democratic tortoise is potentially tragic. We need consensus conferencing, pseudo-planning inquiries, national ethics committees, a Select Committee of this House, European committees, world committees, and probably everything in between as well.
Lord Annan: My Lords, before the noble Lords sits down will he agree with three propositions? The first is
1602
that for the past 30 years no one has accepted what A.J. Ayer said about ethics. The second is that each year a torrent of books from the most reputable philosophers on ethics falls from the presses. The third is that no ore believes that utilitarian ethics are right today; they are as démodé as the crinoline.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, it will take a moment to answer the noble Lord. Many people still believe that A.J. Ayer is right, not including reputable philosophers. That is my point. Ask teachers. Is utilitarianism still on the menu? The quotation that I gave shows clearly that it is. I beg to move for Papers.
5.38 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I listened with great attention to the noble Lord, Lord Kennel. He raised in a dense form enough to occupy people for a good day's seminar. I shall be interested to know what the Minister has to say on behalf of the Government or whether the Government have much to say in reply to the type of comments that the noble Lord made. Having said that, I do not object to the use of the Chamber in that way, but I am afraid that some people may say that it is not quite fair to raise so many hares and so many small points and problems without giving us an opportunity to pursue them, simply because of the density of the noble Lord's argument. However, I am sure that people will read the noble Lord's speech.
I was certainly intimidated by the words of the Motion when deciding whether to speak. Had I not put my name down to speak, I should certainly have felt intimidated about speaking, having heard the noble Lord's speech. We are fortunate to have present the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, although she is not going to speak in the debate. However, I am sure that she will listen carefully to what is said.
I personally feel barely qualified to address only a very small part of the large canvas which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has offered us. I do not believe that this is the appropriate time at which to try to deal with what we shall have an opportunity to debate in June on Clause 138 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill —namely, the prohibition of the use of embryo germ cells—except in so far as it illustrates general principles.
My particular interest in this field is that I was involved in the passage of the embryo legislation in this House in 1990, assisted in no small pact by an organisation called Progress. Following the successful passing of the Bill, I became one of three trustees of an offspring charity called the Progress Educational Trust. Our chairman is Professor Marcus Pembrey and our aim is to disseminate knowledge of work which is done in that area, at various levels, on a very modest scale in comparison with the terms used by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet.
It is our underlying belief that in trying to encourage an informed public debate, we need an informed public. The same principle applies just as much to the other areas covered by the Motion before us. Therefore, education will be one of my main themes.
One of the target areas for information is obviously students and young people, if only to ensure that future

1603
generations are better equipped to understand and make decisions. In my opinion, the scope and extent of what we are discussing today has eventual implications of Darwinian proportions. It always continues to astonish me how, in our education system and background assumptions about life, we still, after all these years, manage to avoid many of the uncomfortable consequences of Darwinian theory; that is, accepting as we do, rationally, that his theories are 90-something percent. correct.
With that record, how are we to face the mirror which is held up to us by the unravelling of our genetic code, with all the implications and decisions which follow? My guess is that there will be no tidy or simple answers, just as in this debate. The fact that, largely, we cannot control what happens in other countries adds to the confusion of any of our best intentions.
With all that uncertainty surrounding our beliefs, generated by new genetic knowledge of ourselves and by new possibilities, it may be that the largely pragmatic approach that we are already taking is best.
We have set up organisations outside direct government control which must be responsive to developments and must respect and educate public opinion. To carry out their tasks successfully, they must also have the confidence of the scientists and doctors whom they are regulating, licensing or supervising. I am thinking of the HFEA—the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee working with local ethical committees or, in a more discursive role, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The Nuffield's first annual report contains an excellent summary of the various bodies in this field.
All those bodies can operate successfully provided that they have the trust of the professionals involved, who in turn are prepared to be open about what they are doing. That may be partly responsible for the lead and respect which has developed for the work done in this country, particularly in IVF and related areas. We have an enviable record and we should endeavour to keep that lead.
It is against that background that I find the recent insertion of Clause 138 into the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill by a Conservative Back Bencher to be such a jarring anomaly, especially in view of the massive consultation exercise in which the HFEA is currently engaged on that subject. That exercise and its scale would seem to me to be a model of how this kind of debate should and can proceed. I know that other countries have studied the HFEA as a possible model for how to proceed.
In terms of the subject of the debate, what can we say about the human genome project? It has been compared in scope with some of the great human endeavours. It will proceed, whatever we feel or say here, with the inevitability of some Greek drama, like some fate unravelling itself before us. If the knowledge gained brings us closer down to earth, so be it.
As if to pacify the fates, I understand that something between 3 per cent. and 5 per cent. of the funds being put up for the project (depending on the country) are to be spent on social and ethical issues. Taken as a
1604
percentage of the estimated 3 billion dollar cost of the project, that should be one of the costliest debates of all time. I hope that it will be worth it.
To come down to earth, some noble Lords may have received a letter from the Genetic Interest Group which represents over 100 charities. It tells of the existence of over 4,000 different genetic disorders which result in about 15,000 babies being born every year with a significant degree of disability and, in some cases, the prospect of early death. As we know, most possible treatment is still distant, but we can share the feeling that there is hope and we should be grateful that some progress is being made.
As against that, although the prospect of "designer" babies can be conjured up, their possibility, even if permitted, is fortunately so remote because most physical traits are expected to involve more than one gene. It is very often the freak examples in this field which catch the headlines and worry the public unjustifiably. Literary imagination sometimes adds to that, to say nothing of the media. Over the longer term, various forms of education and discussion should be able to provide the informed public opinion needed for informed debate and decisions.
I hope that part of that debate can be encouraged—either generally or on special topics—by organisations such as the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Its recent working party on genetic screening was able to discuss the practical and ethical effects of what may emerge both in the short and long term; for example, it dealt with issues such as consent, confidentiality, employment and insurance. That is far from an enclave of medical self-interest, as membership of the working parties are balanced by laymen as well as experts. The present excellent standing and authority of that council should only be encouraged.
Finally, I suggest that there are no simple answers in this field. Our best hope is that over the years we shall find the ability to adapt both individually and as a society to any awkward truths which we may discover.
5.48 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, the Motion so helpfully tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, refers to the threats posed by genetic manipulation and assisted procreation. Indeed, there are particular threats and understandable fears, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, stressed so eloquently. But in the minds of some people, there is an underlying feeling or fear that we should not be engaged at all in such ambitious projects; that they somehow go against our nature. Therefore, first, I should like to affirm that it is our vocation and responsibility as human beings to intervene in the processes of nature for the health and well being of humanity.
The scientific creativity and ingenuity with which we have been endowed and through which we can intervene is part of our nature. Therefore, it is an essential aspect of our God-given nature to manipulate and shape natural processes. Professor Gordon Dunstan has written that, in the popular mind, the job of the moralist is,
"to see what the scientists are up to and tell them to stop it".

1605
On the contrary, he argues, research science, bestriding two worlds—the known and the unknown—creating undreamed of possibilities, with the thought that a new fact might perhaps modify or remedy a known ill, is an exhilarating prospect. As the professor puts it:
The moralist can share that exhilaration if he stands near enough to the scientist to learn a little of what he is doing".
Since the discovery of the double helical structure of DNA in 1953 by James Watson, Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins, described as one of the greatest discoveries ever made, there has, as we are all aware, been a staggering advance in genetics. By 1991, a four year-old girl had become the first patient to undergo a successful gene transplant in the treatment of a fatal genetic disorder. Now, the human genome project sets out to map and sequence the 3 billion base players within the human genome by the early years of the next century. Exhilarating stuff indeed!
I should like to stress the practical benefits of genetic research, especially in relation to genetic disorders still to be remedied, of which cystic fibrosis is only the best known. Due to vaccination and antibiotics, together with a better diet, the major infectious diseases have declined. That means that disorders with a genetic basis have grown in relative importance. In northern Europe populations, around 1 per cent. to 2 per cent. of all births are associated with some form of genetic disability or developmental disorder having a strong genetic component. A study of children admitted to a paediatric hospital in Montreal between 1969–70 shows that genetic admissions accounted for about 11 per cent. of cases. Genetic diseases are now a major cause of death in those under the age of 15. As I shall describe later, the position is even more stark in the developing world.
There are questions; for example, about the legitimacy of screening for defective genes, about who should be told of what has been discovered and the implications of such knowledge for insurance policies and the health service, about whether a person who has a defective gene, which will bring about a debilitating illness in 30 years' time, should be told about it now, and about how far we should go in manipulation if, for example, it eventually becomes possible to ensure particular characteristics in our offspring like greater intelligence. The questions are many, complex and serious, and I do not intend to deal with them here. Instead, I want to point to the method which has evolved for dealing with such questions and to affirm that they can be dealt with in a responsible manner. Writing of an Anglican report prepared in 1958, but in words which have a much wider significance, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York has written:
"It was the first report really to exploit the method of detailed empirical study, allied with inter-disciplinary discussion, in such a way that theological insights were allowed to illuminate and articulate the moral claim inherent in the subject under study, without dictating prior conclusions. A notable series of similar reports, many of them on medical topics, have followed the same method".
That was the method followed most recently in your Lordship's House by the Select Committee on Medical Ethics when it dealt with the questions around euthanasia. It is undoubtedly the method that is going to he followed for the next three decades as we grapple
1606
with a whole range of fresh questions. It involves, as that quotation said, detailed empirical study and inter-disciplinary discussion.
Furthermore, there is a moral claim inherent in the subject under study and if theology is brought in at all it will be to illuminate and articulate that, not to dictate prior conclusions. The assumption is that we do have the capacity and the sense as human beings to make moral judgments in those difficult, evolving areas. It is an assumption underpinned by a long tradition of Christian thinking that all of us, as human beings, whatever our religious beliefs or lack of them, have a moral awareness. It is indeed true that there are dire warnings from the Nazi attitude to eugenics, with their hope that they could breed a new race of supermen, eliminating the weak and the feeble. It is also true that we can frighten ourselves with the thought that, like Frankenstein, we can make monsters. It is good to have those fears, to keep them around and to build in safeguards to ensure that they are not realised. But it is part of our dignity and responsibility as human beings not only to intervene in the processes of nature for the well-being of humanity but to wrestle with the moral dilemmas that that throws up. An awesome task this may be, but then it is an awesome thing to be a human being.
The report of the Committee on the Ethics of Gene Therapy published in 1992 is a good example both of encouragement to continuing research and awareness of the need for limits and safeguards. We have already had our attention drawn in today's debate to a whole range of committees and regulatory bodies which exist to ensure that those limits and safeguards are observed.
More than 200 years ago, the Frenchman Diderot foresaw, as he put it:
"A warm room with the floor covered with little pots, on each of these pots a label: soldiers, magistrates, philosophers, poets, potted courtesans, potted kings".
It is a picture which Aldous Huxley made familiar to the modem mind and which some now predict will become a reality. Do we really want to go down that road? Here two other factors come in to balance the earlier emphasis upon our vocation to intervene in, and manipulate, the processes of nature. The first is the traditional wisdom enshrined in the continuum of a loving relationship, sexual intimacy, the birth of a child and parenting. The majority of us came into being and find our identity through two people we knew —or, continue to know—who cared for us, who cared for one another and who expressed that love physically. As we know all too painfully, the quality of some of the ingredients in that nexus may leave a great deal to be desired. Nevertheless, in that continuum, that nexus, that holding together of love, sexual expression, gestation and parenting, there is a tried and tested experience against which any new developments have to be measured.
Then there is the wisdom, if we may put: it that way, in nature itself, all that the modem ecological movement has revealed about the delicate series of balances and relationships built up in any eco system. Drastically to interfere in one part without sensitivity as to what is happening elsewhere can have dire effects, as we have

1607
discovered with the indiscriminate use of powerful pesticides and fertilisers. That is not an argument to outlaw their use; it is just a reminder that we are dealing with delicately balanced systems. If we intervene and manipulate, particularly in an area so foundational for all existence as genes, the ramifications and repercussions are likely to be far-reaching. Safeguards are certainly needed.
Finally, in considering the ethical dimension, we will not be able to ignore the economic and political questions. For research costs money and the exploitation of research brings money. That raises questions about the diseases on which research will be done and who will benefit from that research. The most common single gene defect to afflict northern Europeans—cystic fibrosis—has a frequency of about one in 2,500 births. Sickle-cell anaemia with a frequency of about one in 50 to one in 100 births—a frequency 50 times more—predominantly afflicts Africans. Each year about 100,000 infants are born in Africa with sickle-cell disease. Similarly, thalassaemia afflicts people in the East and in the Mediterranean with a frequency as high as one in 50 to one in 100 births. In Thailand alone, more that half a million children out of a total population of 50 million suffer variable degrees of chronic ill health due to the interaction of the different thalassaemia genes.
According to an estimate made in 1983 by the World Health Organisation 242 million people around the world carried a copy of the gene for thalassaemia or sickle-cell. In the past the prevalence of these diseases was covered up by death from malaria. But as malaria has gradually decreased, these other genetically-based diseases, which have developed, ironically and tragically, as a response to malaria, have been uncovered.
When Sir James Watson set up the human genome project he expressed the hope that the benefits of the research would be for all the people of the world and not just particular nations. That must surely be our hope for all work in genetics. But this poses political and economic questions which are at least as pressing as the ethical ones about how we actually make the fruits of research available to those most in need of it and least able to pay for it.
So I would like to stress the first phrase of the noble Lord's Motion—the potential benefits of genetic manipulation—and to say that we should have the confidence to pursue this together with the confidence that the appropriate ethical committees, particularly from within the scientific community itself, can set up the necessary codes of practice and safeguards. I do not wish this to seem complacent or to appear unaware of the dangers of what Tom Wilkie has called,
"Sliding unawares into sin while trying to do good".
But, equally, it does not help continually to carp on our incapacity to set up appropriate procedures. There are and will continue to be new ethical dilemmas as research unfolds over the next decades and centuries which will need to be faced afresh at each stage. Yet no less pressing will be the political and economic
1608
questions about how we make the benefits of this research available to those countries and people who need it most.
6.2 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I do not intend today to dwell on the moral, religious, or ethical implications that will be raised in today's debate. There are many of your Lordships in the House today who are far better qualified than I to guide us. I would like to speak on the practical aspects of the subject. From the moment the first cave-man with a broken leg was dragged back to the cave and his leg put in a crude splint, the balance of nature was upset by human ingenuity.
Since then, the medical profession has, with intermittent success, succeeded in saving millions of human beings who would otherwise have died before passing on their genes. These efforts did not have any significant effect on our make up until the 1840s when the first successful caesarean section was performed which allowed both mother and child to survive. Since then many hundreds of thousands of caesareans have been performed thereby allowing children with big heads and women with narrow hips to survive. It is now only a matter of time—perhaps another 50 generations —before no child in the western world will be able to be born naturally owing to the laws of natural selection having been thwarted. I merely give this example to your Lordships to show how the medical profession, while seeking to do good at the time, does not necessarily realise the long-term implication of its actions.
There have been in the past several programmes to breed human beings selectively in a controlled environment. For example, on the island of Barbuda in the West Indies, the Blennerhasset family from the mid-seventeenth century until the 1830s when slavery was abolished, bred their slaves selectively to be not only big, strong and healthy but also to be of a sunny disposition. Once the blood lines had been firmly established—which incidentally apparently took around five generations—there were, so we are told, hardly any failures.
Peter the Great of Russia and Frederick the Great of Germany bred regiments of six foot 8 inch tall guardsmen with snub noses. More recently in Germany the National Socialists also instigated a breeding programme to produce so-called perfect specimens to be servants of the state. As we all know, that programme was brought mercifully to a halt at considerable cost to an entire generation. I have given these examples to show that one person's or group of persons' idea of what is desirable in a human being is not necessarily the idea of the rest of us.
The human gene pool has evolved over a period of some one million years to produce what by anybody's standards is an extremely successful species. We cover every nook and cranny of the earth's surface that is inhabitable and are flourishing as never before. In fact we are so successful that strenuous efforts have to be made to limit our numbers by various means of birth control. Scientists might think that by removing or

1609
altering various of our genes, they will be creating a better human being. I feel this approach is fantastically dangerous as by meddling with the human gene pool potentially fatal mistakes could be made which could virtually wipe out the entire species in a few generations. The black death could be made to look like a mild case of the sniffles.
Let us consider for a moment the utterly repugnant idea of a child being born, having a mother who was aborted and never existed—a concept one would have thought beyond the wildest ravings of the maddest of scientists. A child produced in this way would at the very least have deep-rooted psychological problems. Would it not be more practical for society to make a more concerted effort to match up all the unwanted children who already exist with the couples who desperately want a child to love and bring up as their own? Even the least promising of children could have in their genetic make up the seeds of a genius.
With any species, the wider the diversity of the gene pool, the more successful that species will be. Any tampering could for a short time perhaps produce a superior disease-free human being, but nature would almost certainly have her revenge in an unexpected and probably devastating way. To tamper with natural selection and our genetic make up is indeed sowing the seeds of our own self-destruction more efficiently and certainly than any nuclear holocaust could ever do.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, will he allow me to tell him a story?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, excuse me but this is a timed debate. The noble Lord has another chance to speak at the end of the debate so I think that we should proceed.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, deserves gratitude for this timely debate on a matter of great public concern and for the moderate terms in which he has expressed his views. He could have used the kind of emotive language one sometimes hears which is more like that of science or honor fiction, and we must all be grateful that no one would use that language in this debate.
I would like to speak but I have almost no qualifications for saying anything. I am not a moral or spiritual leader; I am not a scientist; I am not a philosopher; I am a lawyer and I am a man. Being a man, I think, disqualifies me more as regards some of these issues than others. Being a lawyer I will be severely practical. I would like to speak only on the second issue raised by the Motion—that of assisted procreation. I want to focus upon the way in which this House and the other place might approach issues of this kind. The potential risks and the benefits of assisted procreation are matters which occupied a great deal of time in this House four years ago during the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. That 1990 Act set up the Human Fertilisation and
1610
Embryology Authority to regulate precisely this area of research and medical practice. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said at Second Reading that the Secretary of State would take all the necessary steps to ensure that the authority contained a wide and balanced set of views and expertise, which would include ethics, and that it would be worthy of full public confidence.
The membership and the remit of that authority were discussed in detail both here and in another place during the passage of that Bill. The authority took up its powers in 1991 and has shown itself to be worthy of full public confidence in the way it carries out the task given to it by Parliament.
The authority was set up to regulate embryo research and fertility clinics after many years' consideration and debate on the very kind of issues which rightly concern the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and other noble Lords. It was set up because Parliament recognised that new methods of assisted conception affect family life and that it is important that legal, social, ethical and moral implications are carefully considered to protect the society that we live in.
The benefits of overcoming fertility problems and, in some cases, life-threatening heritable disorders can be readily perceived. The threat to individuals and to society at large are exactly what the authority is well placed to identify and deal with.
Who are the members of the authority? Parliament provided that the chairman, deputy chairman and a majority of members of the authority should be lay people—not doctors or scientists involved in research or treatment. Great care has been taken in making appointments to the authority. I would hope that its membership will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. Members are drawn from a wide cross-section of society and include people with expertise in ethics. Some members have backgrounds in religion, nursing and legal philosophy, but I am sure that the authority does not pretend to have a monopoly of wisdom in this area. For that reason it regularly and quite properly seeks the views of the wider public when issues of particular social and ethical importance arise.
One of the authority's main tasks is to keep itself informed of possible new developments and to address the ethical and social issues before licensing any new research or any new treatment procedure. Nothing now can be licensed in this country which the authority does not consider to be necessary or desirable for the statutory purposes in the 1990 Act.
The authority regulates and sets standards for clinics. It licences only those which meet the standards. Licences have been withheld while clinics deal with concerns raised by the authority's inspectors, and research and treatment licences have been refused where necessary. The authority grants a research licence only if satisfied that the use of human embryos is essential and the research project is necessary and desirable. That, I suggest, is an essential power, and it is essential that it is exercised wisely—as it is.
The authority has faced a number of difficult issues since taking up its powers in 1991 and has responded to

1611
them in a clear-sighted and balanced way. I hope that noble Lords will allow me to give one or two examples to show exactly how the authority has been working.
Last year the authority consulted nationally and said no to the sex selection of sperm or embryos in licensed treatment for purely social reasons. That consultation took place amid considerable and justifiable press attention. The authority concluded that sex selection of embryos by pre-implantation diagnosis should be permitted where there is risk of the mother producing a (usually male) child with an inherited life-threatening disease. It is permitted for no other reason whatever.
The authority also last year considered cloning by embryo splitting, or artificially creating identical twins. It said no to cloning. It reached that decision in March last year, long before the case of the American researchers hit the newspapers in October. In the case of sex selection and of cloning the authority was ahead on the issues because it had received information from the field before it became common knowledge.
Similarly, on the issue raised by the Motion, the use of donated ovarian tissue, the authority had advance notice from scientists and clinicians of the possibility of including the use of foetal eggs. The authority started considering that issue as long ago as 1992, well before the flurry of media attention last Christmas. It had the opportunity to give the matter mature and considered study and saw the need to consult widely on the important issues raised. It brought the matter into the public domain in a way which identifies the issues and gives people a chance to think about them carefully.
The consultation document is a balanced and lucid document, published by the authority, addressing issues about the use of tissue from three sources: live donors, cadavers and aborted foetuses. The serious press greeted the document with acclaim and many leading articles have been devoted to discussing the issues raised. The use of foetal tissue has attracted the most media attention and the attention of some Members of another place. As the noble Lord, Lord Craigavon, said a few moments ago, the document was a model of its kind.
This is a complex area in which the public have shown enormous interest. I understand that more than 20,000 copies of the document have been sent out and that several thousand responses have been received so far. Very many respondents have said how much they appreciate having the opportunity to comment on such important issues before decisions are made. So great has been the public response that the consultation period has been extended until mid-July.
Noble Lords may therefore consider that it is unfortunate that the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill has been amended in another place to ban the use of foetal tissue in fertility treatment right in the middle of the authority's public consultation. The amendment does not address all the issues raised by the HFEA document. It simply seeks to pre-empt the consultation in one area. It would be a great pity if the opportunity for more considered and rational debate on this issue were thus to be curtailed. After all, the HFEA was set up by Parliament to control and regulate this area. As I have
1612
explained, it has full powers to do so. Hasty legislation is rarely as coherent as legislation which is the result of long and well considered debate.
It may be considered significant that Parliament considered the issues surrounding embryo research and assisted conception over an extremely long period before setting up the authority. The committee of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, reported in 1984, and the legislation was only completed in 1990. Noble Lords may think that the consultation may safely be left to run its course. The authority could then provide the Government with the full advice that they need, including recommendations about further legislation if such legislation should be thought necessary. I hope that that is a matter which can be further considered when the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is discussed in this House in Committee.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for this opportunity to discuss some of the issues which go to the root of the human condition. The benefits offered and the potential threats of assisted procreation are well understood and controlled in this country by the authority. The authority has shown itself to be a responsible body doing a good and difficult job. It reports to Parliament every year. The Government approve its codes of practice and appoint its members. But it is an independent statutory body, set up deliberately at arm's length from Ministers to deal with difficult and controversial matters. It is the object of some attention and awe abroad because it is the only body of its kind dealing both with the practical aspects of licensing this area of medicine and science and also with the ethics and policy on which licensing is based.
I very much hope therefore that the authority will be permitted by Government and by Parliament to complete this important consultative exercise before legislative powers are used in this complex area. I suggest that both Government and Parliament need the benefit of the authority's wise and full advice. Meanwhile, there really is no need for Parliament to rush in. I would hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege—if I may say so, a voice of moderation and reason—would agree that the authority should complete its work before being eclipsed by hasty action.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I felt that a medical voice should be heard in the debate. Perhaps in my case it will be a rather utilitarian voice. I had hoped that my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant would take part because he is an international authority on Duchenne muscular dystrophy, one of the inherited genetic disorders which would be covered by the territory discussed in the Motion. With his own research he has contributed considerably to knowledge of the nature of that condition. He is also a past president of the General Medical Council. That would have given him a strong position from which to speak on ethical issues. However, I think that he should be honourably excused following his presentation of the report of the Select Committee on Medical Ethics on Monday, not to mention the long hours spent in chairing the committee.

1613
I am no geneticist but in a lifetime of medical practice I have met many of the disorders which might be helped quite soon by gene therapy through the application of genetic manipulation if current promising research is allowed to continue. Some of those conditions, all caused by a single defective gene, may be known to your Lordships. Three have been mentioned already by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford: muscular dystrophy; sickle-cell anaemia; and thalassaemia. Others include haemophilia and a condition which causes premature heart disease, familial hypercholesterolaemia. Those are all conditions which lead to a shortening of life. Although expensive treatment has improved life so that people live a little longer, the life span is still much shorter than it should be.
Further ahead there are possibilities of helping inherited conditions of polygenic origin due to multiple genetic defects making certain individuals more prone to environmental influences. Conditions include heart disease and diabetes. There are many other examples. Of great interest is the possibility of using genes which prevent the multiplication of cancer cells. Ways of getting those genes to cancer cells are being actively developed, some using viruses which have been disabled from causing disease.
However, as many noble Lords have said, there are justifiable worries about any procedures which affect such fundamental processes of the human body. As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, the first worry is that some mad, over-zealous or bad scientist will create a Frankenstein accidentally or on purpose. There is an underlying disquiet that perhaps man is meddling with something that should be untouchable; that we should accept our heritage as God given and not try to improve on his handwork; and that retribution might come in the form of incurable diseases or a race of psychopaths. I was delighted to hear from the right reverend Prelate that he does not share that view and feels that it is a proper concern for human beings to inquire into their make-up if that can improve their lot.
Much of the disquiet is due to lack of knowledge of what is or is not possible by true genetic manipulation. It is highly unlikely that any current research would have an adverse effect, but it was in response to understandable underlying concerns that the Clothier Committee on the Ethics of Gene Therapy was set up in 1989. That committee reported in 1992. The report is extremely thoughtful. Sir Cecil's introduction sets the tone. I should remind noble Lords that Sir Cecil Clothier was for some time the parliamentary commissioner for the health service, the ombudsman. In the introduction he states:
"Every significant development in science or technology has been accompanied by dangers both known and unknown. Society watches this progress with mingled admiration and anxiety, the more acute perhaps as science gets ever closer to the fundamental controls over the nature and composition of living things. To prohibit the progress of science in any particular direction may well be tyranny; to seek to shape its course is surely sensible. In doing so we should be careful also to preserve the right of society to determine how the achievements of science are used".
The main recommendation of the report was the setting up of a permanent body to succeed the committee. That is the Gene Therapy Advisory
1614
committee which consists of lay and scientific members chaired by Professor June Lloyd, an eminent paediatrician. The responsibilities of that committee are set out in the Clothier Report and are quite comprehensive. They are described under 10 headings and five sub-headings. Those include advice on the design and control of the research; long-term surveillance of treated patients; potential benefits and risks of any research on treated individuals—that almost follows the title of the Motion—and the ethical acceptability of any proposal. As recommended, that permanent committee was duly set up and had its first meeting last November. I believe that that was a proper response by the Government to the Clothier Report.
Among several other recommendations in the Clothier Report—it was referred to by my noble friend Lord Kennet—was that germ line gene therapy should not yet be attempted. The purpose of that form of therapy would be to prevent the transmission of defective genes to subsequent generations—a laudable aim, I feel. However, the committee felt that there is not at present sufficient knowledge to evaluate the risks to future generations. I believe that my noble friend's rather gloomy view of some of the results of that research was directed to what would happen if germ line gene therapy were to be allowed to continue. We do not know whether it will be allowed to continue. At present it is felt unwise to go down that road. But as knowledge progresses that decision might be reviewed. The prohibition on that type of research is similar to the decision of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to prohibit experiments on human pre-embryos after 15 days from conception. Again, as knowledge advances that decision might well be reviewed.
The authority was well described by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. That reference brings me to the main point I wish to make. I consider that both scientists and the Government have acted responsibly and correctly in the United Kingdom and that we have now achieved an adequate, almost a model, system of supervision for both human genetic manipulation and therapy and assisted conception. Since 1984, as well as the two bodies I mentioned we have had the Advisory Committee on Genetic Modification which is particularly concerned with the safety of those working in the field of genetic modification, The committee reports to the Health and Safety Executive and also advises Ministers and comments on new developments in genetics and genetic manipulation which may be of interest to Ministers.
I believe that the country has got it about right. The issues are highly complex and such advisory committees and authorities, composed of concerned scientists and ethically expert lay members, including members of the Church and the legal profession, should be the first to consider the difficult issues as they arise and then present their considered view to Parliament. I do not believe that any other country has such a well-balanced system. Perhaps the noble Baroness will comment on what other countries have done. I know

1615
that the European Commission and WHO are concerned with the area, but I do not know whether their reports have resulted in any action.
In the case of the amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred to them and described them at some length. The Bill is now awaiting the Committee stage in the House. I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord that the process of consultation with the body we have set up to deal with such complex issues was undermined at the very time when Professor Campbell's team was considering the controversial issue. It was taking enormous care to obtain soundings of expert lay and popular opinion throughout the country, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, pointed out so clearly. The issue was peremptorily decided in another place with, I am afraid, government backing or at least acquiescence before the House had had the benefit of the considered opinion of the expert body. It was set up to consider exactly such issues. I hope very much that the House will think again on the issue at the Committee stage of the Bill and perhaps reverse it.
Finally, although I have praised the Government for setting up the control and advisory system for genetic manipulation, fertilisation and embryology, I must mention in contrast—and this is the only party political point I shall make—a sadly adverse effect of the Government's clumsy handling of London's hospitals and medical schools, especially the famous postgraduate medical school at Hammersmith. Because of uncertainty about the future of that institution, Professor Kay Davies, the extremely able geneticist, who is director of the Medical Research Council's clinical science centre at Hammersmith, has resigned her post. We in this country are lucky that she has been offered another base for her work in the United Kingdom. Too many able scientists and clinicians are reluctantly leaving the country because of present uncertainty and poor funding for their research.
6.32 p.m.
The Earl of Macclesfield: My Lords, I too wish to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, on giving the subject an airing today. I wish to say a few words first on assisted procreation, obviously in the hormonal and laboratory sense. I believe that it is quite simple: no one person, male, female or hermaphrodite —depending on the species—has any right to join in the creation of the next generation. Indeed, no species has the right to exist. If that right exists, what has homosapiens been doing recently riding roughshod over all those rights? I feel that mankind is better off accepting the lot in life that we have been given. It gives us the rich pageantry that we have, without which as a species we would be a lot weaker.
Very similar remarks apply to genetic manipulation. I entirely agree with the wise words of the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard. We are on a slippery slope if we start interfering with the powers of the creator—whoever or whatever that force may be. We are aiming at a slippery slope if we interfere with those powers. We do not begin to understand the
1616
strength of those powers, their ways or why we have a gene pool or lethal recessives. Yes, to certain families they are a complete tragedy. As I understand genetic manipulation, it will become possible, virtually at a stroke, to remove a problem like Huntington's chorea. It is wonderful for that family but, in the overall scheme of things, is it the right course of action? The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned closing the door before the foal is born. I wonder whether noble Lords have thought how fast a young animal gets up and runs?
6.35 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Kennet for introducing the subject this evening. When I saw the Motion on the Order Paper I was reminded of your Lordships' discussion before the Easter Recess on whether or not it was appropriate to debate major issues in short debates. However, what we have seen this evening is that it is worth while tackling these enormous subjects because at least every noble Lord who speaks has an interesting and diverse viewpoint, even if there is some difficulty for those of us speaking at the end of the debate in finding a straight line through all the contributions.
Perhaps I may say at the outset that if I had been my noble friend I might have put the "benefits" of the subjects under discussion (of genetic manipulation and assisted procreation) before the "threats".
I should mention that, like the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, I have for some time been privileged to be a patron of the Progress campaign; that is, the Campaign for Research into Human Reproduction. But, unlike other noble Lords who have spoken, I too am a lay person. I am, however, the first woman to speak in the debate. The Minister will be the second. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, mentioned, that is an important and valuable piece of special pleading in this particular context.
It is worth stating again what a widespread problem infertility is in this country. One in six couples seeks medical help in order to have a child. One in 10 is officially categorised infertile. "Infertility" sounds a cool and almost neutral word, and I think for those of us who, like myself, were lucky enough to have healthy children easily and happily it is easy to ignore the profound psychological and emotional strain which that word and those figures represent.
In the course of being involved in the Progress campaign, as a member of a health authority and also earlier when I was working as a journalist, I have been to a number of infertility clinics. I have seen the extraordinary work done, for example, at the Hammersmith Hospital by Professor Robert Winston who has been a world leader in the field of developing in vitro fertilization—the so-called test tube baby technique. I have seen what enormous benefits that has produced. I have seen the dogged persistence of couples —of women in particular—who are prepared to go through the very invasive procedures, which are both physically and emotionally demanding, in order to achieve a child. One should not forget, when one

1617
considers the potential threats of the procedure, the enormous benefits in human happiness that IVF has already brought.
It is also easy to forget how recently in vitro fertilisation has developed. I was thinking today of Louise Brown who was the first so-called test tube baby. She was born through the extraordinary pioneering work of Dr. Steptoe and Dr. Edwards in Cambridge and she is now just 16 years old. It was an enormous achievement by those British doctors in the late 1970s.
When I first began to look into this subject, in the early 1980s, I visited the Monash University in Australia where they were carrying out some of the original pioneering work on freezing pre-embryos, and on the more elaborate and sophisticated IVF work. There was an extraordinary sense of excitement both in terms of the scientific breakthroughs which were going on and also for the individuals who came to the clinics, prepared to discuss the ethical difficulties that they would face but prepared to accept them because of the optimistic practical prospects which lay before them.
But of course IVF - test tube procedures—is still a very difficult technique. It is still true that approximately only 14 per cent. of women who begin IVF treatment conceive and finally give birth. The so-called, rather frivolously termed "take home baby" rate is still very low.
However, while the technique has been going on—and, as I said, it is only in the past 16 years that we have been able to look at anything in the way of therapeutic treatment in this area—we have allowed, gradually over time, a public acceptance to grow up. The nature of the demand, which grows, is seen in the fact that there is enormous pressure on NHS resources in this field. Unfortunately, still only 10 per cent. of assisted fertility births in this country are done through the NHS—a subject which we will not get into tonight; it is another area of economics rather than ethics.
That gradual development—the science going along with the practical, clinical benefits of the science—is even more true in the field of gene therapy. Professor Marcus Pembrey, who has been quoted already tonight, wrote recently that gene therapy was "tricky or very tricky". I say that because we have perhaps had the impression from some of the contributions from noble Lords that science is accelerating and galloping away from us. My feeling would be that, particularly in the fields of IVF treatment and gene therapy (the two subjects that I pick out in my contribution), science is developing rather slowly and is in a sense working at the same pace as public acceptance.
Professor Marcus Pembrey, whom I just quoted, works, as do so many of the people who are concerned with genetic therapy, with children. He works at the Institute of Child Health, which is attached to Great Ormond Street Hospital. That work is obviously designed, as several noble Lords have mentioned, to reduce the incidence of genetic disorder in babies. The figures have already been quoted, but I think it is worth going over some of them again. Each year in this country 21,000 infants are born with a significant degree of genetic disability. Half the childhood deaths are due
1618
to genetic disorders. At least 1.5 million families are directly affected by someone in their own immediate family having one of those genetic problems.
Noble Lords have spoken about some of the disorders which cause great suffering. Duchenne muscular dystrophy, in which most children who suffer from it will be in wheelchairs by the age of 11, has been mentioned. Several noble Lords have referred to the most common genetic disorder, cystic fibrosis. Every week that affects five children born in this country. Even today, those children will survive to young adulthood only with heart-lung transplants. Huntington's chorea is another genetic disorder which brings crippling disability in middle age. Reference has also been made to Tay Sachs disease; thalassaemia; sickle-cell disease. These are all disorders on which painstaking research has begun. As has already been mentioned, in some of them the one gene which creates the disorder has already been isolated. Professor Bob Williamson, working at St. Mary's Hospital, in London, has already done pioneering work in isolating the gene for cystic fibrosis. With in vitro fertilisation techniques, parents can now be offered—I find this so exciting as to be almost overwhelming—what is called "pre-implantation selection" of embryos which do not have the gene that will cause the child to be born with cystic fibrosis. Only the embryos which are not at risk from disease are transferred back to the mother. That therapy is very new. The first baby born following the pre-implantation diagnosis for cystic fibrosis was born in May 1992.
It is worth describing those changes because they are bringing us to the verge of really extraordinary changes in the development of our approach to those genetic diseases. The question tonight has been: are we in this country acting sufficiently responsibly and in a sufficiently interventionist way to make sure that those forms of therapy and experimentation provide more benefits than threats?
Of course we have all heard and read a great deal about charlatans; about so-called designer babies; about the ability to choose the sex; about the potential ability to choose whether or not a child has musical ability, and so on. But those are still great fantasies. What we are talking about today are those practical things which, as I said, assist the very large number of people in our country who have problems with infertility and the very large numbers who experience terrible suffering as a result of inherited disease.
I echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and my noble friend Lord Rea about the very successful way in which we have succeeded in this country in developing appropriate systems for monitoring what is happening in the scientific field. I was surprised that my noble friend Lord Kennet, when he spoke about the moral/ethical gap in our proceedings on this matter, seemed to ignore the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, which was referred to later in the debate. As we know, the noble Baroness is one of our most distinguished moral philosophers and was very much involved in the original thinking on this subject. The noble Baroness chaired the important committee in the early 1980s which led, as the noble Lord, Lord

1619
Lester of Herne Hill, said, directly to the voluntary licensing agency, which was the precursor of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. As the noble Lords have said, that authority is now a model for the world. Because the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, described it in such very clear detail, I do not need now to expand on the wise mixture of scientists and lay people who make up the authority and do such an excellent job in this field. My noble friend Lord Rea also spoke in some detail about the various regulatory bodies which affect the gene therapy area. He spoke about the Committee on Ethics of Gene Therapy; the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee—known by the wonderful acronym of GTAC—which was set up last autumn by the Department of Health. There are also the specialist oversight teams of the Medical Research Council. Noble Lords have also referred to the Nuffield Council on Medical Ethics. When I spoke to people there about the debate today they felt that perhaps one gap in our regulatory system was a central co-ordinating body looking at clinical trials, co-ordinating what is going on in terms of patients and laboratory experiment in this field. This could be an extension of the regulatory bodies which now exist and a very helpful addition.
I should also like to say that scientists themselves have been energetically involved in making the public aware of what they are doing in this field. There are the genuine fears and concerns which various noble Lords have expressed this evening about whether research will run ahead of the consideration of social and ethical issues in this area. But I feel that if the scientists—such as Professor Bob Williamson, Professor Marcus Pembrey, whom I referred to, and Professor Martin Bobrow of the paediatrics research unit at Guy's Hospital—all take the trouble, as they have done, to write in colloquial, straightforward English (English which can be understood even by someone like myself) about the work that they are doing and the benefits that it brings, the scientific community is very usefully reaching out to the general lay public in a way that is particularly helpful in this field.
Several noble Lords have referred to the rather unfortunate situation that has arisen over new Clause 138 in the Criminal Justice Bill. I do not think that it is appropriate this evening to go into that in any detail. I shall say only that I support very strongly what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and my noble friend Lord Rea. I hope that we shall have adequate time to return to that matter when the Bill reaches Committee stage in this House.
In conclusion, this is an area both in medicine and in social organisation where the United Kingdom has much of which to be proud. In the past 20 years we have led the world in basic research. We have rapidly transferred that research from the laboratory to patient services. At the same time we have developed regulatory systems which enable the public to be confident that science in this country is not running ahead of ethics. That is a success story. We should congratulate ourselves that the benefits outstrip any threats.
6.50 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for giving your Lordships' House the opportunity to debate these challenging issues. The noble Lord's interest in scientific matters is well known both within and beyond this House and his contributions to our discussions are invariably thoughtful, well researched and much valued, and today has been no exception.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, made clear in his opening speech to this debate, over the years considerable progress has been made in human genetic research and in the field of assisted conception. Through gene therapy we are now closer than ever before to curing many frightening and devastating disorders and are able to help couples fulfil their dream of having a family. Through public debate both within the Palace of Westminster and in the country at large the Government have been encouraged to regulate and monitor developments in gene therapy, assisted human fertilisation and embryology. This debate in your Lordships' House is welcomed because it takes us forward in examining not only the benefits, but also the difficult ethical issues which those developments raise.
The national debate started in earnest when, in 1989, the Government raised the prospect of gene therapy being introduced into medical practice and addressed the public anxiety which such developments might evoke—anxieties so lucidly and graphically expressed by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard and the noble Earl, Lord Macclesfield. As a result, the Government established the Ethics of Gene Therapy Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Cecil Clothier. The committee's report, a comprehensive review of the subject, was presented to Parliament in 1992 and I share the admiration of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for the committee, and am grateful for it and its report. It sets the framework within which gene therapy research is being developed. Last year the Government announced that they had agreed in principle to the main recommendations in the report. As a result the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee was established under the chairmanship of Professor Dame June Lloyd, to take forward the work of the Clothier committee.
This new committee brings together a wide range of expertise through its medical, scientific, legal, ethical and lay membership. One of its key tasks is to review all proposals for gene therapy research on human subjects advising on ethical acceptability. That requires a careful assessment of the scientific merits of the proposals and the potential benefits and risks which arise from them. So far the committee has met three times and approved eight research proposals, three of which have cancer as their main target disease—a practical application which I am sure meets the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. The committee has already started to gain a reputation for the sensitivity and quality of its advice and guidance. The Government are grateful to the chairman and members for the responsible way in which they carry out their task. It is an independent body which

1621
works closely with the Medicines Control Agency. We will keep the need for further statutory controls under constant surveillance.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in his perceptive speech forewarned, some future developments may totally alter relationships and could even achieve "species revision". It is for those reasons that the committee was set up. The committee recommended that genetic modification of the germ line which could affect future generations should not yet be attempted. The Government accepted that recommendation. Whether or not germ line therapy should be permitted in the future is a matter on which the Government look to the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee for advice. No approach has yet been made to the advisory committee to consider statutory intervention. It could well be one of those areas for debate which the noble Lord described as,
"ethical realities and political puzzles".
One of the bodies facing these issues was highlighted by the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon; that is, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. That body is tackling some of the issues which were challengingly raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and, like the right reverend Prelate, it addresses the ethical issues which genetic screening presents. As he said, it may have implications for kindred, including children and those unborn. The right reverend Prelate also questioned the capacity of the NHS to respond to developments in screening and I hope.that he will be a little reassured by the fact that we established the NHS Genetic Research Advisory Group to consider, among other things, the implications of current research on screening for disorders such as cystic fibrosis and for more common conditions such as breast cancer and cardiovascular disease. Its report is due to be published this summer.
The system of monitoring which the Government put in place is designed to provide a rigorous review of all proposals which involve patients, especially when a judgment on the ethical and scientific validity of the work is needed. That, we believe, will allow the development of medical research to proceed in a climate of public, parliamentary and professional reassurance.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, raised the issue of genetic screening and the insurance industry. The Nuffield report also raised that issue. Informed by that report, the Government will monitor developments closely. At this time the Association of British Insurers have reassured us that it is not likely to ask for genetic tests to become a condition of life insurance. However, it maintains that it is only reasonable that, where such tests have taken place, any information held by the patient should be made available. That will also be the case with any other form of medical information a patient holds.
The noble Lord also raised anxiety about the misuse of genetic information. It is important that the same ethical principles are observed in safeguarding the confidentiality of genetic information as are applied to other personal health information. Such knowledge could have an enormous impact on families who may be faced with difficult decisions concerning their own lifestyles. I should like to pay tribute to the genetic
1622
counsellors and the voluntary organisations for their work in this difficult area. But of course whether or not screening is undertaken by an individual, is for that individual to decide after adequate counselling.
Many of your Lordships will remember the long and careful consideration that this House gave to the provisions in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill before it was sent to another place. Our deliberations on that occasion were significantly informed by the Government's White Paper, Human Fertilisation and Embryology: A Framework for Legislation, and by the earlier report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology which was chaired by the distinguished and noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. That Bill became the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, an impressive and comprehensive piece of legislation. As a result, the United Kingdom is a world leader in the way human embryo research and the treatment of infertility is regulated.
Under the 1990 Act we established the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority which, as the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, in his interesting speech, said is the first of its kind in the world. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for his detailed exposition and, I suspect, admiration for the authority. As the noble Lord said, it licenses centres which provide certain infertility treatments and others which carry out embryology research. Due to that and other initiatives, we have an effective system of regulation and control. The authority, under the chairmanship of Professor Sir Colin Campbell, built up a wealth of expertise and experience and gained the respect of the medical and scientific community. Also, it has been an important source of reassurance to the public, providing careful scrutiny and ensuring developments are not allowed to progress without public knowledge.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, on what. I felt was a perceptive, knowledgable and powerful speech. Like the noble Baroness, the Government recognise that infertility can cause sorrow and great sadness; but developments in IVF have brought hope and, where successful, great joy to many couples. Although we celebrate and share those achievements, the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of assisted conception is and always must be a major consideration. That is a fundamental principle of the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act which states that,
"A woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment (including the need of that child for a father), and of any other child who may be affected by the birth".
That is a legal condition of the grant of a licence and an important part of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's code of practice which gives guidance concerning the proper conduct of activities licensed under the Act. The maintenance and publication of a code of practice is a legal requirement. It is approved by the Secretary of State for Health and laid before Parliament. The authority published a

1623
revised code of practice in June last year and is currently preparing a further revision. The authority keeps this code under review in the light of developments.
The authority also has an important role in considering social and ethical issues in infertility treatment and embryo research. Last year it issued a consultation document, to which noble Lords referred, on sex selection, and sought views on whether sex selection for social as well as medical reasons should be permitted as part of assisted conception. As a result, the authority has advised centres which it licenses under the 1990 Act that sex selection for social reasons is not acceptable. Also, in January this year the authority decided that, although permitted under the 1990 Act, it would not license the use of cloning by splitting embryos for treatment purposes, or for research directed towards that.
For their part the Government ensure that the public is kept fully informed. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority produces an annual report which has to be approved by the Secretary of State for Health and laid before both Houses. The more recently established Gene Therapy Advisory Committee will also publish an annual report.
Wide and well publicised consultation with public and professional bodies on difficult issues such as sex selection are regular features in the way these public bodies operate. In addition the membership of both the HFEA and GTAC has a strong lay representation which includes, for example, the Bishop of Edinburgh, Rabbi Julia Neuberger and Canon Dr. Denison. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that these issues require a membership of not just scientists but also those who are philosophers, moral and spiritual leaders, academics and, most important of all, lawyers, and also others from different walks of life.
The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, is so right. We need a wide debate and an informed public. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, in paying tribute to the Progress Education Trust which provides an excellent example of how a simple guide to the complexities of modern genetics can be achieved. It is through organisations such as these and the means that I have outlined that the Government believe that both the scientific community and the public at large are properly served and that the interests of individual patients are protected.
I appreciate the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that the consultation exercise carried out by the HFEA on the use of foetal eggs for fertility treatment has to some extent been seen to be somewhat pre-empted by the amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill carried in another place. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, I do not wish to pass comment on that except to say that it is a matter which will be before your Lordships' House in June when I am sure your Lordships will have a full and very well informed debate.
Tonight's debate has highlighted not only the scientific issues but the equally important moral and
1624
ethical decisions that have to be made when human individuals are involved in gene therapy, assisted conception and genetic research. It is in considering issues of this kind that your Lordships' House excels. Today has been no exception. It is clear from what has been said that we must be ever mindful of the essential balance between scientific development on the one hand, and ethical and moral values on the other. On that score, I believe that the scientific community in this country has a record second to none.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I have only three points to make. First, I am particularly grateful to those noble Lords, including the noble Baroness the Minister, who have told the House so much about the existing structure of regulatory bodies, and so on, all of which I left out, as a calculated risk, because I thought I had a lot of other things to say. However, I need not have worried as obviously it was going to be put before the House.
Secondly, I was distressed that my noble friend Lady Jay thought that I might have forgotten about the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. I had not. The point I was trying to make was not that philosophers were no good but that there were not enough philosophers in all the right places. As the chairman of the first committee in the modern age to tackle a bioethical hot potato, she is a great example of where philosophers ought to be. There are several real philosophers in this House, and the noble Baroness is one of them.
Lastly, I should like now to tell the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, the story which the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, so correctly prevented me from telling earlier. The noble Viscount mentioned the Blennerhasset experiment on the island of Barbuda where they bred slaves very tall. I was sitting once in a bar on a neighbouring island and I found myself next to a black man of about 6ft. 10 ins. I decided to risk it. I said to him, "How are things in Barbuda?" His answer was, "How did you know ?" The answer deserves thinking about. I wonder how many people there are in the world who are themselves the results of eugenic experiments in an earlier age and do not know it. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Insolvency Bill
7.5 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill, and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged. —(Lord Coleraine.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Photographs and Films (Unauthorised Use) Bill [H.L.]
7.6 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicolls: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
Lord Brain Lord Brain moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this Report be now received, to leave out ("now") and at end insert ("this day six months").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must first offer an apology and an explanation. I apologise for missing the Committee stage of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, arranged that stage without asking me whether it was convenient. Unfortunately, I had another engagement and I was unable to be present. I would have been present if I had been able.
At the outset perhaps I may repeat what I said at Second Reading. I am wholly in favour of a properly drafted and debated privacy Bill and I have no time at all for the paparazzi who generate these photographs that so often cause offence. Noble Lords may quite rightly ask then why I am moving this amendment. There are three overlapping reasons. The first is to be consistent. The second is that, as a matter of principle, I do not think that this House should send a flawed Bill to another place just because it thinks it unlikely that the Bill will make any further progress at this stage in a Session in the other place. Finally, while I feel I shall be repeating some of the things I said at Second Reading, I do not consider, despite the efforts of the noble Lords, Lord Harmar-Nicholls and Lord Kilbracken, at the Committee stage, that this Bill can be amended in any way to make it comprehensible to lawyers, let alone photographers or the general public.
Taking these reasons in turn, I think I am being consistent in that I withdrew my Motion at Second Reading only because of the lateness of the hour—11 o'clock at night—with a thinly attended House. I had had the support of all the speakers but the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, himself. I had subsequently written to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, inviting him not to proceed further with the Bill, and I discussed with some other Members of the House whether they would support at the Committee stage a Motion similar to this one should I decide to move it. So the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and other Members of the House, will be well aware of my active opposition to this Bill.
Why do I consider this to be a flawed Bill? In my opinion, it has nothing to do with copyright. That was confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, at Second Reading. He said:
"privacy has nothing to do with copyright"—[Official Report, 28/2/94; col. 926.]
It was also confirmed by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington (at col. 927):
"I fully agree with the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Brain, about the use of copyright law as a vehicle for this amending Bill".
1626
The noble Baroness reinforced that at Committee stage by saying,
"we are not convinced that this slightly piecemeal and unbalanced approach is the right one".—[Official Report, 18/4/94; col. 79.]
At the same stage (at col. 81) the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, said:
"It also seems to me that there is nothing in this new Bill about copyright at all".
I also seek the support of the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, at Committee stage. He said (at col. 78):
"Had I been present, I should have opposed the Bill."
I shall be brief because I have rehearsed the arguments already at Second Reading. I do not believe that this Bill is going to produce the result sought by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. I have sought advice on this matter. It will be the photographer who will end up with the liability. I explained the chain of permissions and agreements at Second Reading—I shall not bore the House by repeating them—but anybody who gets copyright clearance for the use of a photograph will automatically hope to get clearance for the privacy aspect. It may be that the photographer will get vast sums of money—£50,000, £100,000 or £1 million—for his photographs; but, equally, he may be a man of straw. I do not believe that the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, to get at the publisher can be established in this Bill because of its link with copyright.
I am advised by lawyers that in the original draft of the Bill the word "intrusion" was clearly understood by them. But I believe that they were delighted at the confusion which will arise in legal cases by its replacement with "cause serious damage to". They would also have much preferred "private lives" to be replaced by "privacy". They clearly understood intrusion into privacy. They could not clearly understand how to advise anybody about "serious damage to private life".
I believe that one can take this from two recent points, one of which is topical today. Certain photographs have been taken on Scottish moorland. There is no difficulty in believing that they were almost certainly an intrusion into two people's privacy. I believe that the lawyers would have a field day if they had to convince a court that they were causing serious damage to these two young people's private lives. On much the same basis were some photographs which were recently well-publicised in Spain. I wonder whether they could say that they caused serious damage to that young lady's private life. They certainly intruded on her privacy. But I believe that it gets much more complicated than that.
I am not going to continue in much detail. I had prepared eight amendments which I would have tabled at Committee stage had I been present. I was advised that they were not entirely satisfactory. I have thought of more. The lawyers have convinced me that this Bill, so long as it is linked to copyright, cannot be made effective to prevent the kind of intrusion which I wholly agree is unacceptable. I have said that I shall be brief and I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this Report be now received, to leave out ("now") and at end insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Brain.)
7.15 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, in supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brain, I wish to apologise for not taking part in earlier stages of this Bill because I was in hospital. I should like to add a number of other objections to those listed by the noble Lord. The first is that the Bill would provide that no photograph portraying a person recognisably and taken without his consent or knowledge, could be published without that person's consent or knowledge—conditions which many photographs published in the press could never satisfy. The subject could go to court and assert that the publication could cause serious damage to his private life and prevent publication or public exhibition or use in a broadcast or cable programme.
One of many difficulties would be the meaning to be attached to the phrase,
"causing serious damage to private life".
Most legislators have been defeated in attempts to define privacy, but it is to be noted that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, adopts a wholly different definition of privacy from that suggested in the Lord Chancellor's consultation paper on infringement of privacy which referred to causing substantial distress, provided such distress would also have been suffered by a person of ordinary sensibilities in the circumstances of the complainant. If the court granted a quick injunction to halt the distribution of a newspaper on that ground, the consequences and financial loss to the newspaper would be extreme.
The Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, ignore completely the fact that the code of practice upheld by the Press Complaints Commission gives a protection and remedy for the circumstances with which the Bill seeks to deal. One of the articles in the code of practice which is enforced on newspapers relates to:
"Intrusions and enquiries into an individual's private life without his or her consent including the use of long-lens photography to take pictures of people on private property without their consent".
Such action is contrary to the code of practice and would certainly become a breach.
In my opinion the extent of invasions of privacy have been considerably exaggerated largely because of the publicity given to the behaviour of well-known or great personages. In the past three-and-a-half years the Press Complaints Commission has received only 300 complaints of invasions of privacy against the press. Of those, three-quarters have been settled between editors and complainants to the satisfaction of the latter. The commission has received only seven complaints of invasion of privacy by photographs.
When the code and the commission were strengthened last year, the commission appointed one of its independent members, Professor Robert Pinker, to act as its privacy commissioner in order to emphasise the high importance it attaches to preventing infringements of privacy. The commissioner is presently investigating the complaint by the Palace,
1628
acting on behalf of Prince Edward, against four newspapers. The privacy commissioner is required to act speedily and is free to make such investigations as he considers necessary. He may also, of his own volition, raise any instance of infringement of privacy by the press even though there has been no complaint. He submits to his colleagues a draft adjudication which, if the infringement is considered by the commission to have been gross and calculated, may contain a recommendation that the publisher should consider disciplinary proceedings against the editor. That is a very severe occupational sanction to which the industry has agreed. Many newspapers have already assimilated the code of practice, which is enforced by the commission, into the terms of the contracts of their journalists and editors.
The Bill additionally uses the sly procedure of adding a new section to Section 85 of the existing Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988, which will have the effect of turning a very narrow personal right under Section 85 into a major extension of the legislation which will have potentially formidable financial consequences for the press. Thus the Bill, masquerading as Section 85A of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act, will be conceptually wholly different in nature and result from that Act. It is surely undesirable to use this Bill as a back-door method of altering the law of copyright in such a way that the new right of privacy can be introduced in advance of the parliamentary discussions on the consultation paper on privacy initiated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to which, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Brain, whose amendment I am supporting, I am strongly opposed.
Further objections are the broadness of the present Bill covering, as it does, any publication. It provides no defences of any kind against a charge; for example, it does not provide a public interest or implied consent defence. An implied consent defence is where consent is implied by virtue of the person or people photographed being present in a public place. Although infringement is only actionable by the subject of the photograph who is portrayed recognisably, the practical impossibility of locating appropriate individuals photographed in crowd scenes or as passersby will, in practice, prevent many newspapers in England publishing many types of photograph. In fact, our press will be reduced as a result of the Bill to the appearance of Le Monde.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I disagree with a good deal of what the noble Lord has just said. In particular, he said that there have been only 300 complaints in the past four or four-and-a-half years, but that seems to me to be a very considerable number —about one every four days throughout the period. And, of course, in many cases, including some of the most serious ones, there have been no complaints, particularly, of course, in the case of members of the Royal Family, who I think have never complained.
I regret very much that the noble Lord, Lord Brain, has seen fit to put down this amendment at this late stage. I do not think that the noble Lord's Bill is by any

1629
means perfect, but I do think that it is very much better than nothing and I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord may decide not to press his amendment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, after listening to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Brain and Lord McGregor, I hardly recognise my own Bill. The complaints and doubts that they have expressed have nothing whatever to do with the Bill. Indeed, all the points that they raised were answered during the Second Reading and Committee stages. I do not think that we should look at the Bill from the narrow point of view to which those two speeches seemed to direct the House.
The one thing that stood out from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brain, was that his opening sentence contained his only important argument relating to my Bill. He said that he agreed that a privacy Bill was necessary. He and I are at one on that. He agreed that —the noble Lord shakes his head. If he did not mean that, could he tell us what he did mean?
Lord Brain: My Lords, I said that we needed a properly drafted and debated privacy Bill. I then went on to explain why I do not consider this Bill to be properly drafted.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I think that we agree that a privacy Bill, properly debated and examined, should become the law of the land. We agree on that point—and that is the basis of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Brain, is an expert in things to do with photography. He is the chairman of, I think, the British Photographers Liaison Committee, which is a valuable association with great experience and of great standing in the country. My Bill in no way interferes with the freedom that photographers now have—whether they be private photographers or newspaper photographers. If Parliament makes this Bill a statute, it will in no way interfere with the way in which photographers (both private and newspaper) now operate—not at all. However, what it will do—and this is the important thing—is to make redress possible for people who feel that they have been the victims of cowboys who take a distorted and contorted picture, hawk it around the world and receive, in some cases, hundreds of thousands of pounds because that distorted picture is attractive to those concerned with newspaper circulation figures. The Bill will mean that those who take such photographs run the risk that the person who feels that he or she has been damaged will be able to take the photographers to court. The court will be able to decide, first, whether that individual has been damaged and whether the picture was distorted and wrong. It will be for the court to protect people from the dangers that they now face.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Dun-is, attended the Second Reading or any of the subsequent stages of the Bill's passage when I tried to explain why the Bill has been introduced. I named the person who gave me the inspiration to prepare and introduce the Bill. I was talking with Donald Sinden, the well-known actor who takes a keen interest in world affairs as well as in his own profession. He was
1630
disturbed by certain things that had been happening and which the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, does not think are important. They do not disturb him.
Donald Sinden said, "If I write you a letter, the paper that it's written on and the envelope which it goes in belong to you, but the message still belongs to me". That is what brought me to the copyright legislation. Under the copyright legislation one preserves the message although the material upon which the message is sent belongs to the recipient. He then went on to say, "Why can't the same thing apply to photographs? If someone has libelled me by writing a 1,000-word article, I can take that article which damages me to the courts. If I can prove that I have been damaged and show that it has been done deliberately with the idea of damaging me, the court can give me compensation and the protection of an injunction against that damage being repeated".
That happens in France. The French have a privacy law. The Duchess of York hit the headlines in this country. When they tried to repeat that in France, she took the case to court under their privacy laws and received compensation of £50,000, and an injunction to stop it being repeated. I want to give the same protection to the Duchess of York, or anyone else who may have been the victim of prying cowboys whose only interest is to make a quick buck from using people's private lives to their advantage. That is all that the Bill is out to attain.
No photographers, at any level anywhere, need feel that their freedom to do what they are doing now will be infringed in any way unless a photographer has deliberately twisted the camera to damage someone else. The noble Lord, Lord Brain, quoted the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, in support of his argument. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue—his speech is there to be read—was ecstatic about the need for a Bill like this, but he wondered whether it went wide enough. I do not believe that it goes very wide. It is a narrow little Bill. It hardly touches the problem that we are facing.
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, is the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission. He was defending the press. He was defending his commission. In my Bill I am interested in defending the reputation and rights of individuals who have been damaged deliberately. There would be no need for my Bill if some members of the press, whom the noble Lord was defending, did not offer fabulous sums of money to persuade people to take risks by using the camera to distort news.
What is my Bill? It is so modest that it is unbelievable. The noble Lord also quoted the Government. In their response to the Bill on Second Reading, the Government made it clear that they saw the need for some extension of our privacy laws. My noble friend Lady Trumpington who was representing the Government said that there was a move towards producing something like that. We were almost promised a privacy White Paper within the near future. That is good. I want to urge that on its way. The Bill in no way prevents the Government from doing that. Indeed I hope that the vote of the House on this amendment will show them that there is a need for it.

1631
What is the Bill? I tried to explain it symbolically. I said that it is rather like a house with a roof that is in a dreadful state and which needs replacing. But it will take a considerable time to replace the roof. My Bill fills the gap until the Government—any government—can introduce a more comprehensive privacy Bill. My Bill is the equivalent of putting a bucket under the worst of the leaks to prevent them doing more damage to the furniture and the floor covering in the meantime. It does no more than that.
In the light of all that has happened, we would not be doing our duty if we did not use this opportunity to give that protection in the interim to people who are being damaged. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, referred to the incident relating to Prince Edward which is now hitting the newspapers. I know nothing about that. Before that the Princess of Wales went to do exercises in a private gym. Someone took the trouble to bore holes in the wall so that they could take lurid pictures and send them around the world and make all sorts of money out of them. The noble Lord has an important position as chairman of the Press Complaints Commission. If he could persuade the press to be as reticent in the way they present news and pictures today as they were before the war when the then Prince of Wales had certain problems, there might not be the same need for privacy Bills or my Private Member's Bill.
I explained why the provision was to be part of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. I satisfied myself that there was a need to provide this type of protection for people who were being damaged unfairly. I have been about this place now for 43 years. I have taken the trouble to find out about parliamentary procedure. I tried to discover how one can do things that might be helpful. I do not want always to have to wait for the Government, whoever the government might be, to do things that are obvious. Our parliamentary procedure provides that there are such things as Private Members' Bills. A Private Member's Bill is designed to deal with some of the smaller problems that governments, for all kinds of good reasons, cannot tackle at once. That does not mean that we have always to wait for the Government to act; it does no harm to do something for ourselves occasionally.
This Private Member's Bill was designed to put the bucket under the leaking roof until the whole roof could be put right by a government Bill. How did it come about? I looked through all the statutes that I thought might be applicable. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act lent itself for my Bill to be annexed to it to meet the need that I have just described. That is all that the Bill does. It does not interfere with the copyright legislation. It will make no difference to the application of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. The Bill is an extension of that Act to meet a need that is clear and urgent. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act was the obvious statute. It is like grafting onto a tree something which is not of the tree but which is capable of doing the job without interfering with the tree.
We have examined my Bill in detail. If the amendment is pressed to a Division the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, will be my Teller and therefore both
1632
sides of the House join together on the Bill. I wish it were the case that if the Bill passes the Report stage and Third Reading its provisions will become applicable. However, that will not be the case; the Bill must go through the same procedures in another place where it will be examined. Therefore, there is no question of something being rammed down the throat of the photographers' association of the noble Lord, Lord Brain, without all the preparation and thought that the other place can give to it, as we have tried to give to it.
But this is the beginning. The House of Lords does not have many functions and it does not have a great many powers. However, it happens to exist and it is within this House that we can set Bills such as this on their way. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Brain, is equal to myself in wishing to attain the highest standards, whether under the heading of privacy or anything else. I believe that we should let the Bill go through its stages in this House, let it go to another place and then use any influence and power that we have—whether it is through the photographers' association or the Press Complaints Commission—to influence any alteration which will remove some of the objections.
I hope that the noble Lord will not push the amendment to a vote. However, if he does, I hope that my noble friends and noble Lords on all sides of the House will see that the Bill is a helpful way of putting on the statute book a provision that is necessary. However, because of time and the problems involved, that cannot be done overnight by the usual government procedure. I hope that the noble Lord will have second thoughts and agree to act in that way. I hope that he will pursue his objections through another place, where at the end of the day the real power lies. The Bill having gone so far in this House—having had First and Second Readings and a Committee stage—I would not like it to be sabotaged in such a way that the real, genuine and valuable thoughts behind it cannot go their normal way.
It is with that hope that even at this late stage I ask the noble Lord, Lord Brain, who is a friend of mine and who I respect greatly, to see his way clear at this late stage not to interfere with the progress of the Bill, whatever might happen to it in the future.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, while I have every sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls —and he knows that because we have spoken on numerous occasions—I can only repeat what I said in Committee. The Bill deals with the privacy of the individual and his or her ability to take action under the law. Therefore, it should be part of a privacy law and not part of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988.
I know that it is not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, to sign the death warrant of photo-journalism but, in effect, that is what the Bill will do. Simply having to gain the permission of subjects on film—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. I wish to assure the noble Baroness that, having examined the consequences that will flow from the Bill with the Public Bill Office and various other

1633
sources, there is no question that it can interfere with the legitimate processes that the photographers of this country have at the present time.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I was going on to say that, because the noble Lord and I had a conversation in which he said to me that the Bill in no way interferes with legitimate photographers. They can carry on as they are. I would like to accept that, but this Bill opens the door to possible litigation. The courts could be overburdened with complainants trying to prove that they had been seriously damaged. I emphasise that they will be trying to prove that they have been seriously damaged. The great majority of photographers work for any one particular group of newspaper and/or magazines and are paid by them accordingly. But it is much easier to get an injunction against the photographer because, after all, he or she is just an individual. However, in most cases the reward for serious damage would be very little.
Why should the newspaper or periodical which publishes a picture construed as highly offensive be able to hide behind the individual who has taken the picture, which of course has no value until it is published? I believe that our anxiety is really about the paparazzi and just how we should deal with that type of photography. In trying to address the problem, the Bill inadvertently sucks in the legitimate photographers who cover all kinds of situations. Could not the Press Complaints Commission be strengthened and through it more pressure brought to bear on newspapers and magazines who pay for and publish this kind of material? After all, the fruits of this kind of photography are not in the interests of any of us and there should be a better way of preventing publication. I know that the Government are working on a press control and privacy consultation paper and I look forward to reading it. However, I hope that we can strengthen the controls that we already have and not have to resort to yet another piece of legislation.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for missing the start of the debate. Your Lorclships have debated so succinctly today that I was caught out. However, I was present throughout the Committee stage of the Bill. On Second Reading a racing metaphor ran through the discussions. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls referred to his failures as a tipster. The Minister described herself as an old grey mare. That being the case, I cannot think what she used to be.
I believe that the racing metaphor is appropriate in several respects. I suggest that my noble friend is unwise in entering this rather modest hurdler for the Gold Cup. He may also have entered a gelding for a classic race, something for which it is not eligible. The race for which he has entered it is, of course, the Copyright, Design and Patents Act. The feeling that something must be done to defend privacy will receive universal approval in this House. However, in the words used on Second Reading, there is an inevitability that
1634
photographs will intrude upon people's privacy. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Brain, the lawyers will have a field day with the wording,
"cause serious damage to".
My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, in his wish to do something about privacy, may have let himself be a little run away with. The central theme of the noble Lord, Lord Brain, is that the Bill is flawed and impossible to implement. I believe that it would do little to improve the privacy of individuals. That problem is immensely difficult and far from simple.
I am among those who believe that it is important to maintain the freedom of the press and if it is humanly possible to control abuse by a voluntary code of conduct, which undoubtedly comes under the auspices of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor. The voluntary code of conduct is vital. However, in the face of the Royal photographs taken in Spain and in the light of what we learnt this morning about the Buckingham Palace complaint to the Press Complaints Commission, even I find difficulty in maintaining the principle that we must stay with that code. With regard to the Spanish pictures, there is a gleam of hope in the fact that they have not yet been published. However, I believe that no Act in British law can prevent such pictures being taken and published abroad.
Even now, the effect of restricting the freedom of a photographer to take and to market his pictures must be looked at very carefully. One of the most dangerous aspects of the Bill is that it seeks to control improper publication in the photographic field without touching upon potential abuses in other areas.
We are looking, hoping and waiting for a properly constructed Bill on privacy which will assist in this regard. But surely no part of it should be taken in isolation. There is no difference in principle between intrusion by photographs and intrusion by words; they should be treated equally with regard to privacy. A picture may have more impact but that is about all.
In Committee I underlined the importance of the ability of the press and television to publish, even if they are damned as a result of that publication, for the punishment of wickedness and vice. The Watergate case, in picture and word, is perhaps the most conspicuous example of the correct use of the power of the press to expose wrong-doing, even if it has now become something of a folk legend. However, there are many other instances. It was the ability of the late Robert Maxwell to bully the media by the use of the threat of libel that allowed him to conceal his known improper activities. They were known throughout Fleet Street, although not in the degree to which they eventually came out. However, considerable improper activities were known of for some time. That was in spite of the laws in relation to privacy and libel as they stand at the moment. To render those laws even more draconian against a photographer and against an editor or a reporter, except as part of a comprehensive whole, and without the very greatest care, would be immensely damaging in connection with prosecution for wrongdoing and with the proper conduct of affairs.
As I say, many noble Lords may doubt the will of the press to stick to the voluntary code of conduct but the

1635
wording of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brain, that the Report should be received in six months' time, given its literal meaning, will give breathing space for the preparation of a comprehensive Bill on privacy which can be refined and discussed both in your Lordships' House and in another place.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, will the noble Lord concede that while the amendment refers to the Report being received in six months' time, taken literally, that means that if the amendment is carried that is the end of the Bill and we shall have to wait for whatever length of time it takes for something as good or better to be put in its place?
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that comment. I would stick to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Brain, that as the Bill stands, it will be impossible to implement and that it will provide a field day for the lawyers. I support the amendment.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I too apologise for not being present at the earlier stages of the Bill. I was otherwise engaged. Had I been able to be present, I should have certainly supported my noble friend Lord Brain.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, with all his practised years of parliamentary oratory, has done a splendid job in trying to support his Bill. But I am afraid that he leaves me unconvinced. I share the great anxiety of many photographers who feel that the Bill is too open-ended and, indeed, under certain circumstances, they could be caught by it. For example, what would be the position if someone quite innocently took a photograph in the street which contained, in the background, a gentleman with a lady on his arm who was not his wife, and he objected and took action under the Bill? Such circumstances are not dealt with by the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, seeks merely to restrict the activities of the so-called paparazzi. If so, the Bill should have been drafted more narrowly. Perhaps mention should be made of selling photographs which may damage for specific gain.
The noble Lord mentioned the privacy law in France which was introduced in 1985. I understand that that is also rather vaguely drafted and has given rise to not inconsiderable problems. I do not believe that we wish to repeat that.
On the infringement of privacy and how difficult it is to prove, I go on from what my noble friend Lord Brain said to say that in many cases the people who will be offended by the photographs and who will try to take action under the Bill will be the same people who would make full use of the photographs from the same photographers if it happened to suit their purpose. Many of those people thrive on publicity. We should not ignore that fact.
Finally, I agree with my noble friend Lady Wharton that machinery exists in the Press Complaints Commission. We should look much more closely at reinforcing those procedures and, if need be, come forward with a scheme for fining newspapers which
1636
publish the offending photographs. As I said at the outset, I believe that the Bill is far too vague, despite what the noble Lord says. It is much better to wait until a properly thought-out measure comes before the House.
7.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 13.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L

Brain, L. [Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Burnham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Colnbrook, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Monkswell, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rea, L.

Dundonald, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Tordoff, L.

Greenway, L. [Teller.]

Walpole, L.

Grey, E.

Wharton, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Balfour, E.

Kilbracken, L. [Teller.]

Denham, L.

Monson, L.

Hacking, L.

Norrie, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hesketh, L.

Strange, B.

Howell, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Judd, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Commonwealth Games
8.3 p.m.
Lord Howell Lord Howell rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the costs of staging the Commonwealth Games, and what proportions will be borne by the public sector and the national lottery, local authorities, and the private sector.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the House for allowing me time to discuss the arrangements and the funding of the proposal of the English Commonwealth Games Association to stage the games in Manchester in the year 2002. I am also pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, in her place this evening. I am sure that she will reply—as she always does—with great courtesy and understanding of the points that I wish to raise.
It is important that we debate such matters. The last occasion when the games were held in this country—in Edinburgh in 1986—the result was a fine sporting festival, but a total financial shambles which resulted in the late Robert Maxwell being brought in to sort things out, with even more disastrous consequences. This time we have to succeed on both fronts if we go ahead with the bid.
It will be recalled that Edinburgh did not have any major worries about capital works for 1986 as the city had most successfully staged an earlier games in 1970. Edinburgh's problem was revenue. No such situation exists with the bid about which we are talking tonight.

1637
Indeed, very little exists in the shape of major facilities. In particular, a stadium has to be built at an estimated cost of about £187 million; a swimming pool complex will have to be built at a cost of about £54 million; and a new rowing centre will have to be provided at a cost as yet unbudgeted.
Other sports require further money, notably for boxing in the G-Mex II centre where local grants seem to be a matter of concern. Moreover, lawn bowls need a new facility and at the Eastlands Arena, where badminton will be played, although funding of some £36 million to £37 million is assured from the Government and a £1 million grant from the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, as of now there is no price and no budget as the project is described as being out for "concept development". The other sports included in the programme for the year 2002, as endorsed by the Commonwealth Games Council, require rather more modest sums of money; but it all adds up.
Therefore, the first question is: where will all that money come from? Is it assured? My estimate is that at least about £200 million of new money will have to be found to add to the £120 million already provided from public funds towards the so-called millennium stadium (£72 million), the Eastlands centre (£36.5 million) and the national cycling centre (£9.5 million).
Clearly, Sir Robert Scott, the promoter of the bid, has an obligation to spell out exactly the nature of his financial proposals. The English Commonwealth Games Association can hardly present its bid without being assured of its financial viability. Her Majesty's Government and the Sports Council have a duty to the country and to Parliament to confirm to us that they have examined all the financial proposals and that they are fully satisfied that all those financial commitments can be met. No such guarantees have yet been forthcoming. I shall return shortly to some of those matters.
The second main question concerns the revenue consequences of the proposals. For example, the national cycling centre —which is desperately needed, quite apart from its involvement in the Commonwealth Games—was first thought to require an annual subvention of about £220,000 a year, after having been built entirely with Sports Council money. The council has agreed to fund that amount and the city council has committed a further sum, making £250,000 in all. I understand that the requirement of £250,000 has now risen to about £300,000 or more. Who is to find the balance?
Further, what calculations have been made of the annual costs of running the national millennium stadium, the swimming complex at Wigan (bearing in mind the fact that all swimming pools require substantial public subsidy), the rowing course and the other sports facilities? It would be unacceptably irresponsible to build any facilities unless we know the subvention required to run them and who will provide it.
The third principal question is: when those facilities are all in place, who is to own and manage them? We know about the serious financial restraints being imposed by the Government upon local authorities in the North West; for example, Manchester, Wigan, Salford, and so on. It is difficult to imagine that they can
1638
accept the financial burdens involved. I hope I am wrong but we need to know. Can the noble Baroness tell us what inquiries are being made by the Government and the Sports Council bearing in mind that it has been made crystal clear that the new lottery money should not be used for revenue purposes?
That leaves the private sector. We have heard much talk of its response. What does it amount to? I understand that the Government have asked the Sports Council to conduct a feasibility study into the private funding available. If that is correct, it is a wise precaution. Can the noble Baroness give any indication tonight of the conclusions being reached as a result of that inquiry? One Suggestion I have heard is that the £187 million stadium might be handed over to the private sector in return for its investment of some £40 million. Is that true? If so, it does not seem to me to be a very good bargain for the public sector and the public funders.
I turn now to other potential sources of public funds —the national lottery and European funding. We debated matters concerning the so-called millennium stadium in your Lordships' House quite recently and I will not go over that again. However, it will be a 65,000 seater stadium at a likely cost, as I say, of £187 million. Some £72 million seems to be in place and £40 million is said to be anticipated from private sector investment. This leaves a shortfall of £75 million. In spite of the fact that the noble Baroness made perfectly clear in the earlier debate—I totally agreed with her—that the Millennium Fund money (anticipated to be available in 10 allocations of £50 million each for different schemes around the country) would be wholly determined by the independent trustees of the Millennium Fund, Sir Robert Scott immediately repeated his previous public statements that £50 million was assured from this fund.. I do not know how the trustees of the fund will approach their task of choosing these 10 major schemes, but I cannot believe that they will not need to be convinced of the financial viability of each scheme and also to be convinced that, when built, the projects they choose can be properly managed and the funding guaranteed to meet future revenue requirements. As I say, all that has to be investigated.
Next, we have to consider the proposal that the other £25 million required to build the stadium might come from the lottery allocation to sport, which will be 20 per cent. of the lottery proceeds. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, QC, who is a recognised constitutional authority in this House, maintains his contention held in the previous debate that the lottery Act does not allow millennium money to be added to the sports allocation to go over 20 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has asked me to apologise to the House tonight as he has, to be elsewhere, but he authorises me to say that after meeting the department' s lawyers he fervently maintains his position. He says that at the end of his meeting with the National Heritage lawyers, he told them:
"You have been warned. You will probably end up faced with a judicial review if you continue along your present path".
I can only say that I believe he may be right and that a much higher legal assessment is required to be made

1639
by the Government to determine that matter. In any case, it will be monstrously unfair upon cities such as Sheffield, Birmingham, Gateshead, and others, who have provided first class facilities for sport out of their own resources, in some cases—indeed, most cases—without a penny of assistance from government, if they are not to be treated equally generously in being helped to meet their ongoing financial revenue costs and future capital requirements, as Sir Robert Scott is demanding for his proposals.
As regards European funds, I believe that the same considerations will apply as those for the distribution of the Millennium Fund by the trustees. The question is again raised: is all this viable? We await the answer to that question. So from one source or another the stadium will require another £75 million of public funding. But what about the £54 million swimming complex and the £10 million rowing course, and the other facilities? Where is all that money to come from? The capital control placed upon such projects as this preclude the building of projects such as are proposed in a place like Wigan. The swimming centre will have 10 lanes of 50 metres with a further 11 lanes of 50 metres each as a warm up and training facility. I am told there has been no interest in private investment, and I would have been astonished had it been otherwise, knowing the running costs of a swimming pool.
If all the Sports Council and lottery money is going into the stadium, how can this £54 million be found from the public sector? It cannot, nor could the good people of Wigan sustain such a vast capital project and enormous annual revenue deficits. These are substantial questions, so far not even asked in public, much less answered. That is the main reason I have sought to discuss them in your Lordships' House tonight. We must insist upon hearing the answers before this project proceeds further. Not to do so, and to run the risk of being awarded the 2002 games but not being able to sustain the capital and revenue consequences, would be a national humiliation. It must not be allowed to happen.
There are other financial commitments in the Manchester prospectus which I think require clearer explanation, not least because they come under the heading of the indemnity which the city council found possible to sign although both Sheffield and Birmingham were not able to do so. For example, Sir Robert Scott's brochure suggests a payment of £12 million to the BBC to televise these events around the Commonwealth. That, it is claimed, would produce an income of £14 million. Even if South Africa enters the games—we all hope it does—that income seems doubtful. Then there is sponsorship income which is put at some £30 million. That would be surprising given previous experience. Food and lodgings for athletes and officials, plus operating costs and marketing appear to add up to some £51 million. All this will, I hope, be offset by receipts from ticket sales, refreshments, programmes and the like. One can only hope that is so, but it requires careful examination.
There are other questions to be asked. I have no time to deal with them in detail but I will give one example. The Manchester 2002 bid brochure gives the seating
1640
capacity of the Manchester University Sports Centre, where the judo is scheduled to take place, as 3,000. My inquiries reveal that this hall is licensed to seat 500 with a further 500 seated in the floor area. This is another matter that needs to be investigated.
Finally, I should like to give my own view about the policy considerations involved in providing major sports facilities of this kind. The country, and sport in this country, certainly need them; but they must be part of a national strategy for major sports provision. If the proposals for Manchester are taken on board as the first stage of a guaranteed national strategy to provide national facilities in every other part of the country, that will be welcomed. If it is at last accepted that cities which have courageously provided our present centres of excellence without much help from the Government can be assisted, that is to be doubly welcomed.
I am well aware that I have set the noble Baroness an almost impossible task tonight with the detailed issues I have thought it right, and indeed my duty, to raise. It would be unreasonable to expect a detailed reply, even though my Question has been on the Order Paper for some time now. I am sure that the House will be satisfied if the noble Baroness can ensure that all the issues which I have raised are examined and responded to in due course, although we know that, as is her invariable custom, she will give us what information she can when she replies this evening.
I thank the House for its tolerance in hearing me out on matters that I regard as very serious and of the greatest public importance to the nation and to sport.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has raised a very important series of points tonight with his Unstarred Question. I shall not go in any depth into the specific points that he raised about the games themselves. I could not do so anything like as well as the noble Lord, and once the questions have been asked there is no need to repeat them.
However, the noble Lord's summing up is of crucial importance. We are talking here of the Commonwealth Games, which are a celebration of sport, far more so than any championship can ever be. The Commonwealth receives a great deal of stick in certain quarters. I believe that it is a useful body in so far as it brings together a great many divergent nations which have one common thread. A sporting celebration of that international union is very valuable in today's society. In particular, if South Africa returns to that organisation, as is hoped, that must be applauded by all of us.
If the Government like the idea of celebrations of sport, such as the games or major championships being staged in this country, it is reasonable to expect that central government should give assistance with funding at some level. It is also reasonable to expect that there should not merely be a diversion of funds from other sporting events. The National Lottery and Millennium Fund could probably be spent many times over without taking into account a major project such as staging the games.
The problem is that the Commonwealth Games do not have the same potential for revenue generation as

1641
the Olympic Games. The potential market for sporting events, regardless of their quality and competitiveness and of the number of records broken, will never be as high. Therefore, we are asking the Government to state what type of support they will give to an event which is of benefit to sport and of benefit to the country in terms of prestige—which must be a worthwhile consideration, if secondary to the sports themselves. Secondly, how do the Government see the games being funded if they are not prepared to put their hand in the Treasury's pocket? If we had some guidance on those questions it would help considerably all future plans for events because unless they are correctly funded they will benefit nobody. If there are too few events the games will not benefit the organisation we are celebrating. The Commonwealth will not benefit from badly funded games. Furthermore, that would not benefit the nation, because if we were seen to be operating a second-class sporting event we would make no contribution to the nation's prestige or the prestige of the organisation.
When she replies I hope that the noble Baroness will give some indication of the Government's attitude towards these events, and in particular towards the Commonwealth Games in 2002.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, my noble friend and colleague Lord Howell does us a service by raising the question of funding of sports gatherings such as the Commonwealth Games.
The figures that my noble friend quoted clearly indicate that no local authority in this country could fund such a venture on its own. Being strapped for cash as they are at present, it is almost impossible for any local authority to consider funding such a project in any case. Certainly, as a former leader of the city council in Manchester, if I were still in that esteemed position I would not be prepared to raid the rate fund for one penny to provide a huge sports stadium for a prestige event. If I did it would be at the expense of funding for housing, education, the care of old people and general use in the community. Any government in office today would find it extremely difficult to say to any city, whether it be Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool or Glasgow, that if it succeeded in a bid to stage the games, the Government would allow for that in support from the central exchequer. That would be an impossible exercise.
There is a great deal to be said for a national strategy, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Howell. One of our centres of excellence in the past was the Richmond ice skating rink, which I understand was disposed of for redevelopment in 1986 and has never been replaced. Everybody knows that when our skaters go into action against world class skaters from Russia or America they are competing with people who have training facilities which are available seven days a week, 24 hours a day. That example from ice skating is repeated across the sporting spectrum.
In his detailed, and not overlong speech which was full of information, my noble friend referred to personalities involved in the Manchester Olympic bid and in this present bid. I start from the disadvantage that
1642
although I am a former leader of Manchester council and one would expect me to have some brief in order to put a case for Manchester, I have no such brief. The powers that be who have been dealing with the bid for the Olympic Games in Manchester perhaps thought that it was no concern of mine. Therefore, I have never been given any information. I have not been contacted. That is also the position in relation the public representatives of the city of Manchester. They have almost been frozen out of the proceedings, whereas they could have helped. That is sad. I know that in the past people such as myself were prepared to speak objectively.
I must accept that the figures which my noble friend Lord Howell mentioned tonight are accurate. Having known him for many years I know that he would not quote figures that were not realistic. However, have no information on which to base an assessment as to whether or not those figures are correct, because I have not been given a brief.
Lord Howell: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to intervene to thank him, and to say that all the figures that I have given have been taken from the Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games bid.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, my noble friend has the advantage of me. I am a Mancunian. I once operated in an exalted position. However, no one thought it worthwhile to send me a copy so that I might judge whether I wished to take issue on the subject. Having read it, I may not have wished to do so. I am sure that the entrepreneur in charge of the issue, Sir Robert Scott, must have known on the grapevine that this debate would take place this evening. It amazes me if such knowledge had not reached him.
I stand in this Chamber almost like St. George without the armour, waiting for the dragon to devour him. I have no defence and no argument to put forward, but not because I am unwilling or inactive—I am sure that the most partisan Member of your Lordships' House would not level that criticism against me. I am always ready to put forward a case in which I believe. However, unfortunately I have been given no information, either on the detail or on the broad issues involved.
There was much criticism from some quarters about aspects of the Olympic bid. I believe that the criticism was based on the view of many people that the issue was kept within the control of a small group of people who made it clear that with regard to others a hands-off exercise operated. I do not wish to go into that question. However, as time evolves I do not think that the subject will go away.
As I said in my opening remarks, my noble friend Lord Howell has done us a favour by highlighting the huge cost which will accrue from the Commonwealth Games. I do not believe that we should not go in for such competitions. But no city in this or any other country could bear the burden of an international competition. With the number of people in the Commonwealth who will wish to participate in such games—very often the games are a trial run for the Olympic Games —I do not believe that any single unit

1643
would be able to bear the cost. There has been reference to the recouping of money after a successful bid. The issue is all about money. For instance, looking at the last three bids for the Olympic Games, why did American cities win two out of the three bids? Sadly, that exercise was not about sports or games; it was about money and who would put back the most money.
In conclusion, I thank my noble friend Lord Howell for initiating the debate. I am sorry that I was not better briefed, but no one thought it worthwhile to do so. In some respects the argument may have been lost by default. However, in my opinion, if the country is to go in for such an exercise—and I believe with the utmost vigour that it should do so—the overwhelming proportion of the cost will have to be borne by central government. With present strictures, and as a result of past strictures with regard to local authority funding from central government, no city that I have ever known or been associated with, including the boroughs of the great city of London, could bear such costs. If they were to do so, it could be only at the expense of the community. The members have been elected to serve the community. I believe that community services are more important for the quality of life than either Olympic, student or Commonwealth Games.
8.34 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, first, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for his views on the costs of staging the 2002 Commonwealth Games in this country. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, who contributed so vigorously to the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, has taken the route of a debate on dyslexia this afternoon to reach this evening's debate and I congratulate him on both his speeches.
Before dealing with the question of the costs associated with staging the Commonwealth Games, I should like to congratulate Manchester on winning the English bid to host the 2002 event, and I am sure your Lordships will all join me in wishing it success in securing the actual bid which will be decided by the Commonwealth Games Federation in Bermuda in November 1995. I should, however, make it absolutely clear that the decision on 4th February to select Manchester as the English bid was entirely a matter for the Commonwealth Games Council for England. The Commonwealth Games Council for England is an independent sports body and it is quite right that the Government played no part in the decision to select Manchester ahead of either London or Sheffield.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked me about the Government's attitude to such games. The Government recognise the sporting prestige and value attached to the successful staging of major international events in this country. However, we are concerned to ensure that only high quality and financially viable bids for such events are put forward. To assist this process, the Sports Council GB—which is sponsored by my department —is shortly to establish an advisory group comprising representatives from all home country sports councils, sports organisations and the local authority associations
1644
as well as officials from my department. The group will provide practical advice and technical guidance to local authorities and sports organisations on the various costs and risks involved in bidding for and staging major events. The Government would certainly wish the Manchester bid promoters to liaise closely with this advisory group in developing its plans to stage the 2002 Commonwealth Games.
The Manchester bid promoters have said that the city has gained immeasurable domestic and international prestige from its high profile bid for the 2000 Olympic Games. They now have in prospect some first class facilities such as the Velodrome and the multi-purpose indoor arena which are expected to be operational by October 1994 and autumn 1995 respectively. The bid spearheaded major regeneration works in the region with over £3 billion worth of Government investment in infrastructure projects over a three year period resulting in a new terminal at Manchester Airport and greatly improved road and rail links. All of this, together with the local expertise and partnership between the local authority and the private sector built up during their 2000 Olympic bid campaign, should stand Manchester in good stead in its bid for the Commonwealth Games. The Government have always made it clear that our commitment to providing financial support for the Olympic stadium in East Manchester was conditional on Manchester winning the nomination for the Olympic Games. However, through the Department of the Environment's urban programme scheme, we remain committed to providing up to £30 million towards the cost of acquiring and clearing the stadium site.
I turn to the specific question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, concerning the actual costs of staging the Commonwealth Games. My department has seen a copy of Manchester's bid to the Commonwealth Games Council for England outlining its proposals, including the costs of staging the games. I gather the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has also seen a copy; but, like the noble Lord, Lord Dean, I have not, as yet. Manchester has drawn heavily on the expertise and knowledge gained from bidding for the Olympic Games in putting the bid together. However, the onus is on the bid promoters to present evidence to the Government that the bid merits support, bearing in mind that we expect the games to be self-financing. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is meeting members of the bid team (Councillor Graham Stringer and Sir Robert Scott) later this month to discuss the bid. We will certainly be asking the bid promoters to develop in depth their proposals which were outlined in their bid document to the Commonwealth Games Council for England and to expand on how they plan to meet the costs of staging the event, plus future running costs. It would be premature for me to make any statement on the nature of government support for the bid in advance of that meeting.
I should now like to turn to the question of national lottery funding for the games. As noble Lords will recall from the passage of the National Lottery etc. Bill last year, decisions on how lottery money will be distributed will be the responsibility not of the Government but of the independent organisations that are named as

1645
distributing bodies in the Act. Those are the Arts and Sports Councils, the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the National Lottery Charities Board and the Millennium Commission.
Regarding the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Renton, the noble Lord may be aware that my noble friend and I had an interesting meeting. It is clear that we do not see eye to eye on the point, although at the time the meeting finished I understood my noble friend to be satisfied. It was only later that I received a letter from him.
My legal advisers are clear that the National Lottery etc. Act does not preclude funding of the type raised with me by my noble friend Lord Renton and which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, repeated this evening. If it would help the noble Lord, I shall send a copy to him of my recent letter to my noble friend on the subject.
I understand that distributing bodies will later this year issue guidelines for applicants which will set out the eligibility criteria for lottery funding and the precise application process. The organisers of Manchester's bid for the Commonwealth Games will be able to submit an application for lottery funds to the appropriate body in the same way as any other organization—provided, of course, that they identify a project which meets those eligibility criteria. Once received each application must be considered on its merits in the context of others received. I can also assure your Lordships that there is no question of distributing bodies, and most certainly not government Ministers, committing lottery funds to any project before an official application has been received and fully evaluated. Lottery funds are expected to come on stream late this year or in early 1995. There is no question of any decisions having been taken on funding for any projects from the national lottery. The distributing bodies, including the Millennium
1646
Commission, will issue guidance on applications soon. Until then, no one should assume that they will receive funding.
I hope that in the light of that information it will be clear that it is simply not possible to state at this time whether any of the proceeds from the lottery will be used to support the costs of staging the Commonwealth Games in the year 2002.
My department is concerned to see the widest possible distribution of high quality sports facilities throughout the country. Recent developments such as the Don Valley stadium in Sheffield, the international indoor arena in Birmingham and the velodrome in Manchester have greatly increased our chances of successfully staging major events and further enhancing our international sporting profile. The GB Sports Council is currently developing a new national facilities development plan which will assess the need for facility provision throughout the country. It will be taken into account by the Sports Council in considering lottery applications, but applications cannot be ruled out solely because they do not fall within the plan.
I am grateful to the noble Lords Lord Howell, for saying that I do not have to reply to his many questions. I shall read the debate most carefully and write where the need exists. I conclude by saying that I assure your Lordships that we are alert to the problems as well as the pluses involved in hosting the 2002 Commonwealth Games.
Lord Howell: My Lords, perhaps I may conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my colleague and noble friend Lord Dean for their support and contributions. I especially thank the Minister for what I thought was a realistic and therefore much appreciated response to the debate.
House adjourned at a quarter before nine o'clock.