Lords Sitting of 11 January 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.
Lord Methuen—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

Community Care: Discretionary Charging
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will issue further guidance to local authorities on discretionary charging for community care services for disabled and elderly people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the Social Services Inspectorate sent advice to all directors of social services in England and Wales 12 months ago. The advice concerned the factors that they should consider when reviewing or devising a charging system. There are no plans to issue further advice.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply. As local authorities have had that responsibility for the new community care system for a short time only, and in order to set general standards on a national scale, should not more guidance be issued in addition to what was really only an outline issued by the Social Services Inspectorate a year ago?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, social services departments have had the power to charge for domiciliary services since 1948, so that is not a new element in the way in which they run their business. We sent out the guidance and we are monitoring very carefully what is going on. At the moment we feel that that is sufficient.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that those charges are inequitable and unfair? They are inequitable because they vary widely throughout the country for the provision of precisely the same service. They are unfair because local authorities take account only of the income of disabled people and not their expenditure, and some disabled people incur very heavy costs because of their disability. Therefore, the guidance issued by the Government and by the inspectorate is being ignored. Will the Minister please consider recommending to the Government that they should set national standards and insist on realistic assessments?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, no, we shall not consider that. We believe that local authorities should have discretion. Different services are provided in different parts of the country. Local authorities are best placed to identify the strengths in their areas and indeed to provide flexible systems. If we introduce something
168
which comes from the centre, it would be rigid and, in some places, inappropriate; we wish to trust local authorities in that instance to use their own discretion.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, what is the position with regard to people who are still ill but who have been discharged from hospital and therefore need to go into a nursing home? Who is responsible for the financial costs of the nursing home?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, this Question is about domiciliary services. Local authorities do not have discretion with regard to residential care. The way in which the charges are made is laid out quite clearly. I shall go into the detail if my noble friend wishes me to, but it takes into account the capital of individuals, the costs of the home and their income; and in some cases quite a lot of assistance is given through income support.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, what is the situation with regard to those ex-servicemen and women who were disabled as a result of being badly wounded in wars?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, they have special circumstances; they are considered differently and I believe that the noble Lord is aware that we look after them in a different way.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when that responsibility last rested with local authorities—and I was involved—there was a specific component within the rate support grant for that particular service for elderly and disabled people? That was identified quite clearly. The component granted was based on the needs of the area. Why cannot the Government revert to that and save all this trouble, because they would then target the assistance on areas of greatest need?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, all local authority expenditure works on a formula —the standard spending assessments. A great deal of consultation takes place with local authorities on how those assessments are drawn up year on year and the formulae required to do that. Charges for services are not part of the assessment. It is for local authorities to charge as they wish. Many of them accrue quite a lot of income from that, which enables them to give services to a wider range of people. We have no problem with the proposition that people who can afford to pay for services should pay for them.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, does not another matter underlie the question of such services? I refer to the great variability in the efficiency of the staffing methods and services provided by different local authorities. I do not believe that I am alone in feeling that the system leaves a lot to be desired and that there needs to be a great deal of improvement if we are to provide those vitally important social services on the scale and with the humanity which we should all like to see.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct. When one looks at how local authorities manage their business, there is a great variation between those which provide high quality, efficient services at lower cost and those which do

169
not. Indeed, the Audit Commission today produced its report on the running and efficiency of local authorities and social services departments, looking particularly at staffing. The report says that there is a very wide variation in rates of pay. It says that one-third of the authorities surveyed were unable or unwilling to give information on their pay bills and staffing levels; and that only a minority of councils set clear objectives and tasks for their staff. Clearly in a number of councils there is room for improvement in efficiency.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am very pleased that she was asked such a Question by her noble friend? It precisely reflects the concerns that have been expressed many times from these Benches, not least by my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke in introducing earlier debates on community care. Is the Minister also aware that the base of those concerns is the worry that there are no national eligibility criteria for where free health care and means-tested social care starts? Why cannot the Government find a way to define national eligibility criteria? After all, they are firm in their belief and in their expressions that the National Health Service should remain a national concern.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we have had long debates on the subject. The noble Baroness will know that a consultation paper has been sent out to the National Health Service, to local government and to a wide range of people on the differentiation between health care and social care. Responses to the consultation paper are now being considered by the department. We have had a range of responses—many of them very helpful—and we shall be producing a firm document very shortly.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I entirely accept a system of charging, because some elderly people are very well off and can contribute; but they also need care. However, is my noble friend aware that in other cases charging may discourage people from continuing in or seeking employment, as earnings would be reduced or nullified by the present system?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am sure that many people would like a free service and would prefer not to have to pay towards it. However, as I said, we believe that local authorities must consider whether a reasonable charge should be made. They have to consider the cost of the service and the ability to pay. There is an appeals procedure when people feel that they are not being properly treated. Those considerations are all part and parcel of the Acts under which local authorities work. In that regard, we wish to give them discretion. However, there is no discretion in respect of residential care, where there is a statutory formula.

Dr. Jawad Hashim: Legal Aid
2.46 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenterasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the total sum paid in respect of legal aid to Mr Jawad Hashim in connection with proceedings between him and the Arab Monetary Fund; and whether it is intended to make any further such payments.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, a total of £2.8 million has been paid on account. However, the principal legal aid certificate issued in respect of proceedings between Dr. Hashim and the Arab Monetary Fund has now been revoked and, subject to any appeal Dr. Hashim may successfully make against revocation, no further work can be done. The Legal Aid Board remains liable for payment for work done up to the date of revocation. The final cost has yet to be determined.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that reply. However, I am not quite clear whether he covered the following point. Can he say how much was paid out to this gentleman and why it was thought necessary in any event to support the litigation of an undoubtedly wealthy foreigner in our courts?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I said, the total amount paid out to date is £2.8 million. The application of Dr. Hashim for assistance under the legal aid scheme was dealt with on the basis of the information provided in the forms that the Legal Aid Board requires. The application was dealt with on the basis of the rules that apply to everyone. Therefore, on that basis, Dr. Hashim was entitled to legal aid, being a litigant before the courts of this country eligible on financial grounds. The certificate has now been revoked in connection with consideration of the information provided in the original forms.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord tell the House why the certificate was revoked and why the information upon which it was revoked was not available earlier?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I understand it, the certificate was revoked on the basis of information which came to the attention of the Legal Aid Board, principally through the third of the major judgments. The case was an extremely complicated one. Judgment was delivered in the Chancery Division in three tranches. It was upon information contained in the third tranche that the judge decided contested matters connected with the property and assets of Dr. Hashim. In the light of information coming before the Legal Aid Board from those judgments the decision was taken to revoke the certificate. That decision is, of course, subject to appeal. I understand that Dr. Hashim has lodged grounds of appeal. That is why I say that the matter is subject to any appeal he may successfully make.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the rules of the Legal Aid

171
Board really do need amendment in so far as one can have an applicant who technically has no money but whose family is extremely wealthy? Surely, we should change the rules so that the whole of the circumstances of the family of an applicant are taken into account which, in this case, would have saved the British taxpayer some £2.8 million.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, your Lordships will know from an earlier answer to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that I intended to issue a paper consulting on these very issues. I have now issued such a paper indicating possible changes to the rules that might be considered. Those changes are not easy to make without affecting people other than Dr. Hashim. One has to examine the matter in the light of all the people affected. However, I have issued a fairly detailed consultation paper about legal aid for the apparently wealthy. I shall be extremely grateful to all noble Lords who feel inclined to contribute views about precisely what changes I should make. I have not found the subject particularly easy but, with the help of your Lordships, I am sure that the task will be made easier than otherwise it would have been.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, if a person obtains legal aid by false pretences, is that a criminal offence? If so, have there been any prosecutions for such an offence?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there are certainly criminal sanctions associated with giving false information. There are, of course, levels of falsity. I do not think that it would be right for me to go into the detail of this case because, as the noble Lord knows, I am precluded by the confidentiality provisions of the legal aid Act from knowing about the details of the financial circumstances given to the Legal Aid Board by an applicant. But there are, of course, possibilities both of civil and criminal sanctions in this area, subject to the availability of the person in question to the forces of law and order in this country.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, given that the matter is under appeal and that my noble and learned friend is therefore under some constraint, may I ask him this question? If the original application was based upon false information as to assets or means, is there any mechanism for recovering the money which has already been spent from the person who gave that information?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as regards the person who gave the information, assuming the certificate is revoked it is treated then as never having been granted in a question between the Legal Aid Board and the applicant. Therefore the applicant is liable for all the moneys that the Legal Aid Board has paid out. Of course, as my noble and learned friend is well aware, legal liability and actually getting the money into the Legal Aid Board's hands are two rather different matters.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor recognise that many on this side of the House are concerned with the availability of legal aid for the apparently not wealthy? Does it not seem rather strange—I believe this to be a commonly held view in your Lordships' House—that a
172
man of the wealth of Dr. Hashim can obtain £2.8 million so far whereas citizens of this country who are barely above income support levels have no effective access to legal aid and assistance? Is there any sensible prospect of recovering at least this £2.8 million which many of us regard as a disturbingly lax disbursement of public funds?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the regulations under which the Legal Aid Board functions carry the authority of Parliament. As far as I am concerned, the regulations were applied in the case of Dr. Hashim. I am at least as concerned as the noble Lord about the availability of legal aid to those people who really need it. I am convinced that the rigidity of the present scheme militates against a really effective distribution of legal aid money. I should point out that the money was not paid to Dr. Hashim, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, suggested, but to practitioners in this country: they are the recipients of the money. I should perhaps supplement that by saying that one of the responses I have already received to the consultation paper suggests that the money in question should be paid to clients rather than to their lawyers.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend confirm that there is no question in the future of handing out very large sums, amounting to millions of pounds, of taxpayers' money in cases of this kind, and that this incident will not be repeated?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am certain that if it is possible to devise rules under the present scheme which have the effect my noble friend describes without detriment to others—it is a system of rules—then certainly, in the light of the consultation, I will seek to do so. I do, however, suggest to my noble friend and to your Lordships generally that it may be that a more radical change in the whole system is required so as to enable the Legal Aid Board to act in the light of other priorities than merely financial entitlement plus a reasonable case, and that a system under which local priorities and needs are assessed as a guide for the Legal Aid Board may be a useful addition to the present panoply of powers it has.

Trident
2.57 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putneyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the basis of their belief (Official Report, 12/12/94; WA 109) that Trident is a stabilising force while operating under British control but would become "dangerously destabilising" if acquired by another country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, in Europe we have a stable deterrence environment which has been established over a period of many years and the United Kingdom Trident force will make an important contribution to maintaining that. The proliferation of nuclear weapons outside such a stable deterrence system would pose great dangers.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, but is not the noble Lord aware that it may be difficult for the

173
Government to reconcile the position which they adopt with their allegiance to the non-proliferation treaty? I believe that an important conference to discuss that treaty will be held in April. Is it not the case that the Government will perhaps be seen at that conference as advising nuclear disarmament for everyone else but themselves?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to draw attention to the conference that is looking to further renewal of the non-proliferation treaty, which was first agreed to, as I think the noble Lord knows, in 1970 and was to last for 25 years. We are committed to securing an unconditional and an indefinite extension treaty at the conference that will start in April and we believe that an extension will be of benefit to all parties whether they are nuclear weapon states or non-nuclear weapon states. I would accept, with the noble Lord, that under the existing treaty we are committed under Article 6 to work towards nuclear disarmament in a context of complete and general disarmament. However, we do not believe that that is a practical or realistic policy goal in either the short or the medium term.
Lord Carver: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain what he means by "stable deterrence system"?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I take it that the noble and gallant Lord would accept that in Europe the deterrence between the two great powers has been stable for a number of years and will continue to be stable. I think any changes that we might make unilaterally as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, could endanger that stability. It would be unwise to do it unilaterally. It might be that we could work towards these things by means of further talks.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree with me that it is rather peculiar that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, should have put down this precise Question, since the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, of which he was an ornament, and perhaps still is (if the campaign exists—the noble Lord obviously does) used to urge upon us the fact that the nuclear weapons held by ourselves and our allies were terribly dangerous whereas the nuclear weapons held by the Soviet Union were, if anything, benign?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that intervention. Of course I cannot speculate on the motives which inspire the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, to put down his Questions and why he puts them down in a form which might even seem to imply that we should encourage other nations to acquire nuclear weapons. That is something that I would not agree with, and I presume that the noble Lord would not agree with it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister accept that we rather resent some comments from noble Lords on the other side of the House on the motives for putting down Questions? There is no doubt that my noble friend has put down this Question as a serious inquiry about the non-proliferation treaty. I am glad to see that the Minister, unlike some of his colleagues on those Benches, is treating it as such.
174
The noble Lord said that there is a European deterrent system. Is it not the case that Trident and the Trident force is assigned to NATO and therefore that this is a NATO arrangement rather than a purely European arrangement? Is it not further the case, as I think the noble Lord himself has conceded, that, without a further definition of the purpose of NATO, it would be very difficult in the new conference which is to take place in New York in April/May to persuade those outside NATO that they should not have similar weapon systems to those which exist inside NATO?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as regards the first of the points which the noble Lord raised, as I made quite clear, I do not speculate on the motives of noble Lords in putting down Questions. Similarly, I do not speculate as to why my noble friends ask various supplementary questions.
As regards the conference on the next non-proliferation treaty I said, and I maintain, that I believe it will be of benefit to all parties, whether nuclear weapon states or non-nuclear weapon states, to see an extension of that treaty. As long as our security depends on the possession of nuclear weapons, we are committed to maintaining an effective and up-to-date minimum deterrent. That is perfectly consistent with our non-proliferation treaty obligations.
Turning to the final part of the noble Lord's question as to whether Trident is assigned entirely to NATO, the noble Lord is correct, in that it contributes to NATO's strategy in terms of war prevention but it is also the ultimate guarantee of our own national security.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government continue to believe that an air-portable and air-launched nuclear weapon capability is essential to maintaining the strategic deterrent credibility of our Trident system?
Lord Henley: No, my Lords. As the noble and gallant Lord will know, the number of WE 177 airborne free-fall bombs has been reduced and we have announced that we shall not be replacing them. Thereafter we shall depend entirely on Trident for both our strategic and non-strategic nuclear capability.
Lord Rea: My Lords, while I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House probably agree that the United Kingdom will use the power resulting from its possession of nuclear weapons responsibly, does the Minister agree that that view may not be held by the majority of non-nuclear signatories of the non-proliferation treaty? Does he not realise that they feel that we should comply with Clause 6 of that treaty by reducing our nuclear armaments rather than increasing them?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it may be that they will argue that particular case, but we shall strongly argue our case that it is to the benefit of all, both nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states, to further the treaty.
As to whether we ourselves have made any progress, I can assure the noble Lord that, with the abandonment of our maritime surface tactical nuclear

175
capability, our nuclear artillery and the Lance missiles, and the announcement that I have just repeated that we shall not be replacing the free-fall WE 177 bombs, by the time Trident is fully operational our nuclear arsenal will be some 25 per cent. less powerful than in 1990.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me whether it will be possible for Trident to be used without the consent and assistance of the United States? Further, can it be targeted independently of any advice and assistance which the United States may give?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord well knows, Trident is an independent deterrent which belongs to Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is not Trident assigned to NATO and therefore targeted according to NATO requirements?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have already answered that question. It is the ultimate guarantee of the United Kingdom's own security.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I do not mind what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, says? There are occasions when what he says is worth listening to.
Is it not the case that the Government and I share a common objective here? Both the Government and I are committed to the ultimate disappearance of the nuclear weapon. We may have different ideas as to the speed with which that is accomplished or as to the method which should be adopted, but, oddly enough—and some noble Lords may not appreciate the fact-—our ultimate aim is the same. However, the Government do not mention as frequently as I do the necessity of getting rid of the nuclear weapon.
Having regard to the fact that we have that object in common, will the Government not consider the possibility that the notion which I believe will come up at the forthcoming conference that the West is on one side and everybody else is on the other is dangerous and one which they should do their best to avoid?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord may say that he and I are in agreement on a number of matters, but our disagreement on the question of timing is fairly crucial to the arguments here.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the answer which the noble Lord gave me. He said that the Trident weapon was independent. Can he then confirm that it can be used without the United States' consent and assistance and can be targeted independently of United States' assistance?
Lord Henley: My Lords, like its predecessor, Trident is an independent nuclear deterrent. That means exactly that. I can go no further.

Building Societies (Joint Accounts) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to permit the distribution of funds by building societies to the second named holder of a joint account in the event of the first holder's death. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Dubs.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Forestry
3.7 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryferose to call attention to the Government's Forestry Review of August 1994 and its impact on the future of forestry in the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I deal with the substance of this Motion, I observe from the list of speakers that the reply to the debate will be made by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. I should like to congratulate the noble Earl on his promotion and wish him well in the duties that he now undertakes.
At the same time—and I mean no disrespect to the noble Earl—I deplore the absence of the Minister of State who is responsible for these matters in the Government. The fact that the Minister of State is absent and the most junior member of the Government Front Bench, however able—and I know that he is able in this regard—is to deal with the matter may be taken by industry and by Parliament (and I speak as the chairman of the all party parliamentary group of both Houses dealing with forestry) as indicating that the Government have a rather low estimate of the importance of forestry in this nation.
Having made my protest, I can now turn to the substance of the debate. It is almost two years since we had a debate in this House on forestry. At that time there were 25 speakers, who were allowed, I think, five minutes each. Today we have a rather more generous allocation. But the Government should be aware of the interest in this matter and its importance, indicated by the fact that again we have a fairly long list of speakers.
On the last occasion the Minister indicated that there were two important matters before him. First, he had just announced the appointment of a special inter-departmental committee to consider forestry—not only the incentives but also the ownership and management of the Forestry Commission estate. Some of us were nervous about that. However, on winding up on that occasion the Minister gave an assurance. He observed that the most important consensus reached is that in Britain we must continue to plant more trees. He said:
"It continues to be our policy to encourage the expansion of woodland cover in Great Britain".—[Official Report, 14/4/93; col. 1143.]

177
I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has just withdrawn from the Chamber. Two years previous to that debate he had said:
"I have every confidence that the industry itself will increase the number of plantings".—[Official Report, 27/3/91; col. 1066.]
Two years before that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland gave similar assurances. He stated:
"It remains the government policy to expand forestry wherever possible".
Today in this debate we can measure those assurances against the record. I hope that we shall do so.
However, before I criticise the Government, perhaps I may reiterate some of the basic factors which justify an expanding forestry policy. First, apart from Ireland this country has the lowest forestry cover in Europe. Ten per cent. of our land area is under forestry as against 30 per cent. in Germany and 26 per cent. in France. That is despite the fact that in this country we have the land, the climate, the soil and certainly the expertise to take advantage of this important renewable resource.
Secondly, we are constantly reminded that this country has a serious balance of payments problem. The total consumption of wood and wood products in Britain has increased by more than 30 per cent. in the past 10 years. It will increase even more, and more rapidly, because of the devaluation of sterling. The present import bill for wood and wood products is £6.3 billion, which is a sizeable part of our balance of payments deficit. In this country I wish that we would spend more time talking not only about export promotion but about import substitution too. It is an area in which forestry can make some contribution.
Thirdly, we have had many debates in this House stressing the importance of Britain's manufacturing industry and its decline. In the past eight years the wood processing industry in this country has invested more than £1 billion in new plant and equipment. That has all been done on the assumption that there would be a continuing supply of home-grown timber to meet its needs. In Scotland alone the Caledonian Paper Mill invested some £215 million in the past few years in new plant and equipment. Those companies require long-term contracts providing continuing supply of home-grown timber. While the private estates will play some part, only the Forestry Commission can supply the bulk and the continued supply of timber to those new industries.
At present the Forestry Commission is meeting its commitments to the pulp mills and wood processing factories. However, that is being done only because people planted trees 20 and 30 years ago. Twenty years ago the Forestry Commission planted 20,000 to 30,000 hectares a year. I refer to the Forestry Commission Corporate Agenda which was recently published. It makes this sad announcement:
"Because of financial constraints our new planting programme … has shrunk below 1,000 hectares this year. Our planned programme this year is 824 hectares, the lowest [planting programme] in the 75 years history of the Forestry Commission".
178
I wonder how the investors in the wood processing industry who have been given the assurances that the Government are committed to an expanding forestry policy will consider those figures.
Another aspect which justifies an expanding forestry policy has been discussed in this House on various occasions. It is the importance of forestry in catering for the growing leisure industry. Last year the Forestry Commission welcomed 50 million day visitors into its woodlands. Those are not people just passing through; they visit for at least three hours on each occasion. I am quite sure that the urban population is becoming tired of the faxes, the mobile telephones, the trivia on television and the dullness and pollution of urban life. It will require more and more availability of access to woodlands. I am happy to say that not only is the Forestry Commission pioneering that but the private sector is also responding. I was delighted to read recently in The Times that the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, one of our most enthusiastic foresters and one of the largest landowners in this country, has joined the Ramblers Association. It is not that the noble Duke is able to take full advantage, I regret to say, of the trekking in which ramblers engage, but it was an indication by the noble Duke that he was anxious to encourage public access to private woodlands; and I commend him for that.
Similarly over the new year I walked in the woodlands above Dunkeld and Pitlochry in Scotland—a beautiful area. The sun was shining and snow was on the hilltops. The local authority had combined with the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, and the Forestry Commission to plan a great network of the most interesting and beautiful walks in that area. The Forestry Commission pioneered that, but the combination of the private sector working in partnership with the commission is opening up the country.
Having established, I hope, that there is a basic case for forestry I should now like to examine the Government's attitude to the Forestry Commission. This year is the commission's 75th anniversary and we all welcomed the recommendation in the report now before us that the commission should remain in public ownership. That was a great relief not only to people like myself who are anxious to encourage that view but to landowners, environmentalists, trade unionists and ramblers who all pressed the Government to ensure that the Forestry Commission remained public property. We are delighted that it will be so. However, I notice in the commission's annual report that while it will remain in public hands, the Government are allowing that important organisation to decline quite dramatically.
More than 20 years ago when I was chairman of the commission, we planted about 23,000 hectares per annum. That has decreased to about 800 hectares this year. The majority of that will be in broadleaves which make some contribution to the environment but none whatever to the economic necessity of supplying our wood-using industries. The commission's annual report for this year states that—I am sure that there will be rejoicing in the Treasury—this year the Forestry Commission will be self-financing. How is that possible? It is quite easy: all you do is to sell off your

179
existing stock on which you have incurred costs in the past and on which you have accepted the charges in your past accounts and you then enhance your income. That is running down a business. At the same time as you are selling off your stock you are not replacing it, so it may cause rejoicing in the Treasury that the Forestry Commission is self-financing but there is no rejoicing in the wood-processing industries, which assume that they will have a continuing supply of stock.
Another aspect which indicates the Government's declining interest in the Forestry Commission is the disposals programme. A few years ago the Government said that they would have one or two tidying-up operations in selling off bits of the forestry estate. The tidying-up operation has now exceeded 187,000 hectares of public land which has been sold at a depressed price because there has been a poor market for land in the past few years.
Although they have given repeated assurances that they believe in an expanding forestry policy, the situation is that the Government are constantly and steadily running down the operations of the Forestry Commission, which is the dynamic sector of the whole forestry industry. That would not be so bad if the private sector were planting and expanding to compensate for the decline in the public sector. But that is not so.
I have a paper before me from the Forestry Industry Committee of Great Britain which states:
"We continue to express our disappointment over the Review of Incentives for Forestry Investment promised",
by the Government. We have a situation where there may be increased applications for grants at the moment because they have been held up until the review took place, but there is a constant decline in new planting and expansion of forestry. I ask the Government to tell us how they see the future of the Forestry Commission in the light of the facts that I have reported. I ask them too whether their incentive programmes are working in relation to private sector forestry. I await their assurances with great interest. I beg to move for Papers.
3.25 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, first I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for having initiated this debate. Yesterday he kindly said that he was pleased that I was taking part in it and I was so disorientated, first, by jet lag and, secondly, by your Lordships' deliberations on the European Communities (Finance) Bill, that I asked whether he would be making a speech. He kindly refrained from laughing outright and I am delighted to have been able to hear the trenchant speech which he has just made.
Secondly, I wish to welcome the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, to the Front Bench to reply to the debate. We shall miss him very much from the Committee on Sustainable Development in which he has played such an active part over the past few months. Without in any way dissociating myself from the comment about the absence of the Minister of State, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that if the Government were to choose a Whip to answer on this subject they have chosen the best possible person, not just the most junior.
180
Thirdly, I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, were here to speak from these Benches with his great personal and practical knowledge. However, I shall talk on a rather wider scale about my overall ecological anxieties. I find that the review seems to lack an overall dimension, along with, it seems, the whole of the forestry set-up in the country today.
There are many aspects of forestry but there are three major ones. The first is the effect it has on the ecological system, both globally and nationally, and the micro-effect of that on the biodiversity of the animals and plants which live in the forests and on the habitat. There are great doubts in the review as to whether the arrangements for the care of biodiversity are properly looked after. Secondly, there is the aesthetic side, which is not to be underrated. A certain amount of attention has been paid to it over recent years, but it is important that this beautiful country of ours should have the right kind of forestry in the right places. Thirdly, there is the economic side, with the question of renewable resources.
There appears to have been a certain muddle about consultation on the matter and I have received brief after brief complaining about lack of consultation. One brief went so far as to suggest that the Government were in breach of Agenda 21, in which the relevant part on forestry states:
"Governments should promote and provide opportunities for the participation of interested parties, including local communities … industries … in the development, implementation and planning of national forest policies".
The consultation has been less than it should have been. As I have already suggested, there is uncertainty about the amount of care that is applied to conservation matters. The Friends of the Earth state:
"We are particularly concerned over the implications for the management of the many areas of importance for wildlife and biodiversity over which the Forestry Enterprise is currently custodian".
There appear to be huge areas of uncertainty as to how, in practice, this role will be transferred to the new body. For example, paragraph 3.26 of Our Forests—The Way Ahead states:
"Provision will be made for direct expenditure on recreation. conservation and heritage activities".
But no indication is given as to what will be the extent of this provision nor as to how it will be determined.
Similarly, it is stated that further consideration will be given to arrangements for the provision of non-market benefits. But there is no indication as to how that will occur or by whom it will be given; nor is there any commitment to implementing any findings of these considerations. It is particularly worrying that the new trading body is to work to "demanding, but achievable" financial targets, but nowhere can we find any commitment set down for the trading body to work to equivalent environmental targets. That is particularly worrying given the commission's role as the manager of several hundred sites of special scientific interest, some of which also have other designations as recognition of their international importance.

181 0
As if those two problems were not enough, the third one is that the sustainable economy, to which we and the Minister are committed and in which we are both intensely interested, demands that we should move towards less consumption of the world's forests and more consumption —or rather a larger percentage consumption—of our own. In a country where the consumption of newspapers and their contents reminds one rather of drug addiction, there should be some governmental guidance or control on the management of demand. Worldwatch paper No. 117, states:
"Per capita paper consumption is soaring worldwide, a disheartening trend for the environment because the pulp and paper sector is the biggest polluter among wood products industries".
It is for this country to play its part in world sustainable development. This appears to be another area of the whole industry on which the Government, in the particular paper that we are considering today, do not really seem to have set their mind. We produce more and more wood—of which we consume more and more. Recently the Government, in their transport policy, abandoned the idea that we can go on building more and more roads for more and more cars. The time has come for them to consider not only whether or not they should produce more and more wood, but to do something about stemming the consumption of the wood that we have.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Rees: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for having provided the opportunity for this long overdue debate on forestry. The noble Lord was able to set a particular tone for the debate. He has a unique combination of experience in forestry in both the public and private sectors. We are much in his debt. I should also like to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Lindsay who will reply to the debate. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, should make any stricture on the noble Earl's first appearance on the Front Bench. I know that with his particular experience of Scotland, and indeed of South Wales, he will have a notable contribution to make, not only to this debate but to other debates in which he will be called upon to answer for the Government.
It is singularly appropriate that we should at last have an opportunity to debate forestry in the aftermath of the Statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland on 19th July. In the time that is available to me I shall have to limit my remarks. I shall not attempt to cross swords (in, I hope, a gentlemanly way) with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, about the Forestry Commission and the way that it has been treated, except to say that I certainly accept that it continues to have a special position both in its regulatory role and in its research role. I also accept—and this is where I part company from the noble Lord—that there is quite a case for sharpening both its commercial management and the disposal, at least in part, of some of its assets. I can only speak, for example, of South Wales, which I perhaps know a little better than does the noble Lord. There are still many pocket
182
handkerchiefs of forest land owned by the Forestry Commission which I do not believe add substantially to its commercial, regulatory or research role.
Nor shall I touch on the national forest, which was mentioned in the Secretary of State's Statement, or on the environmental and recreational aspects of forestry. All those can be approved provided they are not supported and sustained at the expense of the private landowner, who has a difficult enough time in the present climate.
I turn briefly to commercial forestry. I may be proved wrong in the course of the debate, but I assume that no one in the House this afternoon, at least in this context, adopts the Manchester liberal approach that there is no call for any kind of government intervention or support in the management of this national resource. Were it necessary to debate the point, I would merely draw attention to the investment, quite a lot of which has recently come from abroad, in the wood processing industry which has been made on the assurance of a secure supply of native timber, in particular of native softwoods. I draw attention to the impact on employment' in many parts of the United Kingdom where there are limited alternative job opportunities. That aspect can never be ignored.
It has been the continued policy of all post-war administrations that there should be a sustained and encouraged policy of fresh planting, particularly of softwoods. Indeed, we were assured that government policy was that planting levels should be sustained at about 33,000 hectares almost immediately before the new regime was introduced by the Finance Bill 1988. As noble Lords will recall, that regime deprived forestry of all the income tax and corporation tax reliefs that were then available. As was forecast by many people, and on a modest scale by myself, as a consequence of those measures there has inevitably been a dramatic and evident reduction in planting levels. By 1993–94 only 16,000 hectares were planted, of which 5,000 hectares were conifers. I am extremely sorry that my noble friend Lord Lawson of Blaby did not remain in his seat. I would have been very happy to debate the unwisdom of the measures contained in the 1988 Finance Bill which, I am bound to say, I feel were introduced without proper consultation. Certainly, I was unaware of any widespread consultation before those measures were introduced.
I feel that it is a rather shabby and lame excuse to say that where budgetary matters are concerned they have to be sprung on an unsuspecting public. Certainly, I and my noble friend Lord Lawson in earlier years always forecast measures which had such wide policy implications, not least by publishing a Green Paper or some draft clauses, so that the world could be apprised of what was in train and those matters could be properly debated. However, it is perhaps a little late to return to 1988. I hope that we shall be able to continue to keep under close review this area of public policy.
Certainly, by the summer of last year—in July—the time had come to review the impact of those particular measures to see what had been the consequences. It was self-evident that there had been a dramatic and unattractive decline in planting levels. So the question

183
must have arisen, even in Whitehall, of how much and in what form assistance was necessary to restore forestry commercial planting to the kind of levels that the Government had proclaimed to be necessary and advisable in 1988.
The Secretary of State has made modest increases in the grant regime—I believe about 14 per cent. overall—offset, I have to say, by a rather unattractive reduction in the restocking grant, the reason for which entirely escapes me. It may well have been that in exchanges in the other place that was fully explained, but I see no very real justification for the reduction in the restocking grant. I am sure that it will have a damaging effect on forestry practice.
At this early stage, it is perhaps churlish to be so critical of the proposals contained in the Statement of July. However, I must ask the noble Earl what the Government's response would be if, in a few years' time, there proved to be no increase or no substantial increase in planting, particularly coniferous planting. If I may coin a phrase, will the Government be prepared to go "back to basics"?
Will the Government compare the cost of grants with the cost of tax reliefs, if tax reliefs can be regarded as a cost by government? Will they reflect, consider and compare whether the system of mixed grants and tax reliefs has produced more planting than the pure system of grants, bearing in mind that a system of "pure" grants will always be under constant and relentless pressure from the Treasury to be maintained at the lowest possible level?
There has been much ill-considered criticism of the system of tax reliefs. I merely remark that Schedule B was perhaps a hangover from an earlier regime; but the Schedule D reliefs were precisely the same as those available to any other business. It is ridiculous to regard that particular regime as the basis for large schemes of tax avoidance.
So it is time to look at the whole question with a much more open mind; it is time to compare the support for forestry given in this country with that given to our competitors in France and Germany, as the noble Lord pointed out; and it is time to consider whether a reversion to a combined system of tax reliefs and grants might not at last provide the planting levels for commercial woodlands that the country needs. I hope that when he winds up, the noble Earl will give some encouragement to forestry and persuade us that the Government will preserve an open mind on this very sensitive issue.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Barber of Tewkesbury: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for initiating this debate. I have to declare an interest. As I have no intention of sailing under false colours, I want to make clear that it is a considerable interest. I am chairman of a company which has a forestry division that looks after 150,000 hectares—something like 12 per cent. of all the private woodlands in the United Kingdom. I have a nursery business here and in the Republic of Ireland
184
which produces something like 40 million trees a year. So the interest is considerable and I want to make that absolutely clear.
My contribution to the debate—which I must make in seven minutes—is to offer your Lordships five particular points. My first, tedious though it is, is something of a repetition of what the noble Lord, Lord Rees, said. It is an inescapable thought, which to me has always been a historical question: would forestry have been taken out of the taxation system in the 1988 Finance Act had it not been for the juxtaposition of bitter and wholly justified critical publicity about the ravaging of the flow country and the equally bitter front pages of the tabloids castigating richly endowed entertainment figures for becoming yet richer through the taxpayer?
But whatever the fiscal and ethical issues, the pre-1988 years delivered a very satisfactory deal for the taxpayer. There can be no doubt—this is fact and not just supposition —that fiscal encouragement for new planting was and is much cheaper per hectare than grant aid, probably by a factor of three. One wonders, too, whether at the time any consideration was given to bringing forestry fully into the taxation system—at both ends, akin to any other industry and in particular common treatment with agriculture— rather than pushing it into unknown waters and, as some would say, delivering a grievous wound, from which the forestry industry has not yet recovered. Also, let us not forget the employment part of that wound. There has been widespread redundancy on private woodlands as the transitional period from 1988 to 1993 ended. One forestry contracting company had to lose a third of a labour force which was several hundred strong and would have lost even more had there not been success in finding export markets for the nurseries.
Secondly, it is worth recalling that against the background of failure to achieve annual planting targets, depletion of the national conifer forest has been growing apace. The figures are interesting. In 1981 to 1989 conifer plantings were 93 per cent. of the total trees planted during those years; but in 1992 to 1993 they had dropped to 33 per cent. and were only 24 per cent. of the level attained under the last two years of taxation relief. Yet, there we have the long fibre material required as a feedstock for the UK processing industry which we can grow faster than our competitor supplying countries. I do wish that that point could be emphasised more. We can all derive satisfaction from the environmental enhancements that have come through the expansion of hardwoods. But it is the softwoods' commercial engine that generates the money and justifies the processing investment of recent times. So there is a pressing need to keep things in desirable balance and to aim for the right kind of equilibrium.
The other day I was pained to find a press release from one of the conservation lobbies. It deplored the new incentives for conifers, minuscule though they may be. Incidentally, can we not strive in the whole environmental field for a better rapprochement and acceptance of balance by all with an interest, for the drip

185
drip of criticism has had a profound effect on public opinion, which has never had the opportunity of hearing the drip drip from the other side?
Thirdly, in reading the back history, one is struck by the expectations that the policy review engendered. The private forestry side had truly believed that the Government had committed themselves to considering all the incentives for encouraging investment. Bold steps were confidently anticipated. Instead, in the event, there came a review which was mainly concerned with amending the woodland grant scheme. Instead of something dramatic and exciting, there was a reshuffling, part of which was to reduce seriously the restocking grants. That is most unhelpful to the serious long-term owner and unlikely to spur the incorporation of environmental features in the subsequent rotation. Many voices—I do not associate myself wholly with them—have referred to tinkering and reshuffling, with a smidgen of icing on the cake.
One is struck by the unanimity of the view that the measures will not put fresh life into the industry on the scale needed. The Forestry Industry Committee of Great Britain, the Timber Growers' Association, the Country Landowners' Association and the forestry companies all seem to be in accord and agree that new commercial planting needs new investment. It will not be done on any significant scale by existing landowners as, on average, planting by volume and parcel size will usually be low. Again, it must be emphasised that new non-landowning investors are much less interested in grant handouts than in reliefs; and, more importantly, their advisers—the trustees, lawyers and accountants—will see little in the outcome of the review to justify investment diversification.
Fourthly—I have one eye on the clock—in the interests of bringing in new investment, can we look forward to the time when middle-sized shareholders can buy into collective forestry investment schemes? Can we look forward to a more flexible, "loosened up" Securities and Investments Board approach to encouraging those schemes which cannot at present be openly marketed? Have not HMG ignored something which is wholly in accord with their policy of widening the investment base?
Lower down the scale from the medium-sized investor, there must be large numbers of people who would like to have a positive stake in our forests and woodlands. We underestimate the vicarious pleasures which people have in being part of something which is attractive, desirable and interesting. We have seen the astonishing success of the Woodland Trust in attracting funds from 200,000 members, many of whom go nowhere near the forests they buy. In my time as chairman of the RSPB I was staggered to learn that only a minute proportion of our members went anywhere near the bird reserves; they gave money because they wanted to keep the avocets or whatever flying.
Why can members of the public not have it made easier for them on various levels to hold a more direct personal stake in our forests by some bold, imaginative plan or plans to enable them to subscribe? Why can we not introduce a forestry owning democracy? As I said
186
earlier, it is no good saying that the investor can currently invest in forestry via a broad spread property unit trust. That is not what we are talking about at all.
My fifth and concluding point will perhaps seem a strange one to the Front Bench. It concerns my real sympathy for Ministers. I am even more sympathetic today when I see the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, who was my former colleague on the Sustainable Development Committee. Poor things! They are forever beleaguered by demands, entreaties and supplications from all and sundry for infinite amounts of money to come from finite resources. Often, having delivered, they are then reviled by churlish and ungrateful voices telling them that it is not enough. In many instances—and this is one of them—tinkering merely prolongs the problem. What is required is an analysis of where the threshold point is which, once breached, allows the whole flood to arrive and resolve the problem. Moreover, in this instance a great volume of informed opinion is saying that if fiscal reliefs were reintroduced there would be remarkable cost benefits.
In relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Rees, said, there would be no satisfaction at all on the doubters' side to be able to say in two or three years' time, "We told you so". I hope that we are all wrong. However, I hope that in two years' time—that is all we need to find out how satisfactory the scheme is—the Government will look at the body of the forestry industry and, if it is ailing, will give it the required shot in the arm to keep it going.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I may gently remind the House that when the clock says seven we are in fact in the eighth minute. We are starting to run behind and I am sure your Lordships will want my noble friend to give us our money's worth.
3.52 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing the debate. However, I cannot agree with his worries in regard to the noble Earl on the Front Bench opposite. From my experience of his performance in Committee I know that he will do a competent job, provided we do not continue to overrun and that we give him sufficient time. I welcome him to his place on the Front Bench.
One of the snags of being given a short time to debate these questions is that one cannot follow up many of the points made by other speakers and must simply plug on with one's own interests.
The Government committed themselves to achieving "sustainable forestry" both at Rio and Helsinki. The meaning of "sustainable" is often questioned in this and other contexts. I am impressed by the definition of "sustainable forestry" given by the Director General of the Forestry Commission in a speech to the World Wildlife Fund last year. He said,
"what does the term actually mean? Certainly that trees that are felled are replaced. But it is much more than this. It is also about maintaining all the other values of the forest: its values for protecting soils and water, its biodiversity, its landscape value, its social and cultural values. At the same time, the forest needs to be capable of

187
maintaining a flow of timber indefinitely. It needs to be economically sustainable. If it is not economically sustainable, its continued existence must be in doubt".
I can find no fault with that definition and we should keep it before us in this discussion. It is an admirable description.
Achievement of those aims depends on a degree of stability in the industry—my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe referred to that, as did others—and the kind of continuity which I believe can only be achieved by continuing and positive government involvement. Of course we need a thriving private sector, but it was clearly demonstrated during the consultation period last year that the private sector wishes to retain that strong state presence—not least in research about which little has been said either in government statements or this afternoon.
The timber processing industry in particular is vulnerable to variations in the supply and cost of its raw materials. Left to the private supplier alone, large fluctuations could damage the processing industry and deter future investment, thus putting in doubt the continuation of thousands of jobs. I believe that figure to be around 40,000, but unfortunately I do not have the up-to-date information.
Is our state forestry to be privatised or not? In his Statement on 19th July last year the Secretary of State for Scotland said,
"Our conclusion is that, at this stage of their development, the Forestry Commission woodlands should remain in the public sector".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/7/94; col. 177.]
Later, in the same Statement, the Secretary of State said that Forest Enterprise would be replaced by a next steps agency.
A recent autobiography by a former Chancellor of the Exchequer—the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, to whom reference has already been made this afternoon—states that next steps agencies are simply regarded as stepping stones to privatisation. The Government's conclusions from the Forestry Review, published a month or so after the July Statement, opens the section on the Forestry Commission's management of its estate with this paragraph:
"Over the past 15 years, the proportion of Britain's forests and woodlands in private ownership has risen from less than 50% to 63% … With most new planting now undertaken by the private sector and with the continuation of the Forestry Commission disposals programme announced in 1989, this trend will continue".
That seems to be very much at variance with what the Secretary of State said on 19th July. Clearly, in defiance of advice and widely expressed opinions that the present balance between the public and private sectors should be maintained, the Government intend to pursue their aim of privatisation. I hope that when the noble Earl sums up he will be able to reassure me on that point.
I remind your Lordships that no further legislation would be required for the disposal of the forest estate, so there would be no further opportunity for Parliament to express its view. It is simply necessary for the Secretary of State to order disposals.
Finally, I come to the question of access. The Government seem at last to recognise the importance to millions of people of access to the forests and
188
woodlands of the Forestry Commission. Encouragement to private owners to allow access is very important also. The noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, wrote in the July edition of the Journal of Forestry, referring to access to private forests,
"By keeping the jewels of the countryside from public scrutiny we feed both envy and ignorance. We cannot expect the public to appreciate forestry if it is symbolised by a ring fence, a barred gate and a no entry sign, nor can we expect them to understand the need for sound management, including the need to control access, unless we show them, listen to them and help them. In the process we too can learn, for education should be a two way process".
I can quote no better authority for the need for better access. I welcome the Government's more positive approach to access but fear that, despite the undertaking to pay legal fees, many local authorities will be unable to afford the expenditure, especially in Scotland where many landowners appear to have large expectations of the worth of access to their forests. I hope, therefore, that we shall be given some reassurance by the Minister in his summing up.
3.59 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for bringing to the attention of the House the Government's Forestry Review, which was completed in August 1994. Noble Lords will recall the constructive debate in the House on the forestry industry in April 1993, when the noble Lord called the attention of the House to its then current position and future prospects. Much has happened since then and it is opportune that noble Lords should return to the forestry issue at this time.
When I spoke during the debate in April 1993, I raised the following issues: first, given the low level of forest cover in the UK, there was room for a significant expansion; secondly, woodlands and forests had the potential to produce a range of benefits including timber, landscape, wildlife habitats, and public access and recreation; thirdly, there should be a provision which allows for tree planting on set-aside land within the arable area payment scheme; fourthly, commercial forestry—conifers—should not be neglected by the Government; fifthly, woodland management was costly and landowners needed help to meet these costs to ensure that the existing woodland resource did not fall into decline; sixthly, a coherent national strategy was needed for both the management of the existing woodland resource and to co-ordinate, in broad terms, new planting. It is pleasing that I can address noble Lords today in the knowledge that at least some of these issues have now been achieved. However, there are some areas of disappointment as well.
Turning first to the positive points, it was extremely good news to hear at the end of last year that the European Commission had committed itself to bring a proposal to the Council of Ministers that would allow farmers to plant trees on set-aside land. It was also good to see that the Government increased their support for commercial forestry within the review of forestry incentives. Unfortunately, the restructuring of the grant bands for conifer planting has meant that those wishing to plant fewer than 10 hectares of woodland and who cannot claim the better land supplement will find that

189
the amount of grant they can claim will have fallen compared with the previous position. This will affect many potential applicants, given that the average size of application under the woodland grant scheme involves only some two to three hectares. However, the Government have made a clear commitment to encourage new planting of commercial woodlands and we shall have to wait to see whether the commitment turns into trees in the ground.
I turn now to the disappointments. Much was expected from the Forestry Review Group and therefore, in only considering the woodland grant scheme, it left many concerned that major opportunities had been missed. Forestry and woodland operate in a much broader framework than just the woodland grant scheme and all aspects of that framework should have been examined together. There is still a clear need, as I said in April 1993, for a coherent national strategy for forestry and woodlands within which rural industries can develop and operate effectively. Without this there can be no significant increase in the woodland cover of Great Britain and there is a risk that a large proportion of valued woodland will be lost through under-management.
Within that strategy, consideration must be given to the taxation framework within which forestry has to operate, the development of markets for home grown timber, particularly from broad-leaved woodland, and also the application of regulation in the forestry sector. The major disappointment must be on woodland management. The conclusions of the Forestry Review Group and the changes which followed have done little or nothing to improve the situation here. In their report Focus on Woodlands, the CLA stated that in 1993 only 63 per cent. of woodland was in active management and further that 40 per cent. of the actively managed woodland faced a decline or complete cessation in management. I had hoped most strongly that the review group would have dealt with this issue and to say that I am disappointed that it has not is a severe understatement. Indeed, some of the decisions made by the Government will have further reduced the incentive to manage woodlands.
One has only to consider the very large reduction in grants for restocking of woodlands to see major problems. This will have a disastrous impact on those owners with woodlands reaching maturity, particularly those with broad-leaved woodlands which have been unmanaged for some time and where the value of timber is negligible. Those wishing to establish even age spreads in their woodlands and to restructure conifer woodlands will now think twice before doing so. I do not have to tell your Lordships of the environmental benefits that will be foregone. Many will now find it uneconomic to fell and replant in accordance with good silvicultural management.
It will almost certainly be the case that unproductive woods, if they are defined as derelict and unmanaged, will not have had the benefit of a planting or replanting grant in the past, whereas productive woods will almost always have had a planting grant. There is, therefore, a strong case to allow restocking grants at the same level
190
as grants for new planting at least in cases where no grant had previously been claimed and the wood is unproductive to the extent that proceeds from preparing it for replanting do not exceed the cost of preparation.
A further setback for woodland management was the removal of the standard management grant. The remaining annual management grant will only be available on woodlands of very high environmental value, which will preclude a large proportion of woodlands. Without more sensible taxation arrangements for forestry, the decision to remove the standard management grant must be seen as misguided.
There is an opportunity for the Government to address some of these issues again within the context of the forthcoming rural White Paper announced recently by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for the Environment. Forestry and woodland, as the second biggest rural land users after agriculture, should have high priority within the White Paper. Given the problems created by the Forestry Review for woodland management, this is something upon which it would be sensible to concentrate. The Government would be wise not to let this opportunity slip by.
To conclude, while some positive steps forward have been made to increase the incentives to plant trees, the situation for woodland management is much more bleak. While the Government may believe that they have completed their work on forestry incentives, I, and many others, contend that there is still a great deal of work to be done, not least to reverse some of the potentially damaging decisions made in relation to incentives for woodland management. The changes made to the woodland grant scheme must be seen as a backward step for woodland management and it is essential that the Government revisit this area before turning their backs on our valuable existing woodland resource.
I therefore direct the following questions to the Government through my noble friend Lord Lindsay. First, will the Government say why they have not yet produced the much needed national strategy for forestry and woodlands and indicate when it will be available? Secondly, will the Government give their rationale for reducing their commitment to woodland management and review again the incentives offered for woodland management to bring them up to more realistic levels? Thirdly, can the Government give their reasons for not considering adequately the "option to tax", as suggested by the CLA, as a means of encouraging woodland management? Will they now look again at that point more seriously? Finally, will the Government confirm that forestry and woodlands will have a high priority within the forthcoming rural White Paper and will they also indicate the areas upon which it will be concentrating?
4.8 p.m.
The Duke of Somerset: My Lords, there is little doubt from what has been said in this debate, and what has been published, that private growers have been deeply disappointed by the review and its conclusions. I know that a lot of organisations spent a great deal of

191
time thinking, considering and proposing to the group. The review turned out to be rather superficial and a limited reassessment of the existing WGS and to be a decision on the future of Forest Enterprise. So, if I may, I shall deal with the WGS conclusions first and declare as usual an interest as a woodland owner.
Forestry debates have always heard calls for consistency and for confidence because the industry—I emphasise that word —is a long-term one: many decades pass before any financial return. It is true that successive governments since the war have pursued a policy of forest expansion and that this has led to a growing quality timber resource attracting some advanced wood processing technology to the country. However, since 1988 the plethora of changing grant schemes and the rebuff of major private sources of wealth in that year's Budget have caused a continuing crisis of confidence everywhere in the industry. This review failed to address the practicalities of policy implementation.
It is a fact that new coniferous planting (the raw material for the processing industry) has declined sharply, being at its lowest level for 20 years. If we are to retain the investment mentioned before, including the employment skills so vital to the rural areas, we must protect this source of wealth. I believe that the review has jeopardised that. It may strengthen environmental planting, but we need both: amenity and commercial planting.
Other noble Lords have mentioned some of the faults but they are so important that perhaps I may repeat one or two of them. The review will not attract new money into the creation of new forests for it has refused to establish readily tradeable, unitised investment vehicles. Not only that, but the Treasury has refused to remove anomalies between forestry and agricultural land taxation. Why is capital expenditure in the latter sector allowable but not in forestry? The Government want to have planting on better quality, lower sites, yet loans taken out to buy them for forestry do not attract tax relief.
Furthermore, the review has substantially cut the restocking grant, which is a major blow for those felling low-quality hardwoods. It has also abandoned the standard management grant for silvicultural purposes. What signals does that send to us growers? To me it says, "Please plant hardwoods in tubes at wide spacings". They grow very slowly into multi-branched lollipop trees of only firewood and dubious amenity quality. If we are going to go to the expense of growing a nice oak or ash, why cannot it not be a quality one, of utilisable value, that at the same time provides the environmental benefits that we all want? For instance, we need encouragement for pruning.
I believe that the pendulum has swung too far away from growing quality timber. It is the same with conifers in WGS III. The emphasis is on public access, open spaces, wildlife, etc.; all of which is very important and highly laudable. But let us grow quality produce at the same time. The silvicultural management need should be recognised in the new grant structure along with the
192
other aims. However, the increase in the new planting grant for larger conifer planting schemes is to be welcomed, as is the faster payment of the grant.
The increased stocking rate for broadleaves in new planting is 2,253 per hectare. That will help quality as well. But can the Minister say why that is reversed under the restocking rules where the requirement is for a mere 1,100 per hectare? Therefore, although the review did recognise the importance of productive forestry and softwoods, do the actions support the words?
Perhaps I may turn briefly to the other main conclusion. I certainly welcome the retention in public ownership of Forest Enterprise with its continuing example of multi-purpose forestry that it now achieves so well. I hope that it will be careful not to distort the market for the private grower. The Forest Authority needs to be strengthened, in my view, and to become the authoritative voice in forestry, including the overseeing of Forest Enterprise. It should not be simply a body dealing with grants and licences or it will lose its promotional voice. It needs to encourage a better understanding of forestry, as it does, for instance, through its annual financial assistance to the Forestry Trust for Education and Conservation, whose booklet Woodlands to Visit now includes over 600 woodlands which are opened annually by the owners. Its ability to monitor the effectiveness of forestry policy could be weakened, leading to a lack of sensitive policy development.
It must continue to increase and develop standards and priorities and do research while overseeing Forest Enterprise and promoting forestry in the continuing land use debate. One suggestion is to devolve policy implementation to country level to differentiate between England, Scotland and Wales. That could be linked with partnerships with other bodies to further a cohesive land use strategy to make the rural heartbeat thrive. Above all, there is a need for the authority to make judgments rather than simply to act as an arbiter between consultees and applicants.
As regards a matter of detail, I ask the Minister for confirmation that the intention of the Forestry Commission to purchase the freehold of land that it currently leases will not be achieved by compulsory purchase.
Finally, as president of the RFS, I joined with other forestry organisations in a letter to the Secretary of State lamenting the outcome of the review. His response appears to miss the point at issue—that is to say, investment of new money and new land. I hope the Government do not believe that everything is on track for a prosperous industry. They have certainly done a great deal with the UK in the forefront of progress over concerns of forestry exploitation, set-aside use, sustainable management and the Rio Summit. But the

193
conditions for progressive management of our own forests are still not wholly in place, leading to continued concern.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I also declare an interest as a woodland owner. I welcomed the Government's manifesto commitment to review the,
"effectiveness of the incentives for forestry investment".
I understood that this review was to be comprehensive, addressing all those land and financial issues which will determine the future of forestry. However, it has been confined to the WGS and was, I fear, received by the industry with dismay. Forestry operates in a much broader policy framework and every aspect should have been examined.
A vital component missed was any consideration of the taxation regime within which forestry operates. At a time when the Government are encouraging farmers to diversify into forestry, why is it that capital expenditure on fencing, drainage or roading, on a tractor or on a building used for forestry, is not allowable, when it is if it is used for agriculture? Why is it that interest payable on loans for purchasing land for agriculture is eligible for tax relief, but that payable on land for forestry is not? Clearly that acts as a disincentive to farmers to switch land to trees. Is it not time to treat land in the same way whether it is planted with a crop of wheat or of trees?
It is regrettable that the fortunes of forestry have been so closely tied to government incentives but, sadly, as long as the CAP distorts the agricultural competitive position, that will be so. I believe that it is worthwhile remembering that forestry grants amount to less than 1 per cent. per annum of agricultural grants, while timber prices reflect a world market in contrast to agriculture, which is protected by the EU.
On a positive note, I applaud the Secretary of State's public recognition of the importance of productive forestry and in particular of softwood timber. WGS III contains a number of detailed structural improvements and has a greater scope of flexibility than its predecessor. However, the new scheme fails to address the vital issue of attracting new private money into the creation of new forests. The 1988 Budget essentially narrowed the investment base to existing landowners and encouraged, through larger grants, the planting by them of less commercial woodlands.
Over the past 10 years, Britain's forestry processing sector has attracted, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, over £1 billion of investment, much of it from overseas. Clearly, if we are to maintain an expanding and successful forestry products industry we need to maintain the expansion of the resource base on which it relies. The Timber Growers Association regards it as too narrow an investment base. We need to broaden it to embrace the smaller investor, very much in line with government philosophy. That is currently thwarted because the Government have not made the minor legal and regulatory changes to permit the marketing of
194
unitised investment vehicles through which small investors can buy and sell quoted shares and be accorded the same tax treatment as individual investors.
Finally, a word on bureaucracy: forestry is the most regulated industry of all. We have a Government dedicated to reducing red tape for business and industry, and very successfully so, but there is a feeling in forestry circles that all that red tape has been carefully gathered up and dumped on them. Putting woodland planting through the whole gamut of the local planning organisation is a heaven-sent opportunity for bureaucratic aggrandisement. An example of that lunacy is the ethnic cleansing of allegedly bad or non-native trees. One council wrote to my forestry adviser:
"while walnut was indeed introduced by the Romans, it cannot be considered a native tree and is therefore disallowed".
What would happen if we ethnically cleansed our farming industry? Examples abound of indicative landscape strategies, potential archaeological sites and abuse of tree preservation orders by the planning process. That is sad, as it makes many professional forestry regulators timid and not bold, forgetting also that a great deal of forestry is a subjective art, not a sterile science.
I welcome the current review of the Forestry Commission consultation process. There has to be a more streamlined procedure to obtain planting approval and to enable the Forestry Authority to make a judgment. The bureaucratic hurdle of applying for grant or licence approval, which can be extremely prolonged and expensive, is the single biggest cause of complaint among private woodland owners and managers. Could the Forestry Authority be given greater power to make its own decisions rather than acting as arbiter between the applicant and the consultees? Indeed one wonders why the Forestry Authority is so named, as to many in the industry it has no authority.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, in pleading for less heavy-handed regulation. It was not, however, on that point that I put down my name to speak. It was because the report misses what I believe to be an important point. Paragraph 2.10 on page 10 states:
"The Government also wish to see an improvement in the potential timber quality of broad-leaved planting without reducing the area being planted. The key here is to achieve higher density levels, since high timber quality depends critically on density of stocking".
Good quality broadleaved timber also depends on consistently good management and the availability of funds for maintenance when needed.
We lost 5,000 trees as a result of the 1987 storm. Incidentally, if it had not been for that storm I should probably have had to declare an interest as a timber grower. As I mooched around the woods following the storm and looked at the desolation, I found myself reading the rings on many of the trees where the butts had been cleaned up. The story of the rings is extremely interesting. Back in the 1860s, when agriculture was prosperous and my great-grandfather was a keen forester, the trees were planted and grew very fast for a

195
certain period. Then the depression of the latter part of the last century came along. The forester was sacked; money was not spent on maintenance; and the rings on the trees were closer together. At the turn of the century and at the time of the first world war, more money was clearly spent, maintenance was carried out, and the trees started to grow well again. After the war, during the 1920s, there was another depression and my father was hit by double death duties. No maintenance was carried out and the rings grew narrow again. The timber was unsaleable after the 1987 storm but it would have been difficult to sell even at a good time because it was not of good quality. We have to take on board the fact that in private forestry a crop of broadleaved trees will stretch across three, or probably four, generations.
Can anything be done about maintenance? I should like to suggest three possible alternatives to try to achieve the objective of ensuring good management and adequate funds for maintenance throughout the life of the crop. One possibility would be joint ventures between an individual and the new forest trading body because that is an immortal body, or possibly with organisations such as the forestry group, to which the noble Lord, Lord Barber, referred. To ensure continuity, it would be possible to have a joint venture with a leasehold interest in the forest, with the landowner having the right to undertake maintenance and to claim against the joint venture for the cost of doing so, while it would be possible for the permanent body to carry out the maintenance if that was not carried out otherwise. That would ensure that the trees would be a good quality crop that would sell for a good price.
Another alternative would be to give some sort of advantage under the grant scheme to owners who were able to make a commitment and to show that the funds would be available for on-going maintenance and that they were employing people capable of carrying out that maintenance.
Yet another possibility might be that instead of paying a very large planting grant and a relatively small maintenance grant, the opposite course was taken. That is because of a well-known fact in the world of subsidies, to which my father drew my attention during the war when there was a subsidy for tons of wheat and another for acres of barley. And that is precisely what we got—tons of wheat and acres of lousy barley. If the larger part of the subsidy were paid for maintenance, there might be a better chance of getting a more marketable and more valuable crop.
Therefore, I call upon the Government to devise a scheme which offers incentives to landowners to make some sort of binding commitment as to management and the availability of funds for maintenance throughout the life of the crop.
4.26 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, we are debating the review Our Forests - The Way Ahead. Paragraph 1.3 contains a real corker of a sentence. It reads:
"The Government are also committed to the continued expansion of the forest area. Grants are targeted to encourage continued new planting of conifers to meet commercial demand from the wood-processing industry".
196
But with the removal of tax incentives three years back, no private forester in his right mind would plant conifers. He must be devious. He must practise other forms of forestry; he must be ingenious. That is what I hope that I am in my own small way as I practise forestry in West Sussex. I should add that it is a hugely enjoyable pastime. It is not particularly profitable now. Even under the old Schedule B and D regime, the tax concessions were no more than a help to what I would call a "loss leader". The simple reason is that the value of the harvested crop has always been less, in my experience, than the cost of the re-establishment of that crop. The planting grants are good news, but planting is only the start of a long battle of man against the elements: drought, hurricane, deer, rabbits and squirrels. There is the weeding of six years. There is the fencing, ploughed under to stop rabbits tunnelling beneath it. Above all, there is the beating up. One of our plantations we beat up 10 years running.
When all is said and done, forestry is good fun, like gardening. But it must be obvious that when my right honourable friend Mr. Lamont removed the tax benefits from private, forestry three years back, private forestry became a luxury that only the seriously rich could afford. My noble friend Lord Lindsay will know of the massive decline in private planting.
However, it is not my business today to spread doom and gloom in all directions, because there are other forms of forestry. In some areas I say, "Hang the expense and go for oak, ash and beech". That is a luxury that enhances what people now call the "feel-good" factor. Economic madness it may be, but environmental madness it is not. It feels good that I am, in a very small way, fighting global warming. It feels good also that I am planting trees that will marginally lessen our timber imports 100 years from now. It also feels good to watch those fine trees grow up as hosts to a new population of songbirds—blackbirds and nightingales—and wild flowers—bluebells and yellow archangels; and perhaps even purple emperor butterflies.
Alas, I can afford to do that in small areas only. In the main, we turn now to short rotation crops—for instance, chestnut coppice which we harvest every 12 years, but, above all, the six-year rotation Christmas tree. It may be a bit of a nonsense that I can get as much money for a five-foot Norway spruce as I can for an 80 foot one; but that is the state of the market, and I do not complain. Not only can we harvest Christmas trees every six years— 10 times as frequently as mature conifers—we can also space our trees at three foot, not six, thus quadrupling the number of trees per acre. So a Christmas tree plantation will, in theory, yield 40 times as much as a traditional plantation.
There is a new market which may be important. It is short-rotation coppice to fuel power stations. My right honourable friend Mr. Tim Eggar thinks it important. As an alternative energy source, he puts it ahead of all others—wind, solar, tidal, waves and geothermal. Better still, while the short-rotation coppice grows, it fixes carbon dioxide, so it helps global warming. I am keen to move into that field, and I should like to know how to set about it. Perhaps in his inaugural reply my noble friend Lord Lindsay will be kind enough to tell me.

197
As I see it, the present hitch is that timber yields less heat per tonne than fossil fuels. We shall therefore need huge quantities of wood to supplant coal. Huge quantities mean huge transport costs. Our over-burdened road system could be landed with an extra armada of heavy timber wagons pumping out greenhouse gases. Then, of course, the environmental benefits of short-rotation coppice would cease. So we need short road journeys. That means many small power stations close to coppice plantations. I am talking about power stations of 6 or 7 megawatts—hundreds of them hooked into the national grid.
I have seen such stations in Scandinavia. Many are unmanned. Many are portable. The Finns, for instance, dismantle such mini-power stations and re-erect them close to new fuel sources. That "small is beautiful" concept is alien to the path we are following in generating electricity, which is more accurately reflected by "the bigger the better". I am thinking especially of Drax which is a coal-fired station yielding a massive 5,000 megawatts. The answer must be a mix—many small, wood-burning power stations and a few, environmentally friendly big ones: nuclear, not coal; Sizewell C, not Drax C. "Small is beautiful" may even feature in the forthcoming nuclear review.
So that is the way I see forestry today—short-rotation crops with what I call a patriotic sprinkling of oak and ash growing to magnificent maturity. It is a far cry from traditional forestry: the growing of trees for timber. The main casualty is the mainstay of wooding: the conifer. There seems little point now in the private forester planting Scots pine, larch or hemlock. That is a pity because we import 94 per cent. of our timber.
On page 9 of the review, I read:
"There is concern, however, about the level of conifer new planting in appropriate areas, which has fallen significantly in recent years and was only just over 5,000 hectares in 1993/94".
That is a real concern, all right, but it is one that any private forester could have foreseen three years back.
4.34 p.m.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for introducing this forestry debate. He of course speaks with considerable authority, having been chairman of the forestry commissioners for seven years. I congratulate the Government on their excellent choice of another Scot to be chairman of the forestry commissioners. I know that it is an excellent choice, as some years ago I worked for Sir Peter Hutchison in Glasgow and Aberdeen. Sir Peter is listening to the debate, and I wish him well in his new challenge.
We have had the review, and for a small-time forester like myself woodland grant scheme Mark III appears adequate. But I wonder whether it will do anything for the larger areas. Indeed, I am told by a forestry adviser that he had the opportunity of having two schemes approved under either WGS II or WGS III and his client would be £8,000 and £12,000 worse off under WGS III.
At this stage perhaps I may make a strong plea that there be considerable, even total, remission of the requirement to plant a proportion of broadleaves within
198
purely commercial conifer plantations in non-sensitive areas. The present requirement for the broadleaves places disproportionate costs on any scheme. I am amazed also by the number of people who have to be consulted to approve my small plantings, and wonder whether there could not be a threshold of, say, five hectares before there is automatic consultation with other parties.
I fear that the reaction to WGS III will be as disappointing as it was to WGS II. We have a crisis of confidence as no one is sure that the Government are committed to the long-term interests of forestry. We need a steady, good policy for a minimum of six full-time term Parliaments; that is, 30 years. I realise that that is a long time in political terms, but unless major planters can see the long-term commitment, there will be little new commercial planting.
We have also a problem with land values, as farmers are at last making a little money, aided by grants and subsidies. Land which would attract forestry better land supplement of £600 per hectare is probably selling for farming for £2,500 per hectare. To persuade a farmer to tie up a piece of land with commercial trees for 30 years will require the better land supplement to be quadrupled. But some saving could be achieved and cash flow made easier if the new woodlands establishment grants were paid annually instead of at 70 per cent. after planting and 30 per cent. at year 5, as at present.
A massive amount of new commercial conifer planting should be done. I realise it is all very well for me to stand here like a big Christmas fairy telling the Government how to run their forestry policy; but I do not control the magic. The Government do. So let the wand be waved and the word go out to the nurserymen that it is to be Sitka spruce and to the landowners that the Government promise never to do bad again —like changing the rules overnight as in 1988–but only good—like increasing and index-linking grant—with the further word that to make up for the shortfall in planting since 1988, the area to be planted in the next three years is to be quadrupled and planting grants doubled. If the Government do that, the main forestry debate in March 2025 will find them receiving acclaim for their foresight, with foreign wood processors investing in our Sitka stock and the imbalance of trade on the timber account a thing of the past. In 2025, the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, will be a Tory grandee and probably the doyen of his party in this House. He will reflect how lucky it was that he took the advice offered by that Cross-Bencher in January 1995.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Clinton: My Lords, like other Members of your Lordships' House, I am delighted that this debate is taking place today. It is some time since we had such a debate but not too long. However, a great deal has happened and I believe that again we are at a crossroads. I pray and hope that as soon as possible the industry can settle down with a sustainable future which will be of benefit to all those who invest and are employed in it.
At the end of last year, with the Minister, my noble friend Lord Howe, I had the privilege to plant trees in Devon on the 75th anniversary of the Forestry

199
Commission. He is an extremely good tree planter and a great supporter of forestry. Although my noble friend is not here at this particular moment, I can certainly recommend his tree planting. We were repeating the original planting which my great-grandfather, the second chairman of the commission, had done in 1919 and which I had repeated on the 50th anniversary, 25 years ago. I hope that that goes some way towards illustrating the longevity of the industry. I hope that the future for the Forestry Authority and the Forest Enterprise will be secure for the benefit of our industry.
The authority cannot and must not concern itself only with grants and licences. There is a much broader aspect than that. That is a view which I support. There is much to be done and in my short speech I hope that I shall be able to show that that must be so.
As a new member of the Forestry Commission's regional advisory committee for the Midlands, Wye, Avon and the West Country, at a recent seminar which included all the other members of the RACs we considered the future role of the Forestry Authority. There was no doubt in my mind and in the minds of all those present that it was essential for the future that there should be a Forestry Authority and that it should show leadership. At the same time, it should have power to make its own judgments as well as showing authority to other bodies as the leader in forestry, especially in matters of planning.
As part of the Forestry Commission, the Forestry Authority should be a voice for promoting timber, woodlands and forestry. The body should set standards of silviculture, which I believe it does already, and should concern itself with the land use debate in a task which will need to look at a wide variety of interests and at the same time show leadership in this field.
Like others, I believe that this body should be strong and have an important part to play in English forestry south of the Border and in central policy at national level to encourage the future development of forestry. Also, it should be able to make sure that the private sector is allowed to compete on equal terms with the Forest Enterprise and, if necessary, the Forestry Authority should direct its policy towards that end.
The present arrangements which allow for joint sales of timber with the Forest Enterprise are to be welcomed. I hope that that co-operation will continue. It deserves the support that it is getting and it is useful and extremely helpful to private timber growers.
Private woodland owners need to have government support and an authority to which we can talk. At the same time, it should support our endeavours with regard to the use of land and make its presence felt in times of controversy when we need a body of well-informed opinion on our side. The authority's policy should be robust enough to operate effective oversight of the Forest Enterprise as well as formulating policies for the future.
I am more than ever convinced that unless we have a strong Forestry Authority all the work and good will of which we are the inheritors will be lost for future
200
generations. I hope that the Minister and all others responsible for making those very important decisions are able to carry that forward to our mutual benefit.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, on his luck in the Ballot. I recall very well a little while ago suggesting to him that we really needed a forestry debate. He took that seriously and managed somehow or other to win the Ballot today. His speech was well worth listening to, as were the speeches of all who have spoken in the debate. I felt very humble listening to the expertise of those who have spoken already. The main impression that I have received is that the industry is in the shadow of the Treasury. The Treasury has too great an influence. It ruined things in 1988 and we have not seen the end of that today.
The noble Lord, Lord Rees, placed great emphasis on that failure and on how we are not doing what we should for forestry. If one reads Our Forests—The Way Ahead and the conclusions of the 1984 review, one would think that everything is rosy and happy. I am afraid that that impression is far from the truth. It puts a slant on one or two matters which do not cover the fundamental issue; namely, that a short while ago the Government said that the target was 33,000 hectares or more per year and we are nowhere near reaching that target. Indeed, we have heard what little the Forestry Commission, in its role as landowner, is to do this year. It is really a disgrace. It is under 1,000 hectares. For the rest—that is, private forestry—we must make serious changes to the support which the Government give.
I must declare an interest. Some 20 years ago I did an excambion with the Forestry Commission and so I have a small unit of forestry or woodland near to where I live. I have faced a great problem ever since. The problem was that the Forestry Commission planted the whole area in a couple of years. That is no criticism because that was one small section of its whole ownership. But it was a very serious problem for me. I wanted to get what was planted in two years on some kind of rotational basis. I have struggled to achieve that. I have gone some way in that direction but I can see that in another 30 years I, or whoever inherits—it is a family trust—will succeed in that aim. But the point that I am trying to make is that forestry is very long-term and a seriously difficult business.
The idea, which seems to be quite widely prevalent, that in some way or another forestry is a form of tax evasion is absolute nonsense. How can there be tax evasion over 50 years, or even 100 years, if one is talking about hardwoods? I hope that that weakness in our public relations can be changed. We should make the point that help for the forestry industry is absolutely necessary. If we can improve and attract capital from, for example, the City, that is very good. Why is it that when industry receives money to help with employment everybody rejoices, but when the help is for forestry for some extraordinary reason people say, "Oh, it is tax evasion. Why should they have that?" That reaction is all wrong.

201
I wish to return to one point. In 1988 the whole system of forestry help was turned upside down. We have seen the results since. I wish to make one plea above all others to the Government. If, in some five or 10 years, by some good fortune the point is reached at which all is well with the forestry industry and perhaps our best hopes are being exceeded, they must not change the system of taxation in relation to what has been planted before. In 1988 they gave us five years' grace for continuing as before. Five years, in relation to our whole period of planting, is not enough. What they must do is say, "What has been done, has been done. But now we are to have a new regime which does not affect the past". I hope that the Government will bear that in mind.
I have one small point to make and then I must stop. All the effort today is directed towards the environment, access, and so on. Will the Government consider helping the small woodland owner by saying that they will insure woods for, say, 20 or 30 years—the dangerous time for fires and so on will then be over—on condition that access is given? I conclude by saying that I believe that the Forestry Commission, and especially the Forestry Authority as the organisation is now divided into two parts, is doing a pretty good job on our behalf. I hope that it continues to do so.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Forester: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for introducing such an important subject. Surprisingly enough, considering my name, I must admit that I have an interest in the subject. I do grow trees, as I clearly should.
It cannot be said too often that we desperately need more trees, especially commercial trees. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, we import £6.3 billion worth of timber every year. We import something well over 85 per cent. of all the timber that we require. The planting of conifers has dropped by 50,000 hectares since 1971.
The Government subsidise the production of food and wine, which is in abundance and not required; they even pay farmers to grow nothing. Why can they not give some real and regular incentive to a product the demand for which is virtually insatiable? Throughout the 1970s and 1980s we planted and that was fine. We then reached the fateful Budget of 1988, about which so much has been said, and there was a downturn in planting. The saw milling and wood processing industries have invested hundreds of millions of pounds in renewing and modernising their equipment. They knew what was being planted. They assumed that planting would be at the same level. They did not think there would be such a great cut-off.
There is now a short-term supply of timber. That is certainly the case where I live in the West Midlands. Local timber buyers are having to import roundwood trees from Ireland and even from Estonia to make up the shortfall and keep their mills going. That is an additional 10 per cent. of what they saw—that is, 10 per cent. of the paltry 15 per cent. which is all we produce in this country.
202
On top of that, conservation is putting a considerable constraint on felling in the private sector. The review did not include the operation of felling controls, tree preservation orders and procedures for consultation on woodland grant schemes. Surely tree preservation orders should be restricted to trees or groups of trees for which felling licences are not already required. Otherwise, we have to go through the process twice. That simply makes it slower and more expensive. I do not believe that there can be any doubt that we need to grow more timber, more commercial timber. The review does not give sufficient incentive to achieve that aim.
My noble friend Lord Addison covered the replanting of existing woods. To my mind, that is even more important than new planting. It is at least twice as expensive because it is all hand labour. But those are the woods that produce the timber for the building industry— the timber we so badly need. I believe that the grant for replanting needs to be double, not half, the grant for new planting.
New planting is an altogether different game. I congratulate my noble friend and the Government on their achievements with forestry set-aside. There is now a big new opportunity for lowland planting on better land which will become available. We have a real opportunity to plan our timber production and to do it better. But, sadly, that is the only good point we have.
Planting trees is the easy part; maintaining them is infinitely more difficult. Again, as my noble friend Lord Addison said, the new annual management grant of £35 per hectare per annum has to be laughable. It is half one man day per year per hectare. What good will that do? We have to manage the trees if we are to gain some production from them. We need a specific, targeted scheme to encourage management, particularly of neglected woodlands.
Finally—I see that I still have a minute left—the complexity involved in applying for any grant is a major deterrent. The maze of different grants from various bodies —about six of them—is a minefield. I have been meaning to plant some trees recently, but in the past three years the Government have dashed from the woodland grant scheme to the farm woodland scheme and then to the farm woodland premium scheme. That is three schemes in three years for the forestry business which is long term in nature. We cannot plan with a different grant every year.
If we want a significant and sustained increase in woodland cover and the better management of our existing woodlands, we need a better policy on grant taxation and regulation. We must have long term grants so that we can plan for the future. We want replanting grants to be much larger than new planting grants, and we need maintenance grants. Above all, all sources of public funding for forestry should surely be delivered through the Forestry Authority as a "one-stop shop" for forestry. I put in an application this year for planting. It has not as yet come back from the Forestry Commission.

203
I must wait until it does so before I can send it to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to obtain the other half of the grant. That has to be changed.
4.58 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I shall try to keep my comments brief. However, I should like to preface my remarks by saying that I speak from the heart and from my experiences on Exmoor and not in any other capacity, although I am a chartered surveyor and a member of various organisations related to the land.
On Exmoor we have over 30 per cent. of tree cover on the estate and over half of that is completely non-economic woodland. It is scrub conifer which is not native, having been imported by one of my forebears. There is some old, part overgrown and part self-seeded, coppice oak; and there is some self-seeded birch and oak scrub. We have had to come to terms with the concept of multi-use: shelter for livestock in exposed locations, amenity, sporting and with the public's view of us, in landscape terms, as they pass down the A.39. Therefore, the regulatory framework is very important to us.
I suppose I should be pleased and flattered that some of our coppice oak woodland is within a site of special scientific interest. But I have to say that I am rather less pleased that some of our scrub conifer, non-native as it is, is designated under Section 3 of the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act as being woodland particularly important to conserve. Unfortunately, nature does not think it is worth conserving either because, as it was planted in the 1840s, it is in a process of blowing flat. The policy void is evidenced most graphically by the bleached fingers of dead conifers pointing skywards in silent testimony.
There is no incentive for this sort of woodland as far as I can ascertain. There is no grant aid when and where it is needed. One agency wants no conifers at all; another wants something that will not grow on that site. A third will only assist if there is a clear commercial purpose but will not give a special management grant even if there is a small possible commercial purpose at some stage in the future. A fourth agency wants everything left alone and for some the area of work is too big in terms of acreage; for the others it is too small. There is a great deal of misinformation around.
We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Astor, mention his experiences. I will share mine with your Lordships which relate to whether beech, a characteristic of Exmoor, is native or non-native. The national park says it is non-native. I asked English Nature about it. That body advised me that it had been brought in with the Romans, although perhaps it had not reached Exmoor at that time. But it confided in me that its personnel had been taking some peat samples on the moor and had found copious beech pollen in cores 3,000 years old.
I have not yet discovered whether policy has changed. However, good forestry strategy has been dissipated and diluted under a number of agencies. I see bureaucracies getting fatter and the product of this great fruit machine in terms of works on the ground or environmentally important woodland is very small indeed. Therefore, for
204
me, a forestry administration whose functions are not divided this way and that will be the only organisation to which I can relate.
As regards relating to the Forestry Authority I expect to be treated at least on similar terms to those which Forest Enterprise will apply to Croydon Hill because what is good for Croydon Hill, as far as I am concerned, ought to be good enough for me as well. However, I need a long-term strategy. Noble Lords have said that forestry is long term. Over 1,000 feet above sea level on Exmoor I can assure your Lordships it is very long term indeed because forests only grow at half the rate they grow elsewhere. On environmental grounds and as regards environmental objectives I must say that the Forestry Review was clearly written by someone who lives in another world to the one I occupy.
We are talking about critical natural capital. I think this House will know what I am talking about in terms of the efforts I try to make to put my own resources into maintaining, managing and providing an incentive for the next generation to carry on the baton when I am gone and no longer there to argue with all these authorities. Someone else will have to do it.
Over the Christmas holiday period I took my family to see "HMS Victory". We were told that to construct that ship 60 acres of oak woodland were felled. To see the size of some of the timbers in that ship, which is still there today after all that time, made me realise what a massive amount of work there is to be done to bring back that sort of resource, which was built up over hundreds of years of continuous, integrated and concerted management. That is what I feel we have to aim for under any new regime.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate and it will become obvious as we proceed through the wind-up speeches that the number of experts on forestry in the House seems to be growing year by year. I have learnt a great deal from what was said today and the debate has been a great supplement to the reading I have done. I must congratulate and thank the organisations which have sent briefs. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds sent an excellent brief. The Country Landowners' Association also sent a brief. I hope noble Lords will not tell too many people in Glasgow that I am congratulating that body. The Royal Scottish Forestry Society also sent a brief, as did a number of other organisations. I think we must all accept that the very nature and breadth of debates in this House mean that we could not undertake them without such excellent briefs from people involved in these matters.
I am delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, will reply to the debate. I understand the comments of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe, who was lucky enough to win a ballot to hold this debate. In that situation one expects no one less than the Prime Minister to reply to the debate. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, will give us a good summary of the points that have been raised in the debate. If he does not have time to answer all the points that have been made, doubtless he will reply to noble Lords in writing.

205
I am mainly concerned with how we get the best out of our land and our forests. I was delighted to hear the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for whom I have a great regard. He made a strong plea for leaving the Forestry Commission alone. There is no doubt that the Forestry Commission is very worried these days, as are many people who are interested in our forests, about some of the things that are being proposed and have been carried out as regards the Forestry Commission.
The Forestry Commission has provided a reliable and secure source of timber for the downstream wood industries. A forecast of timber availability from state forests is published on a five yearly basis for the industry. The Forestry Commission goes to great lengths to ensure that actual supply equates with published projections. Short-term considerations are not compatible with an industry where it takes in the region of 50 years for a softwood tree to reach full maturity and up to 120 for an oak. Because of its size the commission is able to provide guaranteed supplies of timber through the use of long-term contracts. Timber manufacturers have responded by putting their trust in the Forestry Commission, investing millions of pounds in plant and jobs.
A director of the largest paper mill in Scotland using domestic timber told the Glasgow Herald that,
"certain things have to be right for that investment to take place … one of those things is a guaranteed wood supply".
The Government have received similar advice from industrialists in England and Wales. Private forestry, with the best will in the world and with all our best wishes for its survival, cannot provide timber users with the same guarantee of long-term supplies. Private forests are generally too small to provide the volumes required, and those involved in private forestry tend to withhold supplies if there is a slump in world timber prices. If one is managing a private forest, understandably one does not wish to sell one's product if perhaps the following year or in two years' time the price of timber will increase. But that does not help the manufacturer who has probably invested at least as much in his machinery as have the owners of private forests.
Over £1 billion has been invested in timber processing over the past eight years. Any action which threatens to undermine the security of timber supplies is likely to be reflected in declining investment. Growing uncertainty and declining investment across the UK will lead to job losses and obviously a greater amount of imports when things get better. Forestry and primary wood processing employed more than 42,000 people in 1992, and the manufacture of timber and wooden furniture accounted for a further 179,000 jobs.
We are particularly concerned about the question of access. The Forestry Commission is widely respected for providing access to a vast area of the British countryside. Nowhere is the longstanding freedom to roam policy operated by the commission better illustrated than in the 25 forest and woodland parks which have been established throughout the United Kingdom. Some parks close to urban fringes, such as the David Marshall Lodge park just north of Aberfoyle,
206
attract a steady flow of people, particularly at weekends, who thoroughly enjoy them. That particular park is very well kept.
Other parks are located in some of the most unspoilt and beautiful parts of the countryside. They are deemed by the commission to have a special value in terms of the amenities they offer to visitors and for their potential as wildlife conservation sites. All are designed to provide easy access for visitors.
More than 50 million day visits were made to Forestry Commission land last year. A large proportion of those visits were to the forest parks, but the growth of outdoor pursuits in recent times—for example, mountain biking, orienteering and so on—will ensure that public demand for access will continue to increase in the future. Forests are a valuable educational resource which schools can take advantage of at no charge. Provision has been made in some parks for forest classrooms. Those facilities are likely to be lost if the Forestry Commission is privatised.
The Minister may think that I am dwelling too much on privatisation, but I do not have time to go into the contradictory statements that have been made by the Secretary of State for Scotland, by the Prime Minister at the last election and also by Sir Hector Monro, who is much on the side of the angels in this matter in that he does not want forestry to be privatised.
In relation to private forests the Minister will be aware that the Government stated in their 1992 manifesto that they would make provision for public access to forests. Does he realise that not a single access agreement has been put in place in any of the forests sold to 'private enterprise so far under the programme of creeping privatisation which began in 1981? So far 179,000 hectares have been disposed of in that way.
I have to hurry, but I must point out that 3,500 submissions were received in connection with the review process, which obviously included the possibility of privatisation. According to the Minister in another place, Sir Hector Monro, a large majority of the submissions which addressed the question of privatisation were opposed to it, with many referring to concerns about implications for access, environmental considerations and timber production. There can be no doubt that if forestry is to be properly managed in a way which reflects the diverse range of demands upon it it needs to remain under the control of a single strategic authority.
In order to allow the Minister to reply to this very important debate and the number of extremely knowledgeable speeches that have been made, I shall resume my seat now. I shall listen to the Minister with great interest.
5.14 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I rise with great gratitude for the kind remarks made in today's debate. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, on securing this debate in the first place.
In April 1993 your Lordships debated forestry just after the Government had set out to review the effectiveness with which its forestry policy was being

207
implemented. I took part in that debate. Today's debate is also timely because the Government are considering responses to the conclusions of that review as set out in the consultation paper Our Forests—The Way Ahead. In its consideration the Government will, I am sure, welcome the clear and cogent views expressed by your Lordships this afternoon. Your Lordships' House is exceptionally knowledgeable when it comes to forestry matters. Like the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, I feel that I have learned much this afternoon listening to the experts in this Chamber. Like the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in many ways I have been humbled by the wealth of experience and knowledge that has been demonstrated today.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, was himself a chairman of the Forestry Commission. I should like to echo the remarks made in welcoming the new chairman, Sir Peter Hutchison, and in particular those of the noble Earl, Lord Kintore. In Sir Peter I am sure that we have a man of vision and leadership who will pick up the baton carried so ably by his predecessor, Sir Raymond Johnstone.
It may help if I briefly recall the main aims of the Government's forestry policy. These are the sustainable management of our existing woods and forests and the steady expansion of tree cover to increase the many diverse benefits that forests provide. Those aims were set out in the Government's statement of September 1991. They were not changed by the Forestry Review and arc unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
The Forestry Review looked at two aspects of policy implementation: first, the effectiveness of the incentives for forestry investment, and, secondly, the options for the ownership and management of Forestry Commission woodlands. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that the Forestry Review took account of a large number of comments from a wide range of sources. Therefore there was full consultation.
Turning first to incentives, many noble Lords expressed concern over some of the changes to the woodland grant scheme. Yet, taken overall, the package represents an increase of more than 10 per cent. in the incentives available for private forestry. The changes will lead to a much more effective implementation of forestry policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, was particularly concerned about new planting, and especially conifer planting. He cited figures to show that conifer planting had fallen in recent years. The Government are fully aware that a critical factor in attracting investment to the wood processing industry is the prospect of a steadily increasing supply of suitable raw materials.
The UK's woods and forests have the capacity to reach a sustained yield of some 14 million cubic metres a year—some 20 per cent. of our present needs. Increasing our tree cover will add to that potential. However, the wood produced in our forests must be of the kind that industry needs if it is to have any commercial value. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Barber, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, who thought that perhaps the pendulum had swung too far.
208
We acknowledge that the greatest demand is for softwoods. The Government want to see a continued increase in conifer planting to meet the industry's needs. Part of the revised grant package therefore is aimed at encouraging the further planting of conifers and mixed forests.
My noble friend Lord Rees asked what action the Government would take if the new package was not successful. We are confident that the package will be successful, but it will be monitored. As in all aspects of government policy, the effects of incentives will be continually assessed. Taken together, the grants for planting conifers on the better land for schemes over 10 hectares will rise by nearly 30 per cent. We have every confidence that that will stimulate further conifer planting.
Since introducing the woodland grant scheme in 1988, we have had considerable success in stimulating the planting of broadleaved woodlands. The Government wish to see an improvement in the potential timber quality of broadleaved planting without reducing the area being planted. I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that high timber quality depends crucially on the stocking density. We have therefore made changes to the conditions of the scheme to ensure that adequate stocking densities are achieved.
We have also sought to simplify the grant scheme by reducing the number of grant bands and reducing the instalments from three stages to two. I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Forester, and to other noble Lords who were concerned about the arrangements for different grants from different bodies, that the Forestry Commission's consultation arrangements for planting and felling proposals have been reviewed with the aim of streamlining them.
In the publication, Our Forests—The Way Ahead, Enterprise, Environment & Access, we indicated that £1 million a year would be available for the establishment of woodlands of high environmental potential in areas where they will be particularly valued. Details of those schemes, which will run for a pilot period of three years, were recently announced. One such scheme involves the New National Forest.
The standard management grant which the commission used to offer has had a slow uptake. I know that the management grants are a source of great concern to many noble Lords, but consultation suggested that this was not likely to have a widespread and significant impact on woodland management. It has therefore been dropped and a single grant, similar to the former special management grant and paid at the rate of £35 per hectare per year, has been introduced. I know that my noble friends Lord Addison and Lord Forester believe that the grant is inadequate. But there has been a very good uptake of the former special management grant under the old woodland grant scheme. That would indicate that, far from being insignificant, woodland owners should benefit from that. I also stress to the House that we are not reducing the commitment so much as refocusing it. In that sense, I add that we are widening the eligibility criteria to encourage

209
management for greater environmental benefits, including access, and to include woodlands under 10 years of age.
I am pleased to report that progress on allowing tree planting on set-aside land has been made within the European Union. At the December Agricultural Council, the European Commission tabled a report in response to UK pressure which concluded that farmers putting eligible land into forestry schemes under accompanying measures should be able to count that land towards their set-aside commitments. We shall need to await the Commission's proposals but we hope that when adopted they will have the effect of increasing new planting in the UK.
Over the next three years the Government expect to spend some £100 million on private forestry. The changes that we have made will target those incentives more effectively so that we achieve the best value for the taxpayers' money while stimulating an increase in tree planting.
One aspect of the Forestry Review which aroused great concern—and none more so than in your Lordships' House when we last debated forestry—was the Government's consideration of the future management of Forestry Commission woodlands. In the light of the review, which examined the full range of the options, we have concluded that at this stage of their development the Forestry Commission woodlands should remain in the public sector. In order to obtain further improvements in efficiency and value for the taxpayer's money—it is a point made by my noble friend Lord Rees—Forestry Enterprise is to be established as a Next Steps Agency. That will carry forward and develop the process begun with the separation of Forest Enterprise within the commission in 1992.
I know that there is some concern in some quarters that Forestry Enterprise will become ever more commercially oriented at the expense of the wider non-market benefits that forestry can and does provide. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has doubts as to how these will be achieved. However, Forestry Enterprise will be managed to the high standards that we have come to expect on the basis of sustainability and multiple-purpose benefits. Not all forests can provide equal benefits. In discharging its statutory duty to balance its commercial conservation and environmental objectives, the commission may need to pursue a more commercially oriented approach in some areas, while in other areas above average attention to non-commercial duties may well be required.
The constitution and remit of the new agency will be set out in a framework document which will be agreed with the Forestry Commissioners and with Ministers. A copy will be placed in your Lordships' House in due course.
I now turn to the commission's disposals programme, which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, among others, mentioned. That was begun in 1981 and in 1989 the commission was given a target of disposing of 100,000 hectares of forest land between then and the end of the century. I stress to
210
the noble Lord that that is a target with a ceiling on it. So far, about 40,000 hectares of that latter programme have been achieved.
It is important to put the programme into perspective. It enables the commission to sell some of its holding to improve its efficiency through rationalising its estate. The commission has over 1 million hectares of land under its control. The remaining programme from now until the end of the century represents the sale of only 1 per cent. of its land each year.
The Forestry Review confirmed that millions of people enjoy access to our forests. The Government recognise the need to strengthen the arrangements for protecting public access to commission forests which are sold as part of the disposals programme. Our proposals were set out in Our Forests—The Way Ahead. I believe that there has been some confusion today over the extent of the Government's commitment to that programme. It is proposed that greater account of public access will be taken when woods are selected for sale by the commission. A classification of woodlands based on the level of existing public access will therefore be introduced and there will be a presumption against the sale of woodlands with a high level of public access. But sales have taken place. I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, in contradiction of what he said, that, up to September 1994, 18 woodlands have been sold with access agreements; and a further 19 agreements are completed or nearly completed for areas which will be sold.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, at his leisure, perhaps the Minister will give me a list of the sites for which that arrangement has been made, and perhaps will place that list in the Library.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I shall be happy to do so.
For other woodlands used regularly by the public, every effort will be made to secure an access agreement before they are sold. The Forestry Commission will encourage local authorities to enter into access agreements. The commission will pay the authorities' reasonable legal expenses in drawing up the appropriate agreements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was worried that, quite apart from the legal expenses being covered, the local authorities were taking on an ongoing financial burden. That may possibly be the case where there is considerable recreational infrastructure involved in those areas of land. But I must immediately stress that, in those types of properties, it is unlikely that the Forestry Commission will be selling in the first place. It is more likely that the Forestry Commission will be selling those sites with lower public access and therefore with much lower running costs, so solutions are hopefully sought on that issue.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. However, no one has ever defined what "higher level of access" means. What criteria will be applied?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, that is being considered at present in the review. I believe that three

211
tiers of access are envisaged. Suitable criteria will be attached to each. The details of each tier have yet to be finalised. However, those who are considering the problem will also read the report of the debate, so I hope that comments made by noble Lords will be carried forward into that review programme. The new arrangements are presently being worked out, as I said. As soon as the conclusions are available—that will be shortly—they will be announced.
While dealing with transactions, I can assure the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, that the Forestry Commission will not use compulsory purchasing powers when buying freeholds of leased areas.
Many noble Lords have referred to the 33,000 hectare planting target. I believe that it is fair to say that in areas, both within and outside the industry, there are many who now regard that target with some scepticism. The target was set in 1987 when quantity seemed to be the only criterion on which we should be working. What has emerged since 1991–92 especially, is that as important as how much we plant is what we plant and how we plant it. Therefore a preoccupation with the planting target is now seen to be potentially misleading. What matters is that we should continue to achieve a steady expansion. Here the Government have been successful. Since 1988 they have grant aided well over 100,000 hectares of new forests and woodlands. I stress that point to those noble Lords who felt that there had perhaps been a downturn in activity or commitment. I also stress to my noble friend Lord Addison and others who questioned the extent to which there is a strategy which looks forward, that, quite apart from the review that we have studied today and the UK sustainable forests programme, there is also the anticipated rural White Paper which was recently announced. At its centre, that will have the role of woodlands and forestry—as it were, the rural heartbeat, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, described it.
I should add that planting by restocking woodland is also important. Today restocking is almost at the same level as new planting and will increase in future as more and more woodlands reach maturity and timber is harvested from them.
The removal of tax relief was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Rees and others. I can only repeat what has been said many times in the House, that it was done with the best interests of the forestry industry uppermost. We have now put the industry on a more publicly acceptable footing through a grants-only regime. Government grant-aid has been substantially increased since 1988.
My noble friends Lord Addison and Lord Astor of Hever and others asked about limited tax relief for estate woods, and suggestions have come from the Country Landowners' Association on that score. The main problem with tax relief for management, as we have found in the past, is that it is an ineffective incentive in terms of delivering policy as there is little control over the type of work being supported. Of course, the recent review increased the grants because of that.
212
Points were made by my noble friend Lord Barber and others on taxation and investment vehicles. All I can say is that, in the various reviews that are still ongoing, such thoughts will be considered and taken on board.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, mentioned the lack of new planting by the commission. That is simply a reflection of the Government's wish to encourage the private sector to undertake more new planting. However, the commission has a substantial programme of restructuring and restocking its forests and that programme will continue in the years ahead. It still retains a substantial estate of its own. In questioning whether the commission could or could not be self-financing, I point out that, quite apart from the income received from disposals, the commission will have an increasing income from the greater productivity of its maturing forests.
Other points were made by noble Lords, and I stress that I shall write to them on those which I do not manage to cover in the remaining few minutes. My noble friend Lord Mersey dwelt at length on the short rotation coppice, having described his own pleasures and pains in being a forester in East Sussex. I stress that both the Forestry Commission and the Government are committed to the continued development of SRCs, as they are known. The Forestry Commission research division has recently been awarded a £500,000 research contract by the DTI to develop SRC into a commercially more viable means of energy production. There is a tranche of grants, some for set-aside land and some for non-set-aside land. The bottom line is that we expect that it will support the planting of about 2,500 hectares of short rotation coppice per year.
I apologise to noble Lords whose points have not been answered in full. Apart from the promise to write to them, I also stress what I mentioned earlier, that the Forestry Commission is carrying out an internal review of the Forestry Authority with a view to improving its performance and efficiency. Once again, that review has a fairly wide remit and therefore the many good points made by noble Lords such as my noble friends Lord Clinton, the Duke of Somerset and Lord Addison will be read with care.
We in the Government have every confidence in the future of the forestry industry in this country. We have only to look back over this century to see the enormous progress that has been made. Currently, the broad approach of multi-purpose forestry, carried out on a sustainable basis, receives wide support in the country. Indeed, it is the cornerstone of the actions being taken, both here and in countries throughout the world, in the follow-up to the commitments entered into at the Earth Summit in Rio. I am pleased that we have had the opportunity this afternoon, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to discuss the main issues. The Government will take careful note of the comments made by noble Lords and I am confident that, as the proposals are taken forward, they will give further

213
impetus to forestry in this country by placing the industry on a stronger and more confident footing as it looks towards the next century.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I opened the debate by congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, on his appointment, although I regret the absence of the Minister of State. Let me assure the noble Earl that that was no reflection on his competence but simply his status in the government machine. In addition to the noble Earl's summing up, we are grateful to him for his manner of handling the contributions that have been made. I reiterate that so much good advice and experience exist around the House that it is a great pity that the Minister of State is not in his place to convey that advice and information through the appropriate channels. However, I thank the noble Earl and wish him well in his new duties.
I wish to correct one point as a matter of fact in his summing up. The total disposals of the Forestry Commission are 187,000 hectares. The noble Earl said 40,000 hectares, but it is only 40,000 hectares within the programme of 100,000 hectares that was announced. The total disposals are way beyond that. There is nothing more for me to say except to congratulate all, including the Minister, on their contributions. The mass of good advice and experience in the House certainly justifies my putting my name down for the ballot. I thank all who have spoken with such knowledge in offering advice to the Government. I particularly welcome the noble Earl's concluding remark that the Government are committed to a steady expansion of woodland cover. That has been said before, but it has been noted and is in the record. I can only hope that the record will justify what has been said. I should have welcomed a few more reassurances on the future of the Forestry Commission. However, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Parking in London
5.37 p.m.
Lord Dubsrose to call attention to the state of parking arrangements in London; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, being successful in the ballot for a short debate at the first attempt is probably the political equivalent of winning the National Lottery—at least, a small prize in the National Lottery. I am very happy to have the opportunity of initiating a debate on parking in London.
At the outset, perhaps I may put a small challenge to the Minister when he comes to reply. Does he believe that it would be possible to devise a map of London and a leaflet designed to explain to visitors from other parts of the country and from abroad where they may park, where they may not park, and in what circumstances and at what times they may do so? That is small challenge to the Minister to see whether it can be done. It will
214
obviously be the thrust of my argument that it cannot be done because it is too complicated. However, it should be capable of being done. What we need is a better system—better public transport and better facilities for cyclists and for walkers as well as for motor vehicles. I accept the inevitable tensions in finding parking space in London. The need, surely, is for a parking system that is fair and effective—a system that makes it possible for all road users to use our streets and to park on them where possible. It must be a system whereby shopkeepers do not feel that they inevitably have to lose trade because of parking restrictions in their area.
The system must also operate with the goodwill of the motorist. I do not normally speak on behalf of motorists. I accept that traffic wardens have been subject to much unfair criticism. But there are times when either the wardens or the rules that they have to enforce do not make for a system that is conducive to goodwill. Indeed, it leads to much ill will. Since it became known that this debate was to be held, I have received anecdotes by the dozen: hard luck stories of people who have tried to park and failed, who have failed to avoid a parking ticket, or whatever. I appreciate that the issue is difficult for many London local authorities. I know from experience that Wandsworth council got itself into a real tangle over parking schemes. I know that Westminster has been the subject of much criticism, as has Camden. But the problem involves not only the inner London boroughs; there has also been criticism of some of the outer London boroughs. I know that there is much argument about some schemes in the borough of Croydon.
If we are to look some years ahead, we need to do more than simply make our present systems work better. The pressure of increased motor car usage by Londoners and by non-Londoners wishing to drive into London will make the situation far more difficult. If we are not careful, we shall reach the situation some years ahead when not only will there be nowhere for cars to park but there will be no road space in which they can move. Those who doubt that have only to pay a short visit to Bangkok to realise that it is a city totally unable to function because of the pressure of motor cars. We are not in that situation, but it is one in which we may find ourselves before too long.
I understand that present arrangements will lead to some 5 million parking tickets a year, giving London local authorities, I am told, an income of some £125 million. However, I hope that pressure to raise income will never be the main motive for having a sensible system of parking controls. The aim has to be a better and safer road system for all users. It should not be: how much cash can we get out of motorists for whatever purposes we want?
I should like to thank the Parking Committee for London for its help in providing back-up information for the debate, and also the AA. I have also had a useful discussion with the Cycling Public Affairs Group. All have helped me to put together the arguments.
The background to the debate is clearly the Road Traffic Act 1991, which came into effect in July 1994. That legislation took the very sensible step of decriminalising parking offences and handing over enforcement of regulations, except on certain main

215
traffic routes, to local authorities. Overall, that is a welcome development. It has improved matters up to a point.
The legislation, however, leaves a number of ambiguities. For example, if a car or heavy goods vehicle breaks down it is not totally clear whether that renders the driver or the owner liable to a penalty charges notice. I am told that the point is not clear; perhaps the Minister can clarify it.
There is also, I understand, a difficulty relating to the area close to pedestrian crossings on the so-called zig-zags. Who enforces the regulations if somebody should park on the zig-zags? The police or the parking attendants? If it is the police, it adds to the totting up on the licence; if it is the parking attendants, it does not lead to penalty points. So there is a problem over responsibilities which I understand is being considered.
I appreciate that on red routes, which are main traffic routes, parking controls are enforced by the police. They are a criminal matter. If, however, a motorist drives in a bus lane during hours when that is not permitted it is a matter for the police, but if he parks in a bus lane it is a matter for parking attendants. Is that logical?
There are some Londoners who park in the front gardens of their houses. The question then arises of whether another motorist may park in front of the access to the front garden. In some areas the local authority draws a white line on the road, thereby protecting access to the front garden. I am not sure whether the white line has any legal status. In other boroughs it is a yellow line. The problem is that if one may not park in front of a driveway or a garden where a motorist wishes to park in the evening, then that area cannot be parked upon at all. Equally, the motorist who has driven his car away is parking somewhere else, thereby using up another parking space. So there is an anomaly there.
Wheel clamping and towing away constitute a very vexed question. I hope that the practice will not increasingly be seen as a device to generate revenue but only as a means of achieving fair and effective parking control. If a motorist has his or her car towed away, then it has to be collected. There has been much criticism of the location of vehicle pounds, and in particular that behind King's Cross station in York Way. The area consists of dark, unlit streets and for motorists, especially women, collecting their cars, it can be pretty dangerous. I understand that local authorities were advised that they should locate vehicle pounds in areas that would be safe for women at any time of the day or night. The area behind King's Cross is not such an area. There is a trace service to enable motorists to find cars that have been towed away, but I understand that not all boroughs make use of it.
Some boroughs insist that motorists present themselves at pounds to pay de-clamping fees even though the parking code recommends that payment should be possible via the telephone by use of a credit card. So there are a number of difficulties. Enforcing the regulations has thrown up issues which were previously masked by the lack of proper enforcement. So one benefit is that these matters have been highlighted.
216
I want to identify four issues and say a little about each of them. The first is that some parking regulations seem inappropriate. Secondly—and perhaps the most important point—there is poor signing of regulations. There is poor indication of what regulations operate in any particular part of a borough. Thirdly, information about parking controls is generally inadequate. Fourthly, there is clearly a lack of sufficient parking spaces.
I turn first to inappropriate parking regulations. In some parts of London different regulations apply on different sides of the same street where the centre of the street is a borough boundary. Had there been a Greater London Council that body could have insisted on some element of uniformity. But there appears to be no way in which an element of uniformity can be exercised. It is absurd that motorists can park, let us say, on a Saturday afternoon on one side of a street but are not allowed to do so on the other side. I shall come to one or two specific examples in a moment.
My second area of concern overlaps with the first. It relates to the poor indication or signing of regulations. This is particularly important because there is such a diversity of practices. For example, in some boroughs, or even some parts of boroughs, there are parking controls all day on Saturday. In others, the controls stop at midday or at 1.30 in the afternoon on Saturday. In some parts of boroughs it is a matter of Mondays to Fridays only. In some places it is until 6.30 in the evening; in some it is until 8.30 in the evening; and there may be other times as well. It is a very complicated business. It is my contention that a motorist who wishes to abide properly by the parking regulations finds it almost impossible to do so if entering a borough with whose parking regulations he or she is not totally familiar.
That leads to contraventions, some of them inadvertent. The system has been brought into disrepute and motorists become hostile. They park anywhere and that makes it difficult from the point of view of the safety of road users. A classic example of where regulations are inappropriate and the signing impossible to follow is in the area of Lincoln's Inn on the Westminster-Camden boundary. I defy any Member of this House or any person to know exactly where to go. The signing is not clear. It is not possible to know that behind the law courts one may not park on a yellow line before 8 p.m. or 8.30 p.m. but that a short distance away one can park much earlier without being in contravention.
The Department of Transport should review the whole matter, especially the way in which local authorities put up signs or indeed inadequacy of signs. It is only right and proper that motorists should know where they can park properly and in compliance with the regulations.
There are other oddities. For example, some signs in residents' parking areas say "Residents' parking only". But they do not mean that. As I understand it, they mean "Residents' parking only up to a certain time of day". They do not apply on Sunday—at least not in my experience. No doubt there will be examples where they do. Some do not apply in the evenings, perhaps, or only within parking meter hours; others apply at different

217
times. In any case, residents' parking controls vary. Sometimes they apply until 6.30 in the evening, sometimes until noon on Saturday and sometimes until 10 o'clock in the evening. It is a difficult situation.
I do not want to go into anecdotes of my own experiences. However, in Paddington the residents' parking controls where I live operate until 10 o'clock in the evening from Monday to Saturday. When I asked the local authority how visitors could park there—how can one be visited by friends other than on a Sunday?—the answer was, "Park on a yellow line." That is not safe. Yellow lines are there because on the whole they are intended to indicate either that one should never park in that place or that it is not advisable to do so. To have empty residents' parking bays while, on the other side of the road, people park on yellow lines can hardly lead to traffic safety and can hardly be a desirable practice. But that is the advice one receives.
Another oddity is that sometimes residents' parking bays are for residents only—I am talking generally now and not about where I live—while at other times they combine pay schemes for non-residents with resident parking in the same bay. It is a little confusing. I do not say that it should not happen but it is confusing if the indications are not clear.
I believe it right that local authorities should have discretion in this matter. Indeed, one of my criticisms of the Government is that they have taken away from local authorities too much discretion. It is not my aim to be seen to argue otherwise, but I also believe that sometimes the local authorities have gone too far. They have not merely adjusted their parking controls to meet sensible local needs; sometimes they have gone so far as to meet local foibles and idiosyncrasies.
There is generally inadequate information about parking controls. It is probably generally known that yellow line restrictions and parking meter hours are identical in the same street. But perhaps not everyone knows that. The Parking Committee for London has provided some useful information. I believe that there is a need over and beyond what that committee has been able to do. I feel that motorists, both visitors and residents, are entitled to better information about where they can park properly in different parts of London.
Lastly, there is a lack of sufficient parking space. I suspect that the answer to that is to control the number of motor cars rather than to find ways of increasing the parking space available. I have not gone into the area of heavy goods vehicle parking, which has been a problem. I understand that through the measures that have been taken it is better now. However, the parking of heavy goods vehicles has caused a lot of pain in residential areas although I am not sure that it is now as much of a problem as it was.
The real answer is to improve public transport and facilities for the whole range of road users, motorists and others, including those who want to walk to work and those who cycle. We cannot indefinitely allow an increase in the number of cars parked or being driven in London. At some point all that has to stop. Even if the criticisms that I make are met, in the fullness of time it
218
will not make parking in London easier. We shall reach a situation when, frankly, there will be more cars than parking space and further controls will be necessary.
Finally, let me put a more limited argument than the wider one to which I referred. I believe that the motorist does at times have a sense of unfairness. Despite the improvement in legislation, the system is still arbitrary. It is better than it was, but I believe that it can still be improved.
I conclude by repeating the challenge I put to the Minister. Does he believe that it will be possible to devise a map of London and produce a leaflet combining a map which shows how people can park in the various parts of London? I fear that it is impossible, because the system is so complicated. But we must look at what has happened and review even the past seven months of the new system. Above all, we need to have an urgent review of the way in which local authorities sign parking controls. We could make it better. I hope that the Government will agree to that suggestion.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I am sure all those who live in London, or sometimes bring their cars into London, are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for raising this matter. Personally, I feel a certain sense of déju vu. Over the past 40 or 50 years I have taken part in several debates in your Lordships' House with regard to London traffic and parking. I well remember the debates in 1956, when parking meters were first introduced. I received definite assurances and categorical promises from the Government at that time that all profits from parking meters would be entirely devoted to the provision of further off-street parking.
Indeed, the late Lord Selkirk, who took the Bill through this Chamber, assured the House on Second Reading that,
"the proceeds of parking meters are directly and exclusively linked with the provision of off-street parking. This objective is pretty closely tied up by Statute.—[Official Report, 12/6/56; col. 847.]
At the Committee stage he drew your Lordships' attention to that fact and the particular clause that dealt with it. He said:
"We think that we have drawn this clause pretty tightly, and if any noble Lord can show me how the local authority can dispose of their funds otherwise than in maintaining and providing parking meters or providing for off-street parking, I shall be interested to know. It means that all the proceeds of parking meters are quite certain to be dedicated to the provision of off-street parking … in so far as it is not provided there is little hope of parking meters being of any benefit".—[Official Report, 3/7/56; col. 341.]
There are, of course, promises and political promises. That is one that has certainly not been kept. One does not have to be a great cynic to understand why the ever-increasing revenue from parking meters and penalties and the contribution which that has made to local government finances proved too much of a temptation. Consequently, today we find that parking meter revenue is a major source of income for local authorities. Indeed, naturally everything possible is done to increase it. It produced £125 million last year. Often we find yesterday's double yellow lines become today's revenue-earning meter space.

219
It is not only the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who hoped it would be different. Motorists can be forgiven for concluding that the first priority in many parts of London is to make sure that the parking machinery makes as much money as possible, hence the nefarious schemes and devices to pay rewards and bonuses to parking wardens according to the number of tickets issued or to clamping operatives in the same way. It is always denied but we all know that it exists.
The second priority therefore seems to be to keep London traffic flowing. If that was the first priority, as we all believe it should be, one would not be faced with the absurd situation which happens daily, for instance, in the morning rush hour. We all know it is essential to keep the main routes into London clear from parked cars, but where are the wardens? They are far from the madding crowd, patrolling and dishing out tickets in quiet residential squares and other soft targets where there is virtually no traffic whatever and certainly no congestion. Similarly, in the evening when the routes out of London should be strictly controlled, manpower seems to be deployed in the same way, issuing tickets up to around 6.30 in the evening. Until there is a better sense of priority in the deployment of labour, there will be growing frustration and hostility between the motorists and parking officials, and congestion will get worse.
However, not all is bad. I want to say a word of compliment to Westminster City Council for its efforts to consult local residents and listen to their views regarding the future. After all, those who pay council tax should have some rights to access to their property during the day and also the ability to unload heavy luggage. The time was when five minutes' grace was given to motorists. Now we have wardens with walkie-talkies and mobile phones, warning each other where they can nab the next victim. We need more flexibility; more generosity towards the disabled and particularly to overseas visitors. Nothing depresses me more than seeing a French or German car clamped—what terrible publicity for the City.
I want to raise the topic of coaches. We definitely need a proper coach park in London. One knows that efforts are being made in the Embankment and Park Lane; but, quite frankly, they do not enhance the park. On the other hand, some coaches seem to be allowed complete freedom to cause congestion, as at the junction of Great Cumberland Place and Marble Arch. There is also the absurdity of BT repair vans being clamped, which can hardly help our telephones to be repaired quicker. The vans are seen as soft targets. The drivers do not have to pay the fines and BT pays out thousands of pounds every month without question.
The main cause of congestion in London at the moment is not caused by bad parking but by the unprecedented amount of road works. It seems that there is hardly a road anywhere not currently being dug up, sometimes for months on end, putting many parking meters out of action. I doubt that even Hitler's bombs caused as much congestion as the present road works. Again, one would think that that was the ideal situation in which to employ labour to ease traffic through the
220
black spots. But that is not done. It does not raise any revenue. Traffic is therefore delayed and we pay the penalty.
My view is that in spite of the undoubted flaws in the system and the sad lack of any desire to get priorities right, parking restrictions are essential in keeping traffic flowing in a large city like London. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, what has been missing over the past decade is the effort to win the goodwill and co-operation of the motorists. Instead, they are hounded on a day-to-day basis and made to feel like petty criminals. I have already applauded the new attitude of the Westminster council and only hope that it spreads to other parts of London. Perhaps then the promises made many years ago to provide more offstreet parking will become a reality. I also welcome the traffic adjudicator who I am sure will do a very good job, and also the London traffic supremo. Your Lordships may be surprised to know that he has nothing to do with side streets.
There is much talk of restricting the number of vehicles in cities like London. That may well come one day. But those concerned with planning such schemes forget that most of the vehicles in London are owned by its inhabitants. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, one of the most difficult problems is parking at different times in the evening. The London theatres depend enormously on out-of-town traffic. Many theatres finish so late that people cannot rely on catching a train home. It is essential that the situation is rationalised so that theatres can at least provide some parking spaces for clientele.
I was rather depressed the other day when discussing with a local government officer the matter of restricting cars coming into London. He told me that if such restrictions came into force, authorities would need to greatly increase the charges for parking, fines and penalties, in order to make up for lost revenue. One knows what their priorities are. Tonight it would be good to hear from the Government that their first priority is to ease congestion; to provide car parking off street and under ground; to use the manpower where it is best needed and, most particularly, to see that local authorities are forced to embrace the policy, as laid down by statute, of using their revenue to build more underground car parks. Or is it the policy to restrict car parking in order to restrict traffic coming into London?
6.5 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for calling this debate. Parking in our capital city is of great importance to all who work and/or live here.
Since the London local authorities took over enforcement of parking in July last year there have been numerous stories in the newspapers of outraged motorists and complaints and misunderstandings. Indeed, one appeared in the Evening Standard on Monday, admittedly in the early edition. Without doubt there is a high level of public anxiety about the parking attendants being private contractors and that local authorities keep the money from the parking fines. Those elements of the new scheme represent a

221
significant departure in this country from the traditional role of law enforcement by the police and where fines went into the general Treasury fund.
It is not surprising that motorists who feel that they have been unfairly ticketed or had their vehicle clamped or removed in bewildering circumstances should wonder whether the financial aspects of the new parking enforcement may have a bearing on the matter. However, the new scheme introduced another new initiative which safeguards motorists' rights by allowing them to appeal to a parking adjudicator. That is surely a great step forward in the rights of citizens of this country. There are now lawyers who are appointed to hear appeals from motorists who have had their initial complaint to the local authority rejected.
The parking appeals service is an enormous improvement on the magistrates' courts where parking offenders were previously dealt with under the full process of the criminal law. I had the opportunity of visiting the parking appeals centre in central London (though, I hasten to add, not in the role of a disgruntled motorist!) and was impressed with the arrangements that the Parking Committee for London has made.
Motorists can now request a decision from the parking adjudicator by post or they can attend a hearing in person before the adjudicator. The proceedings are very informal and friendly and it is clear that the public feel at ease and, indeed—dare I say it?—comfortable with this new process. It resembles more an appointment with a doctor or dentist than a court hearing. Most impressively, the hearings with the parking adjudicator can be arranged between 8 o'clock in the morning and 8 o'clock at night so that those appealing do not need to take time off work to exercise their rights of appeal. In addition, they are not kept waiting more than 15 minutes and the whole process usually takes no more than half an hour.
This new way of dealing with parking disputes is a great improvement on the previous court system and I congratulate the Government for introducing this particular scheme under the Road Traffic Act 1991. I understand that the parking appeals service has already dealt with more than 1,000 cases, more than half of which were resolved in favour of the motorist. While the public are undoubtedly justified in having some concerns about the new decriminalised parking arrangements, this is surely a welcome safeguard of their interest through their right of appeal to the independent adjudicator.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject. He was for many years my MP in Battersea, where we have the occasional parking problem. I imagine that it is as easy to be a parking bore as it is to be a computer bore. I hope that I shall be able to avoid, as have other noble Lords, being so this evening.
I shall not ask the Minister to answer all the points that I make because my experience of asking Ministers to answer instantly is that one almost always receives
222
the negative Civil Service defence answer. All I would ask him to do is to take away the ideas and cogitate on them and then perhaps I might be allowed to ask him how he is getting on by means of Oral Questions later on.
My first premise is perhaps a wider one than the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, started with. It is that the supply of parking will always be limited in London and other cities and can never meet potential demand. There are disadvantages to having car parking space. By definition, car parking space generates traffic. It therefore weakens public transport, which I am keen on strengthening. Secondly, the traffic generated pollutes in terms of fumes and in terms of noise. It is environmentally intrusive to have cars parked in some of the areas where they are parked.
I believe that in general the supply of parking should be allocated by the market, with two possible exceptions. One is obvious. There should be special provision for the disabled. Secondly, there probably should be some bias in favour of the short-term parker and residents.
Declaring an interest as its chairman, I would point out that the Council for the Protection of Rural England has recently put forward the thesis that one of the reasons why there is so much pressure on the countryside is that cities are such awful places to live in. If there are ways in which we can make cities better, we may be able to release pressure on the countryside. This applies particularly to London, where the population has been shrinking for years. Commuters often feel that they have to have a car. If people commuted less they might be able to live in London and might even do without a car. Although I admit that Manhattan is not a place where I would wish to live, most of my friends who live there do not have a car—the game is not worth the candle—part of the reason being that it is extremely cheap to rent cars in the United States.
There is one big gap in the sensible enforcement of car parking provision through parking meters. I refer to the absurd system whereby one may not feed meters. A great deal of the time of meter attendants is taken checking that meters are not fed. The argument used against meter feeding is that people with enough money would be able to stay on meters all day. The fact is that, having introduced sensible parking meter charges, there are now plenty of parking spaces in the most expensive parking areas nearly all the time. The target should be to fix parking meter charges so that at peak times about 10 per cent. of meters are unoccupied. That would show that the charge is roughly the right side of the supply and demand equation. If fewer people were needed to supervise parking meters, a great deal more cash would be generated for something more useful than people making little notes in their notebooks as to what time a car arrived. I have raised this matter over many years and I always receive the same answer from the Department of Transport—that it might mean that people with Rolls-Royces were able to park all day. If it did, so what? And in fact we all know that that is not the way the world works.

223
I shall now give an example of environmental intrusion. I admit that it is a very sensitive subject, not so much for Ministers but for civil servants. I refer to the Horse Guards Parade Ground, which is still used for parking. I happen to remember how parking there originally started. It was more than 30 years ago when Ernest Marples was the Minister of Transport. He wanted to use Horse Guards for temporary car parking over the Christmas period. Being part of a Royal park, he had to get the Monarch's agreement. I believe—and how right she was—that there was a certain disinclination to give that agreement. He described to me how he went along to the Palace to ask for parking to be allowed on Horse Guards. The conversation was not going too favourably and so he went towards the window and started looking out of it. He was asked what he was doing. The answer was, "Well, Ma'am, I am just looking to see how many cars we could fit into the forecourt of Buckingham Palace". That is how agreement was obtained. Parking on Horse Guards has been with us ever since. It is deplorable.
As long ago as April 1993 Dame Jennifer Jenkins recommended very unequivocally in the Royal Parks Review that parking on Horse Guards should no longer be allowed. Her report said:
"This great London place is regularly packed out with about 400 parked cars … It is quite unacceptable that so fine an open space as Horse Guards Parade should be used in this way … Car parking should be banned from Horse Guards Parade, which should be restored as a public open space".
There was huge opposition to such a suggestion from the civil servants who park there. There was a big press campaign in favour of Dame Jennifer's proposal, initially in the Independent, culminating with a splendid article, which I recommend to noble Lords, by Simon Jenkins in The Times. He said:
"In Paris, civil service cars do not fill the Louvre. Washington officials have not seized Lafayette Square. In those cities, rulers share with the ruled a common respect for the beauty of their surroundings. British officials treat this part of London as the Politburo treated the streets of Moscow as available for their private use at will".
I challenge the Government to end parking on Horse Guards. Again, I do not expect an answer from the Minister tonight. I shall, however, be interested to see whether the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who is to speak from the Opposition Front Bench, is bold enough to offer any such hostage to the voters concerned. To coin a phrase, this is an example of the need for the Government to demonstrate that,
"they are in power as well as in office".
I want to move to another aspect—what one might call the reverse side—of parking. I refer to cycling. The subject recently came up in this Chamber and the negative attitude to cyclists from a small minority of noble Lords did not show your Lordships' House at its most endearing. Bearing in mind that there are 15 million cyclists in this country and also that some noble Lords may be fighting for their political lives, just as Members of another place may be fighting for their political lives, it might be as well to take a slightly more sympathetic and less hoity-toity, poof-dammit view of cyclists.
224
I say at once that Her Majesty's Government have recently changed their attitude towards cyclists. A couple of years ago that attitude also was fairly negative but I am glad to say that my right honourable friend John MacGregor changed the attitude. I should like to welcome PPG (Planning and Policy Guidance) No. 13 of March 1994 which was produced by Mr. MacGregor. Paragraph 4.15 states:
"The level of cycling in the UK is significantly lower than that in a number of neighbouring countries … Local plans should include policies to encourage implementation of specific measures to assist people to use bicycles. The 'proposals map' should indicate routes along which measures will be encouraged to make cycling safer and more attractive, and any specific new cycling provision".
I should also like to congratulate the present Secretary of State on having announced on 4th December 1994 that £3 million will be given towards a 1,200-mile cycle network for London. That is a big plus, which we salute.
Bicycling is clearly healthy and does not pollute in terms of fumes or noise. It is cost-effective in terms of road space. One can get 12 bicycles parking in the space of one car and four bicycles in the space of one moving car. I am told that over the first 10 metres a bicycle can accelerate as fast as a car. I recognise that it is essential to separate cyclists from pedestrians so that we do not have aggro, just as it is essential to separate cyclists from cars. Thirty years ago Buchanan said that pedestrians and cars should be separated as an absolutely crucial part of traffic management.
I have one specific suggestion for the Minister as regards the provision of cycle routes. Very often on one-way streets there are parking lanes on both sides. If one makes a suggestion for doing something, one tries to make one which does not involve extra public spending because it is always very easy to say that we do not have the money. The following suggestion does not involve extra public spending.
I suggest that where there is parking on both sides of the road needed for a cycle route, one of the car parking lanes should be converted into a cycle lane. That would be easy, quick to achieve and very effective. It is important if cycle lanes are created that cars are not allowed to park on them. There have been a number of cases where cars have parked on cycle lanes. There is the deterrent of clamping and big fines, which is the right way to deal with the problem. It should be every bit as hazardous for a car to park on a cycle lane as it is to park on the zig-zag lines in the street. If one is sensible one avoids doing this unless one is drunk or very rich.
A noble Lord: Or probably both, or a diplomat!
Lord Marlesford: Or both. I recommend to your Lordships to join a campaign for making cycling in London better, easier and more universal. I conclude by saying that a recent Department of Transport study found that in central and inner London journeys up to five miles are quicker by cycle.
6.22 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for bringing this subject to us. I am not quite sure where bikes fit into car parking arrangements. I found the last contribution a slight aside.

225
I begin my comments on car parking with our own car park at the House. I find it somewhat disconcerting that the so-called improvements which have taken place are so fascinating that, if, as I did the other night, one were there now watching anyone who has a chauffeur-driven Rolls-Royce, one would see that there is great difficulty in getting out of the car park due to the new turning arrangements. I have been in your Lordships' House since 1981 and in that time I have seen the car park arrangements change several times and each time for the worse. Therefore, I hope that someone will look at them again and try to produce an improved suggestion.
I have written to Black Rod on the point which I now make. It would be wise, particularly early in the morning when there is no one parked in any of the spaces, to have someone there guiding the cars of noble Lords between the white lines. One regularly arrives later in the day to find that one car is straddling two spaces, which further restricts availability.
I now move from the House to the wider subject. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, seemed to be doubtful about wheel clamping. He was not in the House when we debated the subject in great depth. I for one am delighted that wheel clamping was introduced. Before that, as a magistrate, I found that it did not matter if people had pages of fines. They had no effect at all on the offenders. They simply evaded the fines because there were so many in existence. In those days enforcement and collection were pretty hopeless. It was either that or the fine was paid where it was possible to do so. However, wheel clamping changed things completely and people found it an extreme inconvenience to be clamped.
One noble Lord raised a highly relevant point; namely, that, if one collects one's car from a car park, that car park should be well lit. The same thing applies not only to car parks but also to supermarkets. I have spoken to one noble Lord in this House about this matter. I have had a report from women shopping in a well known supermarket off Ladbroke Grove who have found it very frightening to go out to a dark car park. I do not know that for myself, but I understand that that car park has now been lit. It is a most important feature that wherever one parks it should not be a frightening place. That is what is wrong with the underground car parks which have been suggested so often in this debate. With all the mugging that takes place now, people are very reluctant to go into an underground car park to collect their car. Off-street car parking has never had the same appeal as on-street parking.
I wish to correct something said by both the noble Lords, Lord Montagu and Lord Palmer, as regards the idea that revenue collected from parking can be used as part of local authority revenue and finance in general. In the debates on what became the Traffic Act 1991, I moved an amendment in the hope of bringing that provision into effect. I believed that it would be useful for those boroughs which were producing quite a surplus of revenue from car parking to put it to other uses such as social services, but the Government would not consider it. The use of revenue from car parking is very restricted and that does not apply solely to the provision
226
of off-street car parking. The point was reached that so many car parks were produced that people were not using them. But all facilities such as footpaths, roadways and support for public transport can be supported by local authority revenue from car parking, though that money cannot be used as part of the general revenue nor can it be used in any other way. That is an important point to emphasise.
I believe very strongly that there should be international symbols which would solve the problem which we have heard about as regards French or German cars or people from different parts of the country or even London. There should be certain symbols. Ever since the introduction of wheel clamps I have been pushing for an international wheel clamp symbol. I am always being told by Ministers that they will take it up with Brussels and that they believe that there is a case for it, but that never happens.
If there were international symbols, there would be no need for maps or any of the descriptions which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to. One would have local symbols which would speak to people of all languages. I 'believe that it used to be, and still is, the case that as regards parking enforcement in an area one should look at the nearest lamp post. This is meant to carry a symbol detailing the hours of parking restrictions in the area. But most people have no idea where to look. I often find that the little sign on the lamp post is crumpled up and cannot be easily read. Even in areas of residential parking there is very often no indication of the days and hours on which the restriction applies.
I know the City of Westminster better than other parts of London. The hours of residential parking have become very variable. Queensway is an area which ticks all night and has done so for many years. Residents found that there was such an influx of tourists and visitors that there was no hope of parking near home. Residential parking is restricted until 10 o'clock at night. On the yellow lines the restrictions cease at 6.30 p.m. The whole purpose of a single yellow line was to provide a loading bay. If one has a heavy load one is entitled to spend a limited period at any time of day loading or unloading on the single yellow line. The double yellow line is in a different category and one is not meant to park on it at any time, but people do after 6.30 p.m. and they seem to get away with it on the whole.
There is a real problem as regards residential parking. In the City of Westminster there is greater and greater pressure for more residential parking. I find the parking very useful, residing in the area, but if I want a friend or member of the family to visit me, they cannot park in the residents' parking space if they come from elsewhere. For example, if the man from British Telecommunications or the washing machine repair man comes to carry out a service job for a resident, he is in difficulties. I believe that arrangements have to be made for providing for that kind of situation.
Sunday trading is another problem. When large shops are open on a Sunday we shall definitely need some kind of control. That point was put to me years ago by the then chairman of the John Lewis Partnership when we spoke about Sunday trading. He said to me, "You

227
realise that we shall have to bring in all sorts of controls". In the Knightsbridge area, on the Sundays before Christmas when the shops were open, the Brompton Road was totally blocked, as were all the residential streets in the area. There were no parking controls of any sort. Westminster City Council made it clear that they could not bring them in this year in the time available because there has to be a statutory period of notice. Next year, having consulted residents, they hope to do something about the situation. My idea of what that something might be is something that would enable one's friends or visitors to park outside one's house. The question we must consider is how to control parking so as to allow vehicles to move in the street rather than be jammed solid as used to be the case. It is quite a problem.
The Royal Parks have now introduced metered or pay-and-display parking. I welcome that, but I welcome even more the recent study that has been conducted into how parking could be improved in the Royal Parks. The Royal Parks have been treated very much as free all-day car parks by commuters and visitors. People who wanted to visit and enjoy the parks with their children or dogs often had no hope of finding a parking space. That has certainly changed dramatically since the charges were introduced. During the recent cold weather, there was only a small take-up of the parking spaces available. Following consultation, the Royal Parks have announced that people will be able to buy shorter or longer parking times. Those who want to visit the parks for sport or other such reasons want to be able to park for a full four hours. That will now be allowed. The maximum was previously two hours. Those who visit the parks to walk a dog will now find it possible to pay for a shorter parking time. It seemed wrong that the minimum charge used to be fairly high.
More parking zones are now shared between the different boroughs. Reference has been made to the boundaries between the different boroughs, such as those between, say, Kensington and Westminster, or Camden and Westminster. Reciprocal arrangements between the boroughs are now working well. They allow residents of either borough to park on either side of the boundary. That is both new and an improvement. It happens in Boundary Road, where Camden and Westminster join, and in Exhibition Road. I have seen shared parking across a few boundaries and I understand that it is a growing trend.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, that road works are an amazing distraction and inconvenience to everyone. Not only that—they take up a lot of space. That applies not only to road works, but, because of builders' skips, also to building works. I understand that, if a skip occupies a meter space, the full meter charge has to be paid, but, if the skip is on a yellow line, it may be possible to pay nothing although it forms just as big an obstruction as anything else.
The car parking problem will never really be solved to everyone's complete satisfaction. If you have found a good parking spot, you are delighted, but if not, you are aggrieved. In the days of no parking controls, I used to live in Bayswater and I can clearly remember that it was quite impossible for me to get in or out of my small
228
garage because someone had always parked their car across it. When parking controls were introduced, the problem moved to Notting Hill Gate in Kensington. That area then became completely cluttered. When I represented Enfield on the Greater London Council, a large car park was built at Cockfosters so that people wanting to travel into town on the Piccadilly line could park there and travel in by tube. No one used the car park because it was easier and cheaper to park on the street. It was only when restrictions were imposed on parking on the streets at certain times of the day that people decided that it was worth trying to use the car park. Incidentally, if there was a charge for using that car park, it was a very reasonable one.
There has to be some incentive to park correctly. There must also be parking available. No one will ever be able to create enough space to solve the parking problem, but I do not think that off-street parking is the answer. So I look forward to redebating this subject many times in the years ahead, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for bringing the matter to our attention today.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I start by joining other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for initiating this debate on an issue of considerable interest to most people who live or work in London. The noble Lord equated his good fortune in getting this debate to a win on the National Lottery. This debate has given me the good fortune of my first opportunity to speak from the Front Bench, although I would not have chosen to do so on such an emotive subject as parking in London. However, I most certainly do not equate it to a win on the National Lottery. I have no doubt which of the two I should have preferred.
Nevertheless, it is my lot to speak from this position on the matter and I do so as the only London borough council leader who is eligible to speak in your Lordships' House. I have approached today's debate with some diffidence because, given the strength of feeling on the subject, I felt that I might be like a defendant in the dock or, more appropriately, in some danger of appearing like a Minister replying to a debate on some particularly unpopular government measure. I do not intend to fall into either trap. I readily accept that there has been some bad practice and that some London borough councils have not done all that they could or should. They may sometimes have been too inflexible. I make no excuse for that and I do not intend today to try to defend it in any way. However, I believe that such instances (which, of course, attract all the publicity) are very much the exceptions rather than the rule. Therefore, I have been relieved to hear that, on balance, all noble Lords have welcomed the changes that have been made.
The London boroughs campaigned long and hard to get their new powers. As far as I recall, all London boroughs supported that campaign. It certainly had all-party support and was supported by most organisations with an interest in the subject, including the AA. It made sense that the bodies which had to implement the restrictions, the local authorities, should

229
also have power and the responsibility to enforce those restrictions. It was sensible to bring the two together, and that has happened.
However, there seemed an impression to start with that all that would happen would be a transfer of power from the police to the London borough councils. In fact, we have seen what is probably the most major change in parking arrangements and enforcement in London for many years. Because it was such a major change, it needed a long period of preparation. Because it needed a long period of preparation, it also needed the input of significant resources by London borough councils, many of which were extremely hard pressed at a time of ever-reducing budgets. I fear, therefore, that in some cases not enough work was put into the preparation for the takeover—with the inevitable results.
Most boroughs took over the responsibility for the enforcement of parking regulations only last July, although a few did so earlier. I believe that Wandsworth was the first, although the whole borough was not involved at the start. Given that that major change happened only seven months ago, it is not surprising that there were teething problems. Those teething problems attracted a lot of publicity, but I believe that the system generally is proving effective and beneficial remarkably quickly. In saying that, I too would like to pay tribute to the work of the Parking Committee for London, which has been of invaluable help in preparing for the introduction of the scheme and in ensuring its effective enforcement. The committee is doing an excellent job and I am glad that other noble Lords have recognised that.
It is not the parking restrictions that have changed in London—in most cases they have been there for years. What has changed is that in most cases this is the first time that those restrictions have been effectively enforced. There is no point in having parking restrictions if they are not going to be enforced. That is the whole object of the change that was brought about by the Act.
The real issue is whether that enforcement is being carried out fairly. Reference has already been made to the excellent work of the parking appeals service. I believe that since July over 2 million parking tickets have been issued by the London boroughs and I understand that less than 1.5 per cent. of them have been judged to have been issued wrongly. That is a pretty good record for a new scheme which is being introduced by new staff on behalf of the councils. On the whole, therefore, the change seems to be being introduced and enforced fairly.
One of the benefits that has already been alluded to is that it is much more accountable and that it is, and will be seen to be, much fairer to motorists. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, paid a deserved tribute to the excellent work done by the parking appeals service. His figures are a little out of date. It has now considered over 2,000 appeals, of which 60 per cent. have been upheld. That does not necessarily mean that the ticket was issued wrongly. But I hope that it will go some way towards restoring the confidence that motorists should have in a fair parking enforcement system. That will
230
take time because any appeals system finds it hard to make value judgments. We have all probably experienced ourselves, or heard from others, mitigating circumstances. It is difficult to make value judgments when trying to assess them.
There have been many results from proper and effective enforcement. There has been an increase in the number of grievances felt by motorists who have "always parked here" and who have started to receive a parking ticket. Rather than feel aggrieved, they should be grateful that they have got away with it for so many years. Now they are not doing so.
One of the popular misconceptions held by those motorists, which has been repeated in your Lordships' House, is that the new system of parking enforcement is some sort of money-making machine for London borough councils and that they are strongly tempted to profiteer from it. I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, correct that impression. She is of course right, and I am sure that the Minister will confirm that, first, the income from the parking schemes has to be used to pay for the enforcement, and effective enforcement is expensive; and, secondly, any surplus that arises from such parking schemes is ring-fenced. It cannot be used, rightly or wrongly—I share the noble Baroness's reservations about that—for any other local government purpose, such as social services. It must be used in connection with parking provision, whether on or off street. It can be used to improve public transport. I would say to those who feel that it is a money-making device, but who also call for better parking provision and better public transport, that this is one of the few opportunities available to local authorities to find the resources to do just those things for which we are calling.
The other result of better enforcement is that it has served to highlight the distressingly large number of unnecessary and wrong parking restrictions. They were not noticed before because they were not enforced before. In most cases they have existed for many years, but no one bothered about them. They were ignored. The traffic wardens and the police took no notice, and they just continued. That has been highlighted. What we need now is not a change in the system but for each London borough to carry out a major review of its parking arrangements and restrictions. Most, if not all, London boroughs—certainly mine—are doing that. We have naturally and rightly had to wait for the new system to settle down, but we now are all, or should be, starting on a major review of our parking restrictions and enforcement.
I want to say just a few words about the review process. The most important part of that process is the informal consultation that needs to take place with motorists and their representatives and also, and most particularly, with local residents. Most parking in London takes place in residential areas. The residents who live on those streets have at least as much interest in that because of their own or their visitors' cars as do other outside organisations. The review process needs to take into account the interests of local traders, especially shopkeepers, local businesses and local employers. The key to achieving an effective parking scheme is a good,

231
effective, informal consultation process before any changes are drawn up. That is where the time needs to be taken and where it is best spent. Having determined through that consultation what changes are required, they need to be implemented quickly.
One of the most difficult things that I have to explain as a council leader is why we go through a long process of agreeing what we want—everyone agrees—and then it takes six to nine months to go through the lengthy legal process in order to implement the changes. My first request to the Minister is to look at how we can speed up the implementation process once the parking authorities have agreed what they want to do.
I want to say just a brief word about pavement parking. It has not been much mentioned today, but it is an important issue. Pavement parking in London has been illegal for getting on for 10 years, but few London borough councils were previously doing anything to enforce that law. Now they are. It is more effective, and it has caused a great deal of concern. In most cases the ban on pavement parking is necessary and desirable for reasons which will be well known to your Lordships. Nevertheless, councils have the authority to exempt roads or parts of roads where pavement parking is clearly necessary. Again, too many London borough councils have not done that, and now need quickly to catch up.
I want to mention a few things that we need. I have mentioned a shorter implementation process. I join strongly with other noble Lords who said that we need much better signage. The regulations governing signage for parking restrictions are those laid down by the Department of Transport and not invented by London borough councils. Those regulations require, for instance, that the sign which shows which hours operate in any particular zone or borough are erected at the entrance to the zone only. Repeater signs are needed. I agree that the present system in London is confusing. We do not want a uniform system for London. That would be absurd because the needs across London are so different. We require much better signage so that motorists and others can see clearly what they are and are not allowed to do.
The parking arrangements need much better publicity. The appeals system needs much better publicity, although it is already working well. The Department of Transport has some part to play in achieving that. The Parking Committee for London and the London boroughs have done much themselves and will continue to do so, but we need more active support from the Department of Transport in trying to achieve that.
One abuse that I was asked to mention is what is called "drive-aways". That upsets my residential constituents considerably. It happens most often at service garages where vehicles are parked illegally on the streets. I know that in some cases someone is employed to keep an eye out for the parking attendant or traffic warden. As soon as one is seen that person goes out and drives the vehicle round and round the block until the attendant has gone and then the driver returns. We need a fair and effective system for dealing with such abuse. Residents who are caught for parking because they cannot spend their whole time looking out
232
of their front windows resent that behaviour. We may need to have a system similar to that which applies for catching speeding motorists.
I want to conclude in the same way as did the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in introducing the debate, and say that we cannot debate parking in isolation from more general transport issues. One of the results of effective enforcement of parking restrictions in London has been to demonstrate that there is not enough space to park on the streets, and there never will be. Any measures to increase parking will only add to the amount of traffic on our roads. There is an increasing view that that needs to be tackled.
We need to judge the debate in terms of a much greater emphasis on the provision of public transport; on making it convenient; and, above all, on making it reliable. That too can be helped by reducing traffic congestion. We need greater investment in public transport, something for which we on these Benches so often call. We need stronger disincentives for commuters who bring their cars into work unnecessarily. I was interested to read a CBI survey which talked about the need to reduce traffic congestion but which also said that four-fifths of its members felt that a company car was an essential part of a benefits package. There is a necessary conflict in that. We cannot have both. We need to produce disincentives for car use in London. Planners can and increasingly are playing an important part in that. Planning guidance has some part to play in determining parking standards which perhaps will not make it so easy in future for people to park their cars.
There is an interesting scheme in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham which is looking at new criteria and implementing new criteria for parking provision. It relates not so much to the number of cars likely to be there but the access to the area to which the planning application relates and access to public transport. That may or may not work, but it is the sort of imaginative thinking that we need.
Parking arrangements in London are already proving to be effective. When the teething problems are solved and the next review has taken place, they will prove to be very effective. We do not need more major changes to parking arrangements in central London; we need a major change to car usage in London.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, first, I must apologise for the state of my voice which, of course, will be in marked contrast to the strength of my case. It may be that the Minister will find himself in exactly the reverse situation. I shall listen, as I am sure will all noble Lords, with great interest to his response to the many interesting points which have arisen in the course of this short debate.
Like other noble Lords, I pay tribute immediately to my noble friend Lord Dubs for initiating the debate. My noble friend had a fine reputation in the House of Commons and also as the executive director of the Refugee Council, where he earned many justifiable plaudits, and I am very proud to be the chairman of that

233
organisation. He has now shown himself very clearly as an expert in this field. I hope that I shall cover some of the points that he raised in the course of my remarks.
I welcome also to our transport debates—for how long it will continue, I do not know—the noble Lord, Lord Tope. He was in another place with me for some period of time. As he has rightly said, he is a council leader. That is not exactly unique because there is a county council leader, but the noble Lord has put forward a convincing and vigorous defence of the role of London boroughs in relation to the implementation of the Act. I hope that he has enjoyed himself on this occasion and will continue to do so.
He is right to pay tribute to the Parking Committee for London. It has done an excellent job. Effective enforcement was another point to which he referred. Of course, that is the key to making progress in that field. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, referred to the need for a coach park. That is a compelling point too.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, challenged me to state my position on the need to end the use of Horse Guards Parade as a parking space. Speaking from the Front Bench, I must not make up policy on the hoof. He will understand that I shall undertake to examine his proposals with great care; to examine the cost implications; and then to consult with my honourable friend Mr. Gordon Brown. All that will be undertaken with great assiduity and care. I shall write to him on the matter in several years' time—perhaps two-and-a-half years' time. However, the noble Lord put forward a very important case for cyclists and cycling and I share his views in relation to that. I have supported his arguments on this subject on previous occasions in this House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, raised an interesting question about international symbols for wheel clamping. That is a very interesting and excellent idea. I wonder whether she is prepared to offer a prize for suitable entries to a competition in that connection. One could think of many symbols which might be interesting. Perhaps the most attractive would be the fine—what you have to pay when you collect your car. The idea which the noble Baroness put forward of parking for limited periods on single yellow lines was another excellent one. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
Many years ago the famous American comedian and commentator Will Rogers prescribed his solution to traffic problems. He said, essentially, that one should enact legislation which would have the effect of allowing only cars which were fully paid for to use the city streets. He anticipated that that would make traffic so scarce that the city streets would be able to be converted into children's playgrounds. I do not know whether that is something to which we should look but the Government chose, uncharacteristically wisely, to travel down a somewhat different route in terms of mitigating parking problems in London. I welcome what has happened in relation to the Road Traffic Act 1991.
Like my noble friend Lord Dubs and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I believe that the key to the most effective action is the provision of a much more efficient, reliable and safer public transport system. Without that, we are
234
really tinkering with the problems of parking in London. I believe that it is in that area that the Government have been found most wanting. Therefore, I fear that, unless that situation is remedied—and I do not believe this Government have the will to remedy it—the position will continue to deteriorate.
Within that vital caveat, I accept that the 1991 Act has led to considerable improvements in enforcement of the parking regulations since the Act came into force in July. There is no doubt that there has been better compliance. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, the appeal system has operated fairly successfully and the fact is that councils are much more accountable and are able to provide a speedier response, because of that accountability, to inquiries which arise which affect the interests of motorists. From that point of view, it is a much better system than the regime which existed before.
But we are still at an embryonic stage in the development of those policies. Therefore, it is very timely for us to be able to consider the problems which have already arisen in relation to the scheme. It is much better to be able to address them now than to leave them festering and to do very little about them. It is appropriate that we in this House should be concerned with the causes of frustration and irritation to which some of the anomalies give rise.
Among those to whom we have offered plaudits, I welcome the role of the Automobile Association, which has pursued assiduously some of those problems with the boroughs, with the Parking Committee for London and with the Minister. I should like to touch on some of those points which have not necessarily been raised in the debate in order to elicit from the Minister what has been his response to those points.
A conditioned precedent for establishing special parking areas—this was set out in the parking guidance issued by the Secretary of State to the London boroughs—was that the boroughs should have undertaken a proper review of policies and orders to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State. The AA survey suggests that there has been a considerable failure to ensure that that was done in a number of instances. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House whether that assertion is accurate. If so, can the noble Viscount say why authority was then given to local authorities to implement their schemes in cases where reviews had not been adequately undertaken?
There is a further point in relation to that specific aspect which I should like to address to the Minister. What steps will he now take to ensure that any recalcitrant London boroughs do fulfil the obligation which is absolutely critical in terms of being able to review unnecessary or unfair regulations? They are important points. There are still too many instances—and that is plain from what has been said in the debate—where restrictions are in force which, essentially, may not be needed. There is no doubt that small traders feel a sense of grievance. In certain cases, they believe that their trade has been prejudiced simply because no short-stay parking facilities are provided and that is injurious to their business.

235
I should now like to build on what my noble friend Lord Dubs said earlier. Different, and sometimes even contradictory, policies apply across the metropolis in relation to penalty charges. The AA cited a specific case where a borough was permitting the issue of penalty charge notices which were never attached to the vehicles in question or even given to the drivers, although that was in breach of the 1991 Act. As a result, an extraordinary state of affairs can arise. Motorists who are totally ignorant of the penalty charge until the notice is actually received in the post—usually about a month later—then find that they are denied the option of paying a reduced level of penalty charge. That is grotesquely unfair and, if the AA is right, it is a situation which needs to be remedied.
Another instance cited by the AA suggested that some boroughs were using ticket processing contractors to vet motorists' initial pleas against the issue of a penalty charge. Again, that is in defiance of the guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Of course, it must be the officers of the borough, and they alone, who are vested with that responsibility. I should like to hear the Minister's confirmation or denial of that allegation by the AA. If it is true, I should like to know what he is doing to avoid any recurrence.
A major point which emerged during the debate was the need for regulations that are applied to be properly signed and marked on the street. I endorse that concern. Differing regulations cause great confusion. The case of Lincoln's Inn Fields, where there is a boundary between Camden and Westminster, has been prayed in aid. There are different parking times, especially in the evenings. The area is much used by tourists who go to the theatre and the opera. They assume that parking restrictions end at 6 p.m. in the evening. But they could be sadly wrong. Because of their lack of knowledge about the local situation, I believe that they could harbour a sense of grievance if they have to pay a heavy penalty. Better notification of the system is essential.
Can the Minister say whether the Secretary of State will authorise the department to carry out a review to ensure that signs outlining parking regulations are provided in sufficient number and are comprehensive? Having raised the point, I do not want to assert that standard hours should apply on all restrictions across London. I believe that that would be wholly inappropriate, because there are different circumstances. I shall do no more than merely allude to the point.
There has also been considerable debate this evening about wheel clamping and towing away. I believe that the noble Baroness raised the issue, as indeed did my noble friend, of the location of some of the pounds to which vehicles are towed. They are often situated in inaccessible areas. I know that to my certain knowledge. I have had my car towed away—of course, always grotesquely unfairly. The Minister is totally unused to that state of affairs because he now has someone to drive him. However, it is unacceptable that so many of those pounds are located in inaccessible places.
It is not just the pound itself which is frequently unlit. That is not always the major problem; indeed, it is often the murky surrounding streets which are badly lit. I am sure that many women find it very uncongenial to have
236
to collect their vehicles which have been towed away at night. That anxiety needs to be addressed. It is really an invitation to muggers to concentrate on such areas. Does the Minister agree that such a situation exists and, if so, what does he propose to do about it, especially if he is satisfied that his own parking guidance in that regard is being ignored?
The parking guidance recommends that payment by credit card should be possible—in other words, that people should be able to give details of their credit cards over the telephone to the authorities concerned. Is it true that some boroughs are ignoring that and insisting upon personal visits by motorists to the pounds or the parking shops in order to pay the fee for the release of the clamp? It is unsatisfactory that that should apply. Further, in the light of the allegation that some boroughs have not yet signed up to the TRACE service, which is able to provide the necessary information, is the Minister satisfied that all boroughs are giving motorists the necessary help to recover vehicles which are clamped or towed away?
I turn finally to the question of inadequate car-parking spaces. A parking space was defined by someone as being an unoccupied space about seven feet wide and 15 feet long, situated next to the curb and usually on the most difficult side of the street to get to. It is the place where you take your car to have little dents put into the bumpers. Well, particular difficulties are being experienced—indeed, I believe that the noble Baroness raised the issue —with residential parking. It is particularly acute in areas where large houses have been converted into flats and there is insufficient accommodation for cars. Where permits are given, the choice of roads for residential car parking sometimes seems to be capricious and arbitrary. That gives rise to a good deal of apprehension, because people have to walk for fairly long distances at night from the place where they park their car to where they live. It is a matter which causes me concern. I live in just such an area in Hampstead. My wife constantly says that Hampstead has simply become a glorified car park. At the very least, councils should provide better lighting in such areas.
It would, perhaps, be very much better if the police were to concentrate rather more on carrying out surveillance of such areas so as to give some reassurance to people, especially women, who are returning home at night at about 10.30 p.m. or, on these dark evenings, much earlier. There have been too many instances in my area of people being mugged. It is the cause of much apprehension among many people. I hope the Minister may turn his attention to that issue as well. I think this has been an extremely helpful debate. Like others, I once again pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Dubs for having enabled us to cover this terrain.
7.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, first of all I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on having initiated this debate. I believe it has been comprehensive and very wide-ranging and a great many points have been raised. It was with more than my

237
normal caution that I approached handling this debate this evening as almost every motorist I have ever met has at some stage in his motoring career had a grievance about parking. Indeed I was considerably moved by the tales of distress of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, with regard to his absent car. I am sure that it was in exactly the appropriate circumstances that that errant vehicle was removed from our roads.
As I said, a debate like this has covered an extraordinarily wide range of points and I believe it has been extremely constructive. I shall start by outlining the Government's approach to parking in London and then cover as many of the detailed points that have been raised this evening as I can.
Illegal and indeed inconsiderate parking is probably one of the single biggest causes of congestion in London. London Transport estimates that about half of all delays to buses are caused by illegal parking. That is an extraordinary statistic. The cost to all of us is enormous, whether we are on the delayed bus or caught in the traffic jam caused by one or two badly parked vehicles.
Many yellow lines and other restrictions have built up over the years and indeed some of those no longer have relevance. Where they are no longer needed they should be removed. But where they are needed they should be enforced. That is a strong theme that has emerged from the debate this evening. Otherwise a motorist who, for example, parks illegally close to a junction can all too easily create extreme congestion and bring delays to many other users in that area simply as a result of the bad and inconsiderate parking of one solitary vehicle.
The provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1991, which decriminalised many parking offences, have enabled us to put in place a completely new local authority parking enforcement regime which has greatly increased the resources available for parking enforcement in London. I welcome the general support that has been expressed this evening for the provisions of that Act and for the success which it has had in improving the parking situation. The Act enables the London boroughs to designate special parking areas, in which they are responsible for enforcing both permitted parking and the yellow line parking controls. This system began in July last year. By this spring, all boroughs will be enforcing the parking controls in their area, except on the 315-mile red route network, where enforcement remains the responsibility of the police and their traffic wardens. I think that answers one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tope, on his first contribution from his Front Bench. I agree with him as regards his observations on the better enforcement that has resulted from the new Act. It is fair to say that over the years many motorists have come to expect to get away with illegal parking. Often this was because the parking controls themselves were unduly restrictive. This is now changing. Under the new system we are seeking to ensure that both the restrictions and the enforcement are fair and consistent. Under the new arrangements, for instance, motorists who feel they have been unfairly treated now have recourse to an efficient
238
and simple appeals system. In the first instance they can make representations to the local authority but if they are still unhappy with the decision they can take the matter to the impartial adjudication system run by the Parking Committee for London. I wish to take this opportunity to echo the support which has been expressed around the Chamber this evening for that body and for the impartial procedure which is provided. I believe that has been a great help.
Having paid tribute to the work of the Parking Committee for London and to the committee's parking director and his staff, I wish to say a few words about their work in establishing the adjudication system and the tracing system for cars that have been towed away. That is vital work and they carry out much other good work. I believe there has generally been a good reaction to that work.
Many noble Lords concentrated their remarks on revenues that are being generated. The new parking enforcement system allows the local authorities to retain the revenue from penalty charges imposed on those infringing parking restrictions in order—as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, clearly said—to finance the system. While the charges should be set at levels which should enable the system to be self-financing, local authorities should not use the charges to raise revenue or as a means of local taxation. I can assure the House that any surpluses that are created can only be used for transport related expenditure such as public transport or road improvements.
Much has also been said about the new system of enforcement and the new type of attendants. I think it is fair to say that the new enforcement system is still in its infancy. But there will shortly be around 1,100 local authority parking attendants patrolling in London in addition to the 800 or so police traffic wardens. New technology such as hand-held computers is now widely in use and most of the boroughs are contracting out the work to the private sector on the basis of measured performance outputs. I believe that this new type of attendant has been largely responsible for the improved enforcement of the system. I believe that is an extremely important aspect. Improved enforcement has meant that motorists are now less willing to believe they will be able to get away with illegal parking. We believe that for the future there may be scope for extending local authorities' responsibilities, and the use of this new technology is likely to be developed further.
As has been mentioned, the Government have issued statutory guidance to local authorities under the 1991 Act asking them to review the parking restrictions on their roads. The authorities are asked to consider how much kerb space they believe it will be desirable to control; how much of that space should be given over to parking, for what purposes and times and at what charges. They have also been asked how much space should be covered by parking restrictions, the times when the restrictions should operate and the penalties and other sanctions that should be applied in the case of infringements.
The review should consider the scope of all existing regulations applying throughout a borough and whether their continuation would be inconsistent with the new

239
parking policies. The authorities should use the charges, controls and restrictions to balance the supply and demand for kerb and road space in the light of local needs and circumstances and the need to produce sustained improvements in traffic flow, safety and in environmental conditions.
Another area which has brought considerable comment in your Lordships' House this evening has been that of signing. As part of the review that I mentioned earlier local authorities should also ensure that the signing of the restrictions is clear and appropriate. One of the commonest complaints from motorists—a number of noble Lords highlighted this, including the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and, I believe, my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes—is how difficult it is to discover exactly what the controls are. More and indeed better information on parking can go a great deal of the way to reducing motorists' frustration with the system. The local authorities and the Parking Committee for London have both made significant efforts in this area and we should look to them to develop this further. I urge them to be as consistent as possible and where my department has a role to play in approving non-standard signs we will seek to be as helpful to motorists as we can.
Our guidance also addresses the question of where parking should be provided. Of course, this is both a transport issue and a planning issue. Local authority parking policies have an important and direct bearing on the levels of traffic attracted to an area. They therefore have a crucial role to play in managing traffic, relieving congestion and improving road safety and the environment. That is why noble Lords who have said that the issue of parking is intrinsically linked to traffic flow and many other transport issues in London are absolutely right.
Individual local authority policies will also affect traffic in other areas. Collectively they will affect overall traffic levels in London. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes remarked that if one introduces very restrictive arrangements in one area one is liable to make it very difficult to move in another.
In our recent planning policy guidance (PPG 13) we have issued guidance to the local authorities that among other matters they should adopt reduced requirements for parking at locations which have good access to other means of travel and should ensure that parking requirements in general are kept to the operational minimum. A classic example is my own Department of Transport. When we move to our new building the amount of parking available will be reduced by some 90 per cent.
We look to the local authorities to develop parking policies which have regard to the character and needs of the local area, the quality and accessibility of public transport, and the particular needs of people with disabilities. The policies should in particular make suitable provision for local residents, shops and businesses, and should discourage car use when that can be justified by road conditions and public transport facilities. It should always be remembered that in some cases people with a disability find it much easier to use their own transport. The authorities should use the
240
controls and restrictions to address specific safety and environmental issues and to maintain road capacity at certain key locations.
One aspect of this evening's debate which has surprised me is that little or no mention has been made of the red route network. I mentioned earlier the fact that the red route network will be 315 miles long. Under the 1991 Act the Office of the Traffic Director for London has been established to implement that network. We have given him the objective of having it operational by the year 2000. The traffic director is taking a completely fresh look at parking needs along those roads.
The aim of the red routes is to reduce the impact of congestion and improve the movement of traffic on the main routes so that people and goods can move around London more easily, more reliably and more safely. The red route programme encourages a balanced, thought-out approach to both business and residential parking.
I should stress that red routes do not mean fewer parking spaces. On the contrary, on the pilot red route which runs from Archway to Islington more than 600 legal free parking spaces have been created where none existed before.
Red routes represent the most comprehensive traffic management initiative which has ever been taken in London. Where parking controls are necessary they will be strictly enforced, with stiff penalties to deter non-compliance. They will be supported by a programme of associated traffic management measures. That will help to make better use of existing roads and improve the quality of service they provide. Reducing the effects of congestion will help to ease traffic flows, improve journey times and reliability, and draw traffic out of unsuitable residential and other local roads to reduce casualties.
We believe that safety will be a major benefit of the red route system. We believe that the red route system will cut the present waste in human and economic resources and will help to reduce pollution, which is exacerbated by stop-start conditions.
Providing special help for the efficient movement of buses will improve the attractiveness of their services and contribute to the expansion of London's public transport system. Making conditions better for pedestrians and cyclists and making special provision for people with disabilities will help the most vulnerable road users.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked whether we could speed up the implementation process for traffic regulation orders. We are currently consulting on revised procedural regulations with a view to simplifying those procedures. I take the noble Lord's important point.
My noble friend Lord Montagu asked about coach parking. I can inform him that our guidance to local authorities urges them to ensure that there is appropriate provision for coach parking. The key issue is to ensure that coaches do not park in unsuitable places, as we sometimes see in areas not so far from where your Lordships are this evening.

241
A number of other questions were asked, but I should like to respond to the points raised by my noble friend Lord Marlesford, in relation to cycling. I am very pleased that he recognised the action of my noble friend the Secretary of State, who announced in December the go-ahead for the London cycle network project in response to the package bid submitted by all 33 London local authorities earlier in the year. The Government have allocated some £3 million for the next financial year. That is the first instalment of support for what will be an expanding cycle network development programme.
Of course there are wide and numerous benefits from increased cycle usage. Those people who will use the cycles will have quicker journeys in inner and central London. Removing cars will provide other benefits for everybody else. A number of environmental, health and wide-ranging benefits can be produced by increasing the use of cycles. I hope that my noble friend Lord Marlesford fully recognises the importance of the contribution that we have made to ensuring that the cycle network goes ahead.
My noble friend Lord Montagu and my noble friend Lady Gardner raised a very important aspect of policy on this matter relating to street works. The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 is aimed at improving the way street works are carried out by the utilities. The Act provides for prior notice to be given to the Highway Authority of all works and a statutory duty for all those concerned to co-ordinate the proposed work. I recognise that it can be frustrating when one is caught in congestion behind road works.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, raised a very specific point about the availability or otherwise of a map or leaflet showing where parking is available in London. Maps are already available which show parking restrictions and where parking is available. These are produced for central and inner London and can be obtained at bookshops. The Parking Committee for London has co-operated fully in the production of those maps. I shall be delighted to obtain one and send it to the noble Lord for his perusal.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked some detailed questions. He asked who was responsible for policing zigzags. Currently the restrictions are enforced by the police. The provisions in the London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill will allow local authorities to enforce them in addition.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made a point about whether cars which break down are liable for penalties. The simple answer is yes. Motorists who break down within these zones infringe the restrictions and will be liable to receive a penalty charge notice. However, the important point is that in practice the adjudication system will consider any extenuating circumstances and, where appropriate, cancel the charge notice.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, made a detailed point about allegations that ticket contractors are carrying out the appeals procedure rather than that being operated in the correct way. We do not have any hard evidence of such practices. It is our view that the
242
appeals should be dealt with under the correct procedures by the councils themselves. There is also the additional appeals procedure which I mentioned earlier.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I believe that the debate on parking restrictions, parking availability, and many other issues concerning the availability of parking in London has been extremely important. We have heard a wide range of valuable contributions. I should like to conclude by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part, and indeed to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for his contribution.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene before the Minister sits down. I raised a number of specific issues; he has chosen one. I appreciate that in such a debate it is not easy to deal with all the matters in a short period of time. Will the noble Viscount be kind enough to agree to write to me about those outstanding matters?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have already spoken for some 20 minutes. However, I shall be delighted to reply in the form of a letter to any detailed points to which I have not responded in the course of my remarks.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, perhaps I, too, may thank the many Members of the House who have contributed to the debate for the helpful comments that have been made. I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate that in the interests of saving time it would not be appropriate for me to comment on all that has been said. I therefore should like to make one or two brief remarks.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, seemed to advocate meter feeding. I believe that that would destroy the purpose of having controlled parking. It simply means that people would arrive in the morning and arrange for the meter to be fed all day, thereby denying anyone else the opportunity of parking. Having said that, I agree with his comments on cycling. From the Back Benches I find his remarks about Horse Guards Parade appealing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, seemed to suggest that I was against clamping. I am certainly in support of vehicle clamping provided that it is fair and clear. I very much believe that there should be penalties on people who transgress parking controls. I was much taken by her plea for international symbols. It is a great idea. If we had symbols which were clear to people from London, all parts of our country, and abroad, much of the confusion would disappear, provided the symbols were clear and that there were enough in each area so that, having stopped, one knew the state of parking control in that area.
I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for a fair system and for having a local authority review of the arrangements. That comment was also made by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. I thank him also for his other kind comments.
I welcome the Minister's support for the review which should take place in every local authority area. I welcome what he said about better signing. I am not sure how much force lay behind his comments. If he will urge London boroughs to consider their signing and to be critical of it, I should be even happier.

243
Except in passing, I did not comment on red routes because it is a wider issue than parking. However, certainly in the borough of Wandsworth there was much opposition to the red route system and the effect that it would have in generating more traffic, with difficulties for both local residents and shops on the routes.
As regards maps, I appreciate that they are available. My point was more a debating issue: that the situation regarding parking in London is so complicated that no map could possibly explain it to anyone. It is the sheer complexity of the arrangements which make the situation hard for foreign visitors and results in foreign visitors being penalised.
To sum up, I believe in tough enforcement. I believe that that is the message from the debate. However, I believe that the system should be fair and be seen to be fair. It should be clear to every motorist and other road user. At present it is not clear and therefore is not seen to be fair. Finally, I believe that the better the public transport system that we have—we do not now have a good one—the more easily will those other arrangements fall into place.
It has been a good debate. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Central European Time Bill [H.L.]
7.35 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Perhaps I may say how grateful I am to my noble friend the Chief Whip for allowing time for this Bill to be debated tonight and to the many noble Lords who have been kind enough to find the time to come to debate the matter. I believe that it is probably of the greatest interest to everyone in our country. I hope that our deliberations and points made will be taken on board by the Government and, if I may say so, by the parties opposite. They do not seem to have a clearly defined view of the direction in which we should be going. As a result of the debate, I hope that we may have a better idea.
We experimented with adopting permanent Summer Time between 1968 and 1971. This was generally welcomed at the time, but when the matter was debated in another place in 1971 it was resolved by a narrow majority—I understand that that was due to a major accident occurring in the morning which understandably upset many people—to revert to the time to which we had become accustomed since the end of Hitler's war. As far back as 1979 I raised this matter in your Lordships' House with a view to extending the period of British Summer Time. As your Lordships are aware, despite continual Starred and Unstarred Questions, debates on Summer Time orders and other occasions, I got nowhere, except in 1988 when my noble friend Lord Ferrers advised that there had been a pilot study of views and that the Government were to issue a consultation document. That was duly done in 1989. It was circulated on a wide basis. Broadly speaking, the questions posed were to indicate whether this country
244
should adopt Central European Time—which was then known as Single Double Standard Time (SDST)—the status quo that we are now enjoying, British Summer Time throughout the year or Greenwich Mean Time throughout the year.
As many noble Lords will probably know, the replies received for England, Wales and Northern Ireland showed a majority of 96 per cent. in favour of adopting Central European Time. In Scotland, 86 per cent. showed in favour for keeping the status quo. But overall in the whole of the United Kingdom, Central European Time was favoured by 81 per cent. of those canvassed. There was little or no support for the other two options. Since then little, if anything, has happened, except that the Europeans have agreed to defer their change of time in the autumn to harmonise with our present date.
On 22nd October 1990 I asked my noble friend Lord Ferrers whether in view of the response given to the Government's consultation paper it was time that something should be done. My noble friend said that the Government had taken note of the observations and that there was a certain amount of keenness on both sides of the argument but that,
"the Government do not consider there is sufficient support as yet for an immediate change from the present system".—[Official Report, 22/10/90; col. 1135.]
If 96 per cent. is not sufficient support, I really have to ask what is.
In 1992, during a short debate on the Summer Time Order, I asked whether in view of the fact that nearly three years had passed since the issue of the consultation document we could have a debate in this House. My noble friend Lord Astor replied:
"The Government are giving serious consideration to the atter".—[Official Report, 14/7/92; col. 202.]
Nearly two years later, on 19th January last, I put down another Unstarred Question asking whether the Government would take action in accordance with the consultation paper. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, reminded the House that my noble friend Lord Ferrers had described the subject as one of,
"beastly and foul complexity".—[Official Report, 19/1/94; col. 704.]
She felt that it was time that we had some clear answers. In her words, she said that it was,
"make your mind up time".
However, that was all to no avail, as my noble friend suggested that I should be reassured that the Government were actively considering whether there was a case for moving to Central European Time and they expected to reach a decision soon.
Getting nowhere, I then sought the help of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. He kindly replied to me on 28th March saying that there were differences of opinion which needed to be considered fully. He also went on to say that there were a variety of ways and means whereby the issue could be raised and that, if necessary, a vote could be taken. I just quote one point from that letter:
"The points raised in any debate and the strength of feelings expressed will of course inform the Government's consideration of the issues".

245
On 18th October last, when the Summer Time Order was brought before your Lordships' House, I reminded the House that my noble friend Lord Astor, in reply to the Question which I put to him three years previously, had said that a public hearing on the matter would be held after the summer break. As far as I am aware, that was not done. I also asked specifically, bearing in mind the suggestion made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, when the Government would make provision for a Bill in our House so that we had the opportunity to debate it. My noble friend said that the Government would keep in close touch with developments and report back. That has not been done.
My noble friend Lady Blatch said in the debate on the Summer Time Order 1994:
"The responses to that consultation"—
referring to the 1989 Green Paper—
"did not point to a clear way forward".—[Official Report, 18/10/94; col. 198.]
As I said before, I should have thought that 96 per cent. in favour of one of the options was extremely clear. My noble friend also said that from the initial consultations the Government could not have anticipated the adoption of a common October end date as part of the status quo. That is irrelevant. We are not talking about a common end date, much as I welcome it. We are talking about the time to be adopted in this country, either keeping that which we currently use or Central European Time, not just an end date. My noble friend said that the present state of the Government's policy was to weigh carefully the pros and cons of just that. Surely, in a space of nearly five years at least it should have been possible, if the matter had been seriously examined, for all the pros and cons to have been weighed by now.
There are those no doubt who might well feel that there is some connection between the purpose of this Bill and closer affiliation with Europe. That is just not so. Whatever anyone feels regarding a closer or even any political tie with Europe is irrelevant in this context. Whether in or out of Europe, I am concerned only with that which is best for this country. I humbly suggest that the adoption of the time used on the Continent across the English Channel is better than having a different time therefrom.
Well, here we are, after all this time and no decision. This is the reason why I have tabled the Bill—to give the Government the opportunity to listen to our deliberations and, if it is felt expedient, to pass the Bill in this House, as I am sure it will undoubtedly assist the Government in another place. It might just perhaps be worth recalling that in another place in 1983 the debate showed a small majority in favour of change.
That was the historical part. Perhaps I may turn to the Bill itself. It is, as noble Lords will see, nice and short. I regret that my speech is not all that short, nor will the debate be with the magnificent attendance of speakers today. The Bill's purpose is fairly stated to be to adopt Central European Time in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is due to come into force on 27th October
246
1996, the day on which the clocks are turned back one hour in Europe, obviating the need for our clocks to be altered then.
One point of contention of which I am very conscious is the possible exclusion of Scotland. It has been suggested to me that this measure is most timely in view of the discussions of potential devolution or part thereof for Scotland. As far as I am concerned, nothing could be further from the truth. While I am passionately in favour of the United Kingdom remaining as it is, there are times when common sense might perhaps prevail whereby on localised matters the Scots view might be allowed to prevail. I am very conscious that there is a considerable feeling in Scotland that we should maintain the status quo. However, the Scots have a different legal system, they have different Sunday shopping laws, they have different Bank Holidays. If they wished, they could surely have a different time.
If the English Channel is at present a cut-off point for the time zone in which we are, it is just as logical, or illogical—whichever way round one views it—to have a change of time zone as Hadrian's Wall in relation to Europe. I respect the feelings of the Scots and therefore I have not felt it right to make provision automatically for Scotland to be included in the Bill without their having the option of making their views known. If they feel like it, they can opt in to the Bill rather than opting out, which is much harder. It is not right for a small proportion of the United Kingdom to be responsible for frustrating the apparent wishes of those south of the Border. The much over-used word "democracy" springs to mind. We accept that we are all in one club together and therefore the views of the majority usually and correctly prevail and should do so.
I recognise that there will be many who will say that it would be impractical to have Scotland on one time and the rest of the United Kingdom on another. I would agree with that. But if there are those who feel that Scotland ought to be included, this might be usefully raised at the Committee stage, if the Bill is given a Second Reading.
I turn to some of the advantages of adopting Central European Time, not necessarily in order of importance. First, tourism and leisure: estimates from the Policy Studies Institute calculate that an extra £1 billion would be gained from tourism. In addition, it is thought that there would be an increase in leisure trips, particularly to spectator sports. I know that many on all sides of the House, for example, are keen racegoers. I suggest that if we had Central European Time in this country at present, the owners, jockeys, trainers and everyone else connected with racing would be only too delighted to be able to start later, to give themselves time to get organised and to have racing conducted at a time which is similar to the time in the summer. The increase in spectator sports would lead to a substantial increase in employment in these areas. The retailers would also gain from improved operational efficiency as a later afternoon would spread shopping more evenly across the day. I recognise, however, that shops are now open sometimes even 24 hours a day, but generally speaking most people restrict their shopping to daylight hours.

247
On travel and communication, 58 per cent. of the United Kingdom's exports go to EC countries and it would benefit businesses to have their opposite numbers working identical hours and schedules, including lunch breaks. At present in an average working day there are only four hours when businessmen on either side of the Channel in Europe can communicate with their counterparts. Business travellers could also get to Europe for morning meetings without the cost of overnight accommodation. It is forecast that British airlines would increase their revenue by between £20 million and £40 million by an increase in their proper share of business between major European capitals. The synchronisation of the City with European financial centres would achieve an hour in overlap with the fast growing markets in the Far East, where there is of course a substantial business potential.
Most important is the issue of road safety. The Road Safety Research Laboratory has calculated that between 1969 and 1970 during the original experiment 1,330 deaths and serious injuries and 2,350 other injuries were saved. Had the experiment been made permanent in 1971, it is calculated that over 20,000 deaths and serious injuries would have been prevented. It is estimated that an extra £200 million per annum would be saved through such reductions.
It might also be worth bearing in mind that in the four months alone from November to February inclusive there are 50 per cent. more fatal and serious injuries in the hours from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. as compared to 7 a.m. to 10 a.m., and three times as many among children in the peak hours from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. as compared to 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. Increased visibility on the roads in the evenings would lead to a reduction in the number of injuries if Central European Time were to be adopted.
In the field of health, children, for example, do not get enough exercise as the current school curriculum allocates insufficient time for physical education before the onset of an early dusk. Having the clock one hour forward would increase these opportunities and would help to promote the fitness of both adults and children. In addition, adjusting the clocks as suggested would allow more access to summer sunlight, which, being the primary source of Vitamin D at a time of its highest incidence from 12 noon to 4 p.m., would act in the capacity of a prophylactic.
I now turn to agriculture. I have always been puzzled as to why it is that the CLA and the NFU have been opposed to this proposal. I would have thought that it would have assisted those engaged in the agricultural industry enormously. I have been a farmer and I speak with some experience. I welcomed the opportunity during the earlier experiment to be able to work in the fields in the daylight instead of at half-past three in the afternoon in the dark. In the morning, at least half an hour to an hour is taken up (or certainly should be taken up) by farmers seeing to their machinery, their tractors, and what will you, and getting prepared for the day's work. The cows can hardly mind whether they are milked when the clock on the farmer's mantelpiece happens to say 7 o'clock instead of 6 o'clock. In any event, most cattle and nearly all dairy cows are now kept indoors for the winter months and most cows are milked
248
in artificially lit automated parlours. As I said, I find it difficult to follow the reasons why those organisations are against this proposal.
If we consider fuel consumption, it is thought that by putting the clock one hour ahead substantial savings in fuel could be achieved each year. The winter months generally see the consumption of electricity increasing by about 50 per cent. and gas by 400 per cent. It is thought that approximately £60 million could be saved to domestic consumers and £200 million to the commercial and public sectors in the cost of lighting alone if the clocks were advanced by one hour.
In relation to crime, an increasing number of women, children and old people stay indoors during the hours of darkness because of anxiety about assault. The extra hour of daylight would help to address these two problems by allowing the elderly to be out and about longer in the afternoon without the fear of the evil that stalks in the hours of darkness.
There is a tremendous degree of support for this proposal. It comes not only in the responses to the Green Paper. The national newspapers have also indicated over a period of time that the majority of the electorate are supportive. I find it very strange that the Government have not yet sought any form of parliamentary approval. Nor indeed have they had a full-ranging debate on it. To quote the Observer in 1990,
"this proposal was potentially one of the very few ways in which the Government could enhance the happiness of the greatest possible number at a stroke at no expense to anyone".
Sadly, no such action has been taken. Given the convincing case for change, the survival of the status quo is extraordinary. The Guardian called it,
"a classic case of the views of the vocal minority triumphing over those of the silent majority",
which is in itself a reference to the powerful lobbying against the change by groups to whom I referred earlier.
If this Bill is passed it would bring significant improvement to the overall quality of life for the majority of the population. For 10 months of the year there would be a further hour of evening daylight, whereas the extra hour of morning darkness would have to be endured only from early December to the end of January.
For all these overwhelming reasons I urge the Government to move with all possible speed for the adoption of Central European Time, and I urge noble Lords to give the Bill a Second Reading so that the matter may be fully discussed in another place and finally be enacted within this parliamentary Session.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Viscount Mountgarret.)
7.56 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount upon directing the attention of the House to this truly important subject and also on the manner in which he moved the Second Reading, in particular the devastating account he gave of the long years of procrastination, hesitation and postponement. I have no wish to introduce a controversial note but perhaps I may dare to say that there was a time when we

249
ordered these things better. Twenty-eight years ago—an immensely long time, it seems—when I was a young and optimistic reforming Home Secretary, I introduced a measure to do almost exactly (except for the Scottish provisions) what the noble Viscount proposes. That government measure was carried and was in operation for a few years. My noble friend Lord Callaghan, who succeeded me as Home Secretary, extended it for a time. I do not think that he was very keen on the idea to begin with, but he was persuaded that the measure was working well. Then, perhaps because of that single, unfortunate incident, weaker counsels prevailed and the measure was repealed in 1971.
I remain of the view that what we did in 1967 was right. Those three years worked well. There were of course complaints. One memory I treasure is of the late A.J.P. Taylor, who liked to combine being an ebullient narrative historian with writing highly populist articles, mainly in the Sunday Express, denouncing the proposal as being a typical example of what I believe would now be called "Islington Man". It was then called "the Lilac Establishment". He said it was typical that I had proposed to make the working class get up in the dark while the middle class, as he implied, were to be allowed to stay in bed until the winter sunshine warmed their doorsteps, their patios and their routes to work.
That was, of course, absolutely the reverse of the truth. The change of time did not make manual workers get up in the dark. Manual workers had in winter always got up in the dark. What it did, in those more leisurely days before the Stock Exchange operated before ten n the morning and before hard-working Treasury officials arrived at about the same time, was to make the professional classes, for the first time, get up in the dark. It did the reverse of what he said.
There are particular problems relating to Scotland. I remember my dear friend Jo Grimond saying to me rather reproachfully that he much wanted to support such a forward measure but did I realise that in the northern part of his constituency it would mean that there would not be full light until nearly 11 o'clock in the morning? I recall saying to him, "I am sorry about that but I am not sure. Is it a great deal worse than there not being full light until 10 o'clock in the morning, particularly if the price that you pay is that it starts to get dark at 2 o'clock in the afternoon?
I take great pleasure in brilliant winter sunsets such as we had today. But they should appear at a moderate time. I remember in Stockholm, in the splendid opera restaurant, observing one of the best winter sunsets I have ever seen. It was a little unfortunate that it appeared before the main course of lunch was on the table. I remember vividly, as Member of Parliament for Hillhead, Saturday afternoons in Glasgow with the light shining through into the Kelvingrove Gallery in winter. The light has a special quality. But, again, it is a pity if the sunset comes before the coffee cups are cleared from the lunch table.
The basic trouble is that in all our latitudes, even in southern England, we suffer a grave lack of totality of daylight in winter, however we order it. Scotland,
250
particularly the far north of Scotland, suffers from an absolutely appalling lack of it. The problem is latitude, not how the hours are ordered.
Noble Lords may be surprised to hear that I share the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, that this issue has nothing to do with European ideology. One does not have to be part of a common time zone in order to be a good European. The United States, which is a closer polity than I ever expect Europe to be in my lifetime or well beyond it, has four time zones. I am rather of the view that the European Community, certainly as it extends, should have two time zones rather than one.
There can be disadvantages in that, and I have suffered from them occasionally. For example, on a warm autumn evening in the south of Italy, because of the eastward slope of the peninsula, it gets dark a little before 6 o'clock. There can be disadvantages in Portugal when, even on an August morning, the sun may not come up until after 8 o'clock. There is something to be said for two time zones. But that is a quite separate issue. We would greatly increase the convenience and the amenity of life in this country if, rather than being on Central European Time we were on what I should prefer to call double Summer Time in summer and single Summer Time in winter. There is certainly no European ideology about that. After all, during the war years, when we stood alone, we did precisely that, because we thought it the best way to order things in conditions where safety, fuel saving and a number of other matters were of great importance.
Therefore, I strongly support the noble Viscount's Bill. However, I have ambiguous feelings about his Scottish solution. I followed his argument. It has elements of what one might call a Portia-Shylock aspect: yes, you can be independent, provided you pay the price. Probably unlike the noble Viscount, a firm believer in devolution but also a firm believer in the preservation of the union of the United Kingdom, I should not like to see a time frontier between England and Scotland.
It is perhaps reasonable to offer the Scots the alternative of making their own decision. I hope that they would make a decision to proceed as we did. Sensible decisions on time zones are essentially a matter of longitude and not of latitude. The division should go east-west with longitude and not north-south with latitude.
I am completely persuaded that we should do better from the point of view of safety, amenity, convenience and efficiency with the day slung later, both in summer and winter. We shall not thereby increase the hours of daylight—that is beyond human ingenuity—but we will increase the enjoyment of them by a substantial majority of the population. I strongly support the noble Viscount's Bill.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, this year has started off in an extraordinary way in parliamentary terms. We spent the first two days of this week debating and attempting to amend a Bill which, because it was a money Bill, we could not amend and, if we had gone so far as to amend it, nobody would have paid any attention

251
anyway. That was an odd way to start the year. Now, we come across this most bizarre offering. This is a most extraordinary Bill and I should like to say at the beginning that I hope that it proceeds no further than this evening.
The Bill is bizarre for three reasons. First, it deals with what is surely a national problem and a matter for government to decide. It is wholly unsuitable for Private Member legislation. Secondly, since Scotland is excluded from the Bill, the result of the Bill would be very odd. That was mentioned by both previous speakers. There would be a change in time zone—if not exactly at Hadrian's Wall, which is still in England, a little further north of it.
Moreover, a point which no one has yet mentioned is that on the island of Ireland there would be different time zones in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. It is quite inconceivable that the British Isles, as a geographical unit which includes the Republic of Ireland, could be divided into two time zones. Whatever would happen if, by any mischance, the English decided that they wanted to have Central European Time (which I prefer to call it, to remind us of what it is) and thereby dragooned the Scots and Irish into joining them? That would be the inevitable result of such a decision. I can imagine the thinking in Northern Ireland. What would Sinn Fein make of it if the British Parliament decided that there should be two time zones in Ireland? They would probably regard that as a somewhat strange form of neo-colonialism. I am not sure whether it would have been intentional, but that is what it would look like to them.
Last January, almost exactly a year ago, we debated this issue in the form of an Unstarred Question. My views can be found in some detail and I do not want to go into detail again this evening. As I see it, there appear to be two reasons for this proposal. The first is in the nature of harmonisation with Europe and the convenience of a smallish number of business people who do business with Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, who has some experience of Scotland, accepted the fact that the European Union need not have only one time zone; he accepted that it could have two. But it could quite as readily have three. There would be a fairly broad time zone in the middle, a fairly thin one on the western end, where we would be, and another fairly thin one on the eastern end, where countries like Greece would be. There would be nothing unusual about that.
The noble Lord referred to the United States, where there are no great business problems about time zones. If a man in Chicago wants to do business with someone in Pittsburg early in the morning, he gets out of bed and picks up his telephone. He does not demand that the time zone be changed to suit his convenience. The same thing is true with regard to London and Europe.
The CBI tells us that there is an effective four-hour Euro business day and I believe the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, mentioned that also. Why is that? The CBI explains it by saying that the present system gives European rivals two hours' extra time for business. The reason is that work starts here, it is said, between nine and nine-thirty UK time, whereas the
252
Continentals have already been at work for two hours. That means that the Continentals start an hour earlier. If our businessmen started at eight in the morning, like the Continentals, they would immediately gain back one of those hours without any change in the time zone. They must get out of bed if they are going to do foreign business. After all, some do business not only with continental Europe, but also with the Middle East and Japan. They must learn to get out of bed to deal with it. The noisy young men in red braces who transact the business in the City, do it in relation to when Frankfurt is working, or Tokyo or New York. They deal with the global situation properly; that is, they adjust their time to the time when business must be done. They do not expect time zones to be adjusted for their convenience.
I turn to the question of the reduction in road accidents. That arose as an additional argument. I do not believe that when my noble friend Lord Jenkins brought in his experiment in 1967 or 1968—I remember it well—the road accident question was large in people's minds. They were thinking more in terms of harmonisation with Europe. The problem is that lives may be saved in the evening, but the experiment showed that they can be lost in the morning. People may say that it was only one incident and I know that they will say it was far away—I believe it was at Stornoway, possibly the worst place for something to happen in terms of hours of darkness. The point is not that there was only one such accident, but that such accidents are inevitable and will occur from time to time. They will not happen repeatedly. But every now and again they will occur because of the extra darkness in the morning and, because of the problems of winter—the frost and the cold of early morning—such incidents will occur over and over again.
What is more, there is the problem of motorway madness. When does that occur? It occurs in the morning when people are hurrying through the dark into London or one or other of the big conurbations. There are wintry mornings when roads are icy and fog occurs. That is when motorway madness and motorway pile-ups occur, with severe casualties and large numbers of injured. Such scenes are inevitable. They will become more inevitable if a change in time is undertaken. During that extra hour in the morning the wintry conditions will always be more severe and the dangers of driving will become more severe. The inevitability of such catastrophes is certain.
Let me turn to Scotland. I know Scotland very well, as noble Lords will be aware. From his experiences in that great country, my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead knows Scotland better now than he did in 1967. I can remember the period during the war when I was a schoolboy and a student. I left my home in Troon on the train at two minutes past seven in a darkness so black that one could not see one's hand before one's face. There was of course a blackout in those days, which made the situation much worse. I arrived in Glasgow, still in darkness, around eight o'clock and was in plenty of time to see a delightful wintry dawn around a quarter

253
past 10. It was not as delightful as my noble friend made out. It was extremely undelightful. The reason is not simply that Scotland is to the north of England.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, at what time of year did the noble Lord see a sunrise in Glasgow at a quarter past 10?
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, quite clearly it was in winter. I do not imagine that there can be any divide about that. I have been talking about winter for most of the time.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I just want to point out—is the noble Lord aware?—that the sunrise today in Inverness was only 15 minutes later than it was here. I am finding difficulty in focusing on what time of year the noble Lord is discussing.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am talking about the time of year that we are in. The noble Lord will know—I seem to recollect that he is an enthusiast for this kind of reform, as it is sometimes called—that the problem is not merely one of north-south; it is also one of east-west. The country is tipped over on its axis. The best way to illustrate that is to remember that Bristol is actually further east than Edinburgh. As we go west the problem of daylight becomes more difficult. Belfast and Londonderry are at the same level as Glasgow. At the moment Glasgow is around 45 minutes out of sync with the proper sun time. Under the new proposals it would be one and three-quarter hours out of sync with the sun time.
One other problem arises; that is, the difficulties with which the construction industry is faced. I am still discussing winter. The construction industry has a workforce of around 2 million people—or it did have until the policies of the present Government diminished it somewhat. Even so, it is still a large workforce. The wet trades in building—plastering, concreting and things of that sort—are affected by temperature. To the best of my knowledge, concreting can only be carried out if the temperature rises above 3 degrees centigrade. That is a temperature which, under this proposal, will be reached in winter around halfway through the day, thereby losing a substantial part of the construction industry's working day. The construction industry believes that the effect of the change would be to add around £4 million to its costs.
A further problem arises in the construction industry. It is a dangerous industry. A larger number of industrial injuries occur than in any other industry in the country, with the possible exception of North Sea fishing. The dangers arise from scaffolding in frosty, wintry, dark conditions. The effect of this proposal is to add another hour of frosty, slippery, dangerous conditions on the building sites.
I agree with the two previous speakers that the majority should be heard and that their views should carry considerable weight on this or any other question. I do not query that at all. The majority should usually carry the day, but not always; not if the majority having its way is to the detriment of a sizeable minority, such
254
as the Scots, the Northern Irish or the construction industry. This Bill should be opposed and I urge on the Government to continue procrastinating.
8.20 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, should be congratulated on introducing this Bill which in part will, I am sure, have widespread support outside Parliament. But I have to say that the proposal to exclude Scotland or, rather, not to include Scotland, would, in my view, create a situation which would be even less tenable than the existing situation. I would urge the noble Viscount to revise the proposals, if that is possible, so that we shall be a United Kingdom in time as in so much else.
The situation pertaining of two different time zones in the UK and continental Europe is anachronistic but also very costly to British industry and commerce. It is on that issue that I intend to concentrate. Because of the time difference on the other side of the English Channel and North Sea British business has to bear a significant cost penalty in dealing with the mainland of Europe. We all know that our exports to continental Europe are increasing. Our invisible earnings from the City of London operations in world financial markets, particularly European financial markets, are a significant part of our balance of payments and our membership of the European Union is becoming more important. All of these areas of operation are detrimentally affected by the time difference throughout the year between the United Kingdom and continental Europe.
As an aside, I wonder whether other noble Lords share my view that it seems easier to cope with the five-hour time difference between here and the United States than with the one hour time difference between here and continental Europe. Perhaps it is because I am much more aware of the geographical distance in between.
Many of us must have had the shared experiences of being very frequent visitors to the Commission in Brussels. In a previous job I seem to have been going to Brussels at least twice a month over a very long period. There were endless meetings with Commission officials, with the United Kingdom permanent representation—UKREP—with European trade associations based in Brussels, with lobbyists based there, and others. All of these meetings, or nearly all of them, started at the reasonable hour of 9 to 9.30 a.m. To get to Brussels for the start of the meeting it was essential to travel the previous evening, thereby incurring hotel expenses—not cheap in Brussels, my Lords. Usually the visit to Brussels ate into the previous work day, leaving the office at 4 p.m. or thereabouts to enable one to get to the airport in time for the late evening flight.
There is, of course, a cost in that also. I used to estimate that each of those trips cost approximately £300 more than it would have done if we were in the same time zone. Multiply that £300 by the number of business visits to Brussels, Paris and Frankfurt made each year by British business people and I am sure it would come to a very large sum. All of this money has to be recouped through prices of the final goods and services

255
provided by British businesses. It is quite a competitive disadvantage. It could even be called, in economic-speak, a non-tariff barrier to trade.
This is just one aspect of additional cost to business. Another one, less quantifiable, is the business opportunities lost through our inability to transact telephone business throughout the whole of the working day. It has been brought out twice already that the CBI feels that there are only four hours in which we can actually do that properly. How many times have I unthinkingly lifted the telephone around midday to be told that there is no one in the office because it is the lunch hour. Then, of course, I have a lunch break and forget about it. Not everyone is as inefficient as I am, but one does not always remember the stupid time zone difference.
All British businesses with which I have been or am associated wish strongly that we were operating on CET. British Airways has long supported the Daylight Extra Group, which has campaigned for the adoption throughout the UK of CET. In the case of BA, significant extra costs are involved in having to night-stop aircraft at continental capitals in order to compete with the morning schedules of continental airlines. While the costs vary country by country and by aircraft type, an estimate of the additional costs at just one city, Frankfurt, suggests that for each night stop in Frankfurt the annual costs are in the range of £300,000. Brussels has two aircraft night-stopping each night. In all, there are some 40 aircraft night-stopping in continental European cities.
The airline also supports the view that tourism throughout the UK would be boosted by the longer usable daylight period. I have no need to remind your Lordships of our very valuable tourist earnings.
However difficult it is to operate with the current situation, it would be disastrous if there were two different time zones on the mainland of Britain. I am aware that Scotland has voiced its opposition to CET but recent research by NOP suggests that opinion is now weighted much more strongly in favour. The research was carried out in October 1994 and the question asked was:
"For a number of years now, there have been discussions as to whether Britain should harmonise its time with the rest of Europe, so that everywhere in Europe is on the same time. This would mean having an hour's less daylight in the morning and an hour's more daylight in the evening. Do you think that this would be a good thing or a bad thing?"
The research was carried out in four television areas. In the Scottish TV area 62 per cent. said they thought that it would be a good thing, 29 per cent. a bad thing, and 9 per cent. did not know. In Tyne Tees, Granada and Yorkshire, the figures were 72 per cent. a good thing, 21 per cent. a bad thing, and 7 per cent. did not know. In Central, HTV and Anglia, the figures were 70 per cent. a good thing, 20 per cent. a bad thing, and 9 per cent. did not know. In London, Meridian and West Country, the figures were 77 per cent. a good thing, 13 per cent. a bad thing, and 10 per cent. did not know. On balance one could say that the idea of harmonising time would be a good thing. Scotland accounted for 9 per
256
cent. of the sample, Tyne Tees 26 per cent., Central 31 per cent. and London 33 per cent., which I think is fair enough on the population split.
I do think that we should not underestimate the level of support for harmonisation with CET. What was not asked in the research was whether the Scots would prefer two different time zones on the British mainland. This would certainly need to be researched before any action was taken. With the caveat that it is essential that Scotland must be on the same time zone as the rest of the mainland, I welcome the proposal that we should consider changing to Central European Time.
8.29 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I came to this debate with a relatively open mind although I felt marginally "agin" it. But my feelings were made concrete by my noble friend Lord Mountgarret and by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, because of what I may say, possibly slightly rudely, was their total failure to reconcile the position of Scotland with the rest of the country.
As my noble friend said, the Bill does not include Scotland. I agree with noble Lords who say that we must have the same time in all parts of this country. For those few of your Lordships who have not looked up the times, sunrise in London this morning was 8.3. In Belfast and Glasgow, it was at 8.43 which is only about three minutes earlier than on the shortest day as the days begin to get longer in the mornings some considerable time after they do in the evenings.
I rang the duty officer at Stornoway airport this morning to ask him what time sunrise was there. The answer was 9.5. It is not reasonable to expect anyone to accept sunrise at 9.43 and at 10.5. The duty officer was horrified at the mere thought that sunrise should not be until after 10 o'clock. The mornings are short enough already without taking another hour off. In the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, I noted the use of the words "convenience" and "efficiency". I do not believe that he used the word "logic", but I suspect that that was also in his thoughts.
No one else seems to have this trouble. Noble Lords have described what happens in America where there are six and-a-half hours between Labrador and Alaska. There are four standard times: Standard Eastern time, Mid-Western time, Rocky Mountain time and Californian time. None presents any difficulties for the people working in communication with each other. The frequently quoted difficulty in Europe seems to be that lunch hours are different; I cannot believe that that is insuperable.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, stated that British Airways supports the Bill. That may be the case. It is by no means the case among navigators and pilots who have to struggle with Zulu Time and all the variations of it. Until yesterday I failed to appreciate that Greenwich Mean Time in fact no longer exists and that our time zones are based on Universal Consolidated Time (UCT) which reaches us from some time clock in the middle of the Arizona desert and is a micro-second

257
or so different from GMT. Nevertheless, GMT or UCT is the god of all aerial navigators and all flight plans are founded on that basis, which is Zulu Time.
In winter, in Britain, all flights are logged in real time. At least for some period of the year the possibility of error, which is now very prevalent, is reduced. All flight controllers have experience of the considerable number of occasions when flight plans an hour late have been logged wrongly.
I said that I believe the argument in favour of the Bill is logic. There is no logic in the current system. It is true that Portugal has joined Spain on Central European Time, but Hungary is plus one and Finland plus two, Poland is plus one and Greece plus two. Not surprisingly, in Russia the time ranges from plus two to plus 12; Australia from plus eight to plus 10. As I said, America presents the largest variation of all bar Russia.
Convenience and efficiency for industry even so appears illogical. Many of your Lordships will have been consulted or written to by the racing industry which believes that it is making a great deal more money now that there is Sunday racing and that it could make even more if it could have a further two months of evening racing. But I doubt whether that is supported in the same manner, as my noble friend Lord Mountgarret says, by the professionals in the industry. I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, who is a distinguished trainer himself, will express the feelings of that profession on the proposals before us today.
There can be no doubt that the concept has many attractions. But it is not surprising that for so long and for so many years Her Majesty's Government have not found it possible to make up their mind to propose such a change. Therefore, I am with them in suggesting, as the noble Lord, Lord Howie, proposed, further procrastination.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, your Lordships will be pleased to know that my contribution will be extremely brief as the noble Lord, Lord Howie, has already covered most of the points which I intended to make. Judging by the way this debate is going I feel certain that emotions will be high by the end of it. I did listen with great interest to the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, particularly to what he said about Scotland. He made a most convincing speech but I am afraid, sadly, I am still not behind him. I am against the Bill. I believe that we have survived for many years with the status quo and it seems to have stood us in good stead.
I must perhaps elaborate a little about the idea of Scotland being on a different time scale and not being included in the original Bill. The idea is farcical and crazy. I live in Scotland and yet my nearest supermarket is in England. I would forever be changing my watch when crossing the Border. Likewise, my nearest rail station is in England. I can imagine the havoc that will be played with the timetables on the main East Coast
258
InterCity line between Edinburgh and London. I even have friends whose house is in Scotland and their garden in England! The whole idea is a non-starter.
Edinburgh too is now a very important financial centre. To be on a differential time to London, would again, I believe, cause havoc. I could go on with examples for ages. I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Howie, in hoping that we see no more of the Bill.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Crawshaw: My Lords, I want to add a few words on behalf of those who live in rural England and Wales and in particular on behalf of those whose work takes them outdoors most of the time. In the farming community I am not particularly concerned about the arable farmer. My thoughts very much turn to the dairy farmer and the herdsman who already have a hard life. Their normal schedule means that they start at about 5.30 in the morning and that goes on for seven days a week right through the year. It is not really very much fun, particularly at this time of year, to be involved with the milking of cows in a very cold milking parlour when there has been 10 degrees of frost the night before, the pipes are frozen and the taps are stuck solid. All that has to be dealt with when, like many noble Lords, one is not feeling at one's best at that time of the morning. It is my hope that the Bill will not in any way make the lives of these people any harder.
My noble friend Lord Burnham mentioned horse racing. In a moment your Lordships will be hearing, as he said, from my noble friend Lord Huntingdon who, I suspect, was up at the crack of dawn this morning. He will be able to tell noble Lords from first-hand experience and straight from the horse's mouth his view on the subject. Suffice for me to say this evening that it can be a very exacting job trying to hold a hard-pulling young horse on the wide expanses of Newmarket, Lambourn, or on the local aerodrome, as I tried to do and probably in the company of my noble friend Lord Oaksey. That was a few years ago. It is a hard job at the best of times. With freezing fingers in the early morning and partially in the dark, it is an even harder job. My thoughts turn very much to the people involved with racing.
I believe that accidents involving cars have been mentioned. But accidents with horses can also be extremely serious, particularly when a great deal of work in connection with horses has to take place in the dark in villages like Lambourn.
Having said that, I appreciate that spectator sports should take place when people are best able to attend. It is for that reason that so many of us in your Lordships' House are in favour of Sunday racing. However, the effects on the personnel involved are not apparent so far. It would be my wish, if feasible, that a change of time should take place gradually. I do not suppose that one can change time gradually, but I hope that your Lordships will understand what I mean. To have such a change introduced quickly on top of the introduction of Sunday racing might be detrimental to the people involved.

259
I realise that farming and racing people can to a certain extent—and only to a certain extent—set their own clocks and times, but the practical fact is that we all have to live in a wider community and in the wider context. In that way, we all have to conform to certain times and certain practices.
Finally, I am encouraged that all the wind-up speeches are to be made by people who will readily understand what I am talking about. My point is to try to raise such matters at an early stage in our deliberations.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, is to be congratulated on having mustered impressive support for his contention that Britain will become a land of milk and honey, with everyone living to the age of 100 plus and with a near-doubled standard of living, provided only that we synchronise our clocks with the clocks of Warsaw and Budapest.
I hope that the noble Viscount will forgive me if I say that the only thing that I like about his Bill is the title. It is a thoroughly honest title, which is welcome in this era of double-speak and obfuscation. The title makes it clear that what the noble Viscount proposes is unnatural in the literal sense of that word—flying in the face of nature, in other words. The Bill proposes that the United Kingdom, excluding Scotland, lying as it does off the western fringes of the European Continent, should be deemed henceforth to be part of central Europe. The only situation more nonsensical occurs at the other extreme of geography—in eastern Europe where there exists a four-hour time difference between Poland and the Ukraine although they have a common frontier. When it is 12 noon in Poland, it is 4 p.m. in the Ukraine, just a kilometre away across the border.
The earth is divided into 360 degrees of longitude. It revolves on its axis once every 24 hours. Logically, therefore, clocks should be advanced or retarded every 15 degrees (approximately) that one travels east or west. That is exactly what happens in Australia where three different time zones cover just over 40 degrees of longitude; in the continental United States, excluding Alaska, where four time zones cover 57.2 degrees of longitude and in Canada where, as has already been said, six time zones cover 88.7 degrees of longitude. There is also the Russian federation, as the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, mentioned, where there are 11 time zones. I regret that I have not had the time to calculate quite how many degrees of longitude that embraces.
If the Bill goes through, there will in Europe be a single time zone spanning 32.4 degrees of longitude or 33.5 degrees if mainland Portugal's recent experiment, designed to attract affluent Spanish tourists, becomes permanent. That defiance of geography, as one might call it, is exceeded only in totalitarian China where there is one single time zone, spanning 61 degrees of longitude. In any totalitarian country, nature and common sense can easily be stood on their heads—and usually are.
Although it may seem a minor point to some, if the Bill goes through, the custodianship of GMT, with its associations for which Britain is internationally famed and respected, will pass to Iceland, Morocco, Madeira,
260
the Canaries, a handful of West African countries and a handful of small islands in the South Atlantic. Indeed, Greenwich Mean Time will have to be renamed "Ghana Mean Time" because if Greenwich adopts Central European Time, Accra, the capital of Ghana, will be the only place of any size and significance on the former Greenwich meridian.
We are told that the Bill would be good for business. My noble friend Lady O'Cathain said as much. It may well be good for European business to some extent, but it will certainly not be good for transatlantic business because we shall be an hour further away from the United States. However, the briefing from the Confederation of British Industry effectively admits that businesses here generally start one hour later than on the Continent. Surely they can adapt their habits to conform. British businessmen flying to the Continent or "entraining" (as they will now start to do) face no greater hardship than does a Chicago businessman flying to Detroit, which happens to be almost exactly the same distance from Chicago as Paris is from London. In both cases, one has to put one's clock forward an hour. Such businessmen face no greater hardship than do those flying from Milwaukee to Pittsburg, from Minneapolis to Washington, from Los Angeles to Phoenix (where a number of high-tech industries have relocated) or from Winnipeg to Toronto, yet none of those people complains that business is impossible in consequence of having to change their clocks.
On the basis of some highly speculative figures from the Road Research Laboratory, we are told that the Bill would cut road casualties. If that were really so, would not the pragmatic Germans and Danes already have changed to Eastern European Time, given that sunset in Berlin now occurs at the same time as in London under the present dispensation and that sunset in Copenhagen in winter now occurs at about the same time as in Glasgow? Yet those countries have not done so.
Fewer and fewer schoolchildren walk home nowadays. That is hardly surprising, given the number of vandals, muggers and rapists who lurk our streets. In any case, I find it difficult to buy the argument that dark mornings are safer than dark evenings. On Monday, two days ago, I had to drive here from north of Lincoln for an important meeting in advance of our Second Reading debate on the Bill to increase our contribution to the EC. For the first 50 minutes I was driving on narrow, twisting, badly cambered roads which are prone to black ice (although admittedly the weather was better than is normally the case at this time of year). I would have hated to have to do that journey in the dark, but that is what I would have had to do if the Bill had been law.
There is a further important point. The noble Viscount claims that the Bill is popular in Northern Ireland. I can assure him that that is not so. This morning I rang an extremely senior political figure in Northern Ireland who told me that the noble Viscount is mistaken. That is hardly surprising given that sunrise and sunset in Belfast occur at almost the same time as in Glasgow, as the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, pointed out, and given that Northern Ireland is much more agriculturally based than England is.

261
Is there any change that could usefully be made which would offend or inconvenience nobody anywhere in the United Kingdom? I suggest that there is. Could we not press the nations of Europe to agree to start Summer Time earlier by, say, the second Sunday in March so that Easter would always occur when Summer Time was in force? That would suit most countries because, with the exception of the Scandinavian countries, spring normally starts earlier on the Continent anyway—and it would help tourism there.
At the same time, Summer Time could be extended to the first week in November when the weather is still good throughout much of southern Europe and occasionally in northern Europe as well. That is all that is needed to help British tourism. After all, whatever else tourists come to Britain for in December, January and February, they do not come to enjoy long winter evenings. They probably come for the museums and art galleries, but they do not come with a view to sunning themselves on our beaches. The changes that I have suggested are the ones which would inconvenience practically no one and give pleasure to many. That is as far as it should go.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I am happy to support my noble friend Lord Mountgarret. As he reminded us, he has waged a war of attrition on this issue over many years. It is like dripping water on a rock, but I am glad that my noble friend's hand is on the tap. I have many reasons for supporting the Bill. The first is a personal one. Many speakers tonight have put forward practical issues. Perhaps I may introduce a personal one.
I have spent more than a fifth of my life north of John O'Groats, in Sweden and Norway. I am not aware of some of the problems that have been described this evening about mornings, evenings and road accidents. As a school child, Swedish and Norwegian roads seemed safe to me. They seemed safe to me as a pedestrian. They seemed safe to me as a transport user. We would benefit substantially in those terms, and in particular with regard to safety, if, as I hope will happen in the fullness of time, the Bill, or a similar one, receives not just a Second Reading in this House but eventually Royal Assent.
My first reason for supporting the Bill is, as I say, a personal one. I am a Scan. I am a quarter Norwegian; I was brought up in Sweden; I have worked for many years in Sweden. Not just that, I am a European. That is not in any Maastricht, or dodgy sense, but because I married into a Dutch family. I have learned to look at the issue their way. I wish to be in the same time zone as they are, but not because we have to say, "Can we ring them now? Are they still in bed? Have they gone to bed?", or anything like that. No, I give the Bill all the support that I can from a personal point of view.
I turn from the personal to the general. I remember what the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said. She made the case for British Airways very strongly. She made the case for business. She has knowledge of commerce and industry. We must remember that it is not just manufacturing industry which contributes to our
262
national well-being but also the service industries. I shall return to the subject of tourism. It is a problem for British Airways that it has to night-stop aeroplanes. The figure of £300,000 per annum per plane in Frankfurt that she quoted is an understatement, because, if the cost of putting crews into hotels and all the other expenses are added in, the figure will be much higher. There are other places such as Stockholm and Oslo where the cost of living is high, and where I suspect the cost to British Airways is much higher.
In the old days when airlines flew in pools it did not matter with which airline one flew because the two partner airlines—perhaps I may stick with my Scandinavian analogy and take SAS—shared the revenue, but nowadays they do not. They compete head to head and it is in our best interest to ensure that our airline is the best. It cannot be the best in terms of profit without giving the customer what he needs. However, if we can reduce those costs—one way of doing so is to join CET—we shall be better off. We shall have a better airline and better opportunities.
The noble Baroness quoted the NOP survey, which was not commissioned by someone with an axe to grind. It was commissioned independently. It was not unlike the survey which is carried out once a year among your Lordships and which seeks to find out the attitudes of parliamentarians. The survey was independent. The noble Baroness perhaps understated the case. I shall not break down the figures by sex or TV area or do anything like that, but one should stress that the lowest figure in favour of joining the CET was 62 per cent. Stretching it a little, very nearly two-thirds of those asked were in favour. The highest figure in favour was 82 per cent. We should not forget that. Both those figures are substantial. It was a small sample, but the people who carry out the polls try to make the sample nationally representative. I was taken by the lower figure of 62 per cent. because, as I said, that is nearly two-thirds.
The Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Transport Safety is another national body which supports the proposal. I can understand that, because whatever the noble Lord, Lord Howie, says about the building industry—it should get its act together rather than worry about us—PACTS believes that transport safety is paramount. I, as a pedestrian and a public transport user—I have never had a vehicle licence—believe strongly that safety, especially transport safety, is paramount.
Just as important, and perhaps more productive, is the fact, as has been said, that the majority of CBI members support harmonisation as bringing benefits to business and thus improving the viability of what we might call UK plc.
I started with some personal reflections and then switched to general ones. Perhaps I may finish with just two—tourism, where I declare an interest, and public transport. The tourist industry as a whole would love to see us go into CET because it has a government mandate to extend the season. As a result of having longer afternoons, especially in the autumn, we should receive more foreign revenue. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that foreign tourists do not come to sit on our beaches. That seems to be a rather pathetic point, if I

263
may say so. Of course they come for culture, and culture is available in the evenings, but when it gets dark one tends to think of going home, going back to one's hotel and having a bath or doing other things like that. These cultural attractions are open. They are waiting for people to spend money on them. Foreign visitors are willing to spend money on them. Foreign tourism is important to this country. We are still the sixth most popular tourist destination in the world. We should do everything to encourage them and to meet the Government's mandate to the British Tourist Authority.
I return briefly to transport. We are joined to Europe, not in a time zone, but since last May by means of that marvellous institution the Channel Tunnel. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, agrees that it is a marvellous institution. We are now physically joined to Europe. The people who run the European passenger services through the Channel Tunnel feel that they are penalised because, given our present habits, they cannot run a train out of Waterloo much before 7 o'clock in the morning. Because of the time difference, that train will not arrive in Paris until 11. That is practically lunchtime. Again I pick up what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain —we miss half the opportunities. There is not just the missed opportunity of the time lag, there is the physical cost. Due to the way they have to stack the trains, they estimate that it costs £7 million or £8 million per annum to be geared to the fact that our morning rush hour is later than it is in Europe. We are joined to Europe, as I say, through that magic institution, the Tunnel. I believe that we should be joined in time zone too. I urge your Lordships to support the Bill.
9 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, like many other noble Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, on introducing this Bill. I question why a Bill of this importance—and it is a very important Bill because of the implications that it has outside this House; it affects every man, woman and child in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and, it is to be hoped at a later stage, Scotland—must be debated at the end of a day at this time without much enthusiasm by the Government.
This Bill is called the Central European Time Bill but it is about British time. There are bound to be noble Lords and Members of another place who will become confused and because the word "European" is in the Title they will oppose it. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, should look more closely at the Bill. If he does so he will see that the Bill is about British time and not about European time for reasons which I shall explain.
I must declare an interest. I am a consultant to the British Horological Institute, which I am pleased to say is in favour of the Bill. In view of some of the comments that have been made by noble Lords, it may be helpful if I go briefly into the history of why the Bills were originally formed in the first place.
Page 9 of the introduction of the Summer Time consultative document, to which the noble Viscount referred, mentioned that the important point about Summer Time is that it is an artificial means of changing
264
working habits. The same effect would be achieved if everybody started and finished work an hour earlier in the summer, but it is easier to adjust the clocks rather than the times of the working day.
That is important. Some noble Lords have said that it is unfair to have a Bill for England and not for Scotland. But I believe the noble Viscount was saying that it would be more democratic for the Scottish Members of Parliament to be able to decide on a Central European Time (Scotland) Bill so that it would be felt that they had been given due consideration for their longitude and, above all, their latitude.
We must remember that up until the 19th century time in Britain was always a very local matter. There was no sense of national time as there is now. For Piers Plowman in the 14th century time was measured in the towns and villages around the Malvern Hills simply by judging the position of the sun in the sky. Accuracy was not a requisite, nor was it possible with sun time. A century later, Chaucer's band of pilgrims might have made a leisurely journey from London to, perhaps, Plymouth without noticing that the difference in sun time was 17 minutes later than it was when they left London. The time differential would have been due to the fact that they were 4 degrees longitude west of London. If they had made a similar pilgrimage to Canterbury, which is only 1 degree east of Greenwich, they could perhaps have been forgiven for overlooking the fact that the Office of Nones was celebrated in the cathedral five minutes earlier than in the capital.
In the Middle Ages local time was usually taken from a sun dial, which was the standard for setting and correcting the mechanical clock in the church tower. It was not until the establishment of a national rail network in the 19th century that there was a need to establish a national rather than local time standard. That was necessary, just as it is today, so that travelling and connecting with trains, and later aeroplanes and ferries, could be achieved by making all clocks register the same time. Business hours were set to harmonise with the new timetables and connections were made by telephones for appointments on the same basis.
That may be very obvious to many noble Lords and I apologise for repeating it, but I think it may have been forgotten. That is why, in the middle of the 19th century, all clocks in Britain were set to the standard of Greenwich Mean Time, which was based on the sun crossing the meridian at zero degrees longitude.
Considering some of what has been said earlier in the debate, it may be helpful if I spell out what longitude is. It is the angle measured in degrees, minutes and seconds between a terrestrial meridian through a place east or west of the standard meridian at Greenwich. One degree of longitude is equal, at the earth's equator, to approximately 70 miles of distance on land or 38 nautical miles at sea. Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that you cannot move Greenwich. Greenwich will always be at zero degrees longitude.
On the other hand, latitude is the angular distance, also measured in degrees, minutes and seconds, of any point north or south from the earth's equator equalling the angle between the respective horizontal planes. One

265
degree of latitude equals approximately 111 miles of distance on land or 60 nautical miles at sea. The Palace of Westminster is situated approximately 51 degrees, 8 minutes of latitude north and zero degrees, 1 minute of longitude west of Greenwich.
As the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, has said, sunrise today was at 8 a.m. or 8.03, and sunset was at 15 minutes past four in the afternoon, whereas in Inverness which, as I said earlier, is at latitude 57 degrees, 20 minutes north and longitude 4 degrees, 20 minutes east of Greenwich, the sun rose at 8.16 but set one hour earlier than in London at 15.23 hours. People imply that Inverness will always have a much later sunrise than London, but that is not always the case.
By acknowledging those facts, my intention is to establish two points. The first is that this Bill, like its predecessors, is primarily intended to assist those who travel and communicate over large distances for business or for pleasure. The second point is that for those to whom the first point does not apply—that is, those who remain mainly at one location and do not have to do business over the telephone with Europe or the rest of the world—the effects of the Bill will be minimal. Those people will notice merely that it is lighter for longer in the afternoons rather than in the mornings during the winter months.
I make no criticism, but if a survey were made of Members of another place it is doubtful whether there would be a majority who could give either the longitude or latitude of their constituency or, indeed, who would know whether the clocks are to be put forward or backwards at the end of March. I mean no disrespect. That point was made in the consultative document on the subject in 1989; namely, that in general people were not conscious of the daily basis of whether the time standard was GMT, GMT+1 or GMT+2. Perhaps noble Lords present would indicate whether they know that. Perhaps they will nod if it is GMT, raise their hands if they think it is GMT+1 or raise both hands if they think it is GMT+2. I should be very surprised if we received a general answer. It may be that the noble Viscount when he winds up will put us right on that matter.
The only section of the population that is concerned with the time standard is the travelling public and the business community, as I have said. It is since travel and communications have been speeded up that greater opportunity has been given to many people to travel to the Continent of Europe and beyond which had been hitherto unavailable. The opening of the Channel Tunnel and the European rail service has extended connections with Europe to many more people than would previously have been possible.
I wonder whether the noble Baroness who is to reply—although it was supposed to be the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who was present when we debated the Summer Time Order in this House—will agree that the reasons for making a change in the status quo as outlined in the noble Viscount's Bill are precisely the same reasons which brought about the introduction of the time standard in the middle of the last century. Apparently not. It would appear from a letter that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, wrote to the chairman of
266
Daylight Extra Now on 10th November that there are many other reasons why she does not agree. The letter says that,
"there are broader political considerations of national identity and cohesion".
I wonder whether the noble Baroness can from the Home Office side expand a little more on what is meant by those words, especially in the light of the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and recorded in Hansard on 18th October 1994 (at col. 198) where she stated, when speaking about Central European Time,
"nor is this a party political issue".
Can the noble Baroness also tell us what is meant by the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, further on in the letter where she says:
"The views of the general population may also be more complex than … [those] revealed by an opinion poll. My office receives a steady flow of letters on this issue throughout the year"?
What is complex about asking thousands of travellers who now use Eurostar trains each day whether they want to alter their watches or portable computers by one hour on the outward journey and again on the way back? I should have thought that the answer for most of the population would be quite uncomplex. It has to be either yes or no. Does the Minister agree?
Further, can the noble Baroness say what her noble friend Lady Blatch meant in terms of numbers by the phrase,
"a steady stream of letters"?
Does that refer to more than one letter a day or is it more like one a month? How many of those letters does the noble Baroness's office receive in a year? How many bear the postmark, I wonder, of Tunbridge Wells or its equivalent? Further, can the noble Baroness divulge how many letters have stamped on their envelopes "The Society for the Preservation of Little England" or something similar? Can the noble Baroness also record how many letters in her postbag originate further north than latitude 56?
Earlier in the debate much was said about the important effect that the Bill would have on business. The noble Lord, Lord Howie, said that only a few business people in the City would be affected. Well, according to the City of London handout, A National Asset as it is called, more than 700,000 people work in banking or financial services. It is precisely those areas that the Central European Time Bill will affect and improve. It will improve their business. I see that the noble Lord wishes to respond. I give way.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, when I said a few, I really meant a small proportion of the 55 million or so people who live in the country. Incidentally, I do not imagine that the 700,000 people to whom the noble Lord refers spend their days on the telephone to Europe.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, that may be the point. I am glad that the noble Lord raised it. The daily turnover of the foreign exchange is 300 billion dollars. Its business will be increased by 20 per cent. per day by the increase in trading hours with Europe. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Howie, thinks that a mere 60 billion dollars a day is peanuts when it comes to turnover or business. The same applies to Lloyd's of London. Its turnover is £25

267
million a day in the insurance market. It is said that that will be increased by another 20 per cent. which would make another £8 million a day available. I do not have the exact numbers for the Stock Exchange, but on my calculations—which I admit may not be accurate—a 20 per cent. increase in the turnover of equity per day by trading in Europe would be 1.6 billion dollars a day. They are not small figures. It is small wonder that the City of London has not become the financial centre of Europe; indeed, it should have done but for the simple reason that businessmen working in financial and banking services will lose up to 20 per cent. of the business when they are operating to Frankfurt or Düsseldorf.
Such considerations may apply for only a few businessmen, so it is said, but in terms of the national economy I believe that it is extremely important that the issue should not be overlooked. I believe that the CBI and the City of London should perhaps do more than they are doing at present to persuade politicians of the importance of the Bill now before your Lordships' House.
I conclude with one point which I have raised previously. What are the attitudes of the three political parties? Not one of them has come out with a definite statement on where they stand on Central European Time. The Government have offered only a consultative document which is now destined, as noble Lords have said, to procrastinate as a definite policy. There are many people outside the Palace of Westminster who actually have to operate—and I use the word reservedly—in the real world. We have to get things done with real people who have real businesses. This kind of thing is pathetic.
Then there is Her Majesty's Official Opposition. They are prepared to offer great things to revitalise and even review the constitution of your Lordship's House and, indeed, to do something about devolution. But what are they going to do about Central European Time as a party? I do not know; I have not heard.
What about the good old Liberal Democrats—the great Europeans? Have they committed themselves definitely to supporting the noble Viscount officially as a party? When all things are said and done, I do not believe it is morally or ethically right that this question should be left to the individual judgment of individual Members of Parliament, or indeed individual noble Lords. Members of Parliament are not competent as individuals to make that judgment. If he has to get elected, no individual Member of another place at election time will risk losing votes by misunderstanding this subject which is quite complex in many ways, although its effects are extremely simple.
I think there is a failure here in the political system. The noble Viscount has put this Bill before us with much persistence. But what is being done about it by the party managers? The party managers seem to be worried that this may affect their political chances in an election. I think that is a totally wrong and immoral view for any political party to take on an issue of this kind. I would like the noble Baroness to be much more specific than to say that the policy is to procrastinate. I wish she would give the noble Viscount far greater
268
credit than has been given so far as regards the importance of this Bill because of the numbers of people it affects. Any political party which for doubtful reasons of short-term political gain does not wholeheartedly support Britain's adoption of Central European Time does a disservice to the nation as a whole and to the British travelling and business communities in particular.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, as he has criticised me twice in his speech, I hope I may put one question to him. He has wrung our hearts with tales of how tough life is for people who have to travel to Paris or Brussels and back in a day and have to alter their watches once on the way out and once on the way back. What about the people who for years and years and years have been travelling from Chicago to Detroit and back whom I mentioned who also have to alter their watches twice but do not seem to worry about it?
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I think that is their problem. I am talking about British Time and European Time. The position in Chicago is the problem of the people living there and it is for their Congress to sort out. It is not for us to sort out.
9.16 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I hope I may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, who gave us a fascinating and technical exposition, that some of us know that we are now on GMT. At this moment we are on GMT during the British winter. It is quite possible that not only do Members of another place not understand the difference between longitude and latitude but that quite a few members of the population do not understand these things either. That, of course, is a slightly different issue from the one we are addressing tonight.
Like many noble Lords, I agree that we owe a great debt to my noble friend Lord Mountgarret for his persistence and for his comprehensive introduction to this important Bill. He has certainly been involved in this matter for a very long time. I have been following this debate with great interest and have kept the score. The score so far—not counting my noble friend—from the Back Benches, or from those who have spoken since he spoke, is four speakers have spoken in favour and five against. I wish to reassure my noble friend that I am wholly on his side, which makes the score equal, although I suspect that my noble friend Lord Burton, judging by the various noises I have heard him make during the course of the debate, will be against.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, that confirms it. When we reach the wind-up speeches from the Front Benches, the score will be six against and four in favour. However, that does not mean to say that this is not a very important issue. I believe it is important for a number of reasons which have been put particularly cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I meant to say the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. A number of reasons

269
have also been expressed particularly cogently by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, lucidly put the business arguments. Those arguments were supported by my noble friend Lord Mountevans. Those are vital arguments.
However, I thought it was particularly interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, should mention his initiative of 28 years ago, which unfortunately failed. It is greatly regrettable that we were not able to continue with that. The noble Lord also reminded us that during the war, for very good reasons, we instituted exactly what is being proposed tonight and it worked because it was more efficient. Indeed it is this whole matter of efficiency which is so important.
We have heard, as one might expect in your Lordships' House, a good deal about the racing industry. I believe that more will be said on that matter. As I understand what has been said in the debate so far, it seems that the punters are in favour of the Bill and the workers are against it. Later we shall hear from the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, who is a most successful trainer. I would remind the workers that it is, of course, ultimately the punters who are the customers and who pay for the whole damn thing. Therefore, ultimately, I suppose they are rather an important element. Perhaps it should be a case of the customers' interests prevailing, but we shall see what happens.
I have little to add because so much has been said and my noble friend Lord Mountgarret's introduction was so extremely comprehensive. However, I should like to make one point to him. There is an obvious psychological obstacle arising from calling the Bill the Central European Time Bill. I wonder whether he would consider at a later stage substituting "Western European Time", because that might have a more favourable connotation in the minds of the public.
Secondly, my noble friend has been extremely persistent over the years. However, with his long service in this House he should have known that when any government, whatever its colour, is "actively considering the matter" that is Whitehall-speak for "nothing is happening whatsoever". That has been proven time and time again. On the Front Bench this evening we have my noble friend Lady Trumpington, who is a very vigorous and dynamic female. I hope that we can rely on her to put her weight (and I speak metaphorically) behind this measure so that some progress is made. She has a reputation for getting things done, and this is a matter on which something needs to be done now and the sooner the measure is on the statute book the better.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that 15 degrees of longitude was the division between an hour of time. That coincides with my information. I have discovered that the Central European Time zone presently covers 30 degrees of longitude. Therefore, it already covers twice that distance. We would be adding almost all of England west of Greenwich, Scotland another 3 or 5 degrees further west, the Western Isles 6 and 7 degrees further
270
west, and Northern Ireland a further 7 to 8 degrees further west. Do we consider only the south east of England, or the British Isles as a whole?
It is not often realised that not only Bristol but also Carlisle is east of Edinburgh. Nearly all of France is east of Scotland. Belfast is west of Land's End. The further north one goes the shorter the hours of daylight in winter, and thus the shorter the acceptable variations in time that are available.
I am not sure whether I heard him correctly, but I was rather amazed when the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, said that the working class start work in the dark anyway and therefore it did not matter. I was rather shaken. I did not expect to hear that kind of remark.
The trial period prior to 1971 was rejected as unsatisfactory. I cannot see why we should now be returning to the debate and trying to revert to something which was rejected only in 1971.
We were told that Scotland was 80 per cent. against a change, and quite rightly. But to get round that the noble Viscount has sought to give Scotland a different time band from England. That is crazy. If it were to apply to Scotland then why not to Northern Ireland?
Had my noble friend's proposal been in effect today I should have had to get up at 4.45 this morning to catch my plane. As it was, I had to get up at 5.45, but that is another story because I slept in. I just made it. To ask those in the north to get up at a quarter to five in the morning in order to come to London is not very kind.
If Scotland was on a different time band what would happen to the Scottish financial markets, which are very important? I do not think that Glasgow and Edinburgh would be pleased to be on a different time band from London, which is what would happen. Why should they be on a different time band from London when London does not want to be on a different band from Paris? If the whole UK were on CET, we would be in even further trouble. It was said that tourism would benefit. However, I am sure that the Scottish ski resorts would suffer severely if they had very dark mornings. They are not happy about the issue. They are an important part of tourism in Scotland.
I thought that the arguments put forward by the noble Viscount on agriculture and the building trade were completely fallacious, as were those regarding children going to school.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive my intervening for one moment, I do not believe that I referred to the building trade. Therefore I do not believe that I put forward a fallacious argument.
Lord Burton: My Lords, the noble Lord certainly did so regarding agriculture. He spoke about seeing to machinery before going out to work. It is not nice playing about with machinery on a lousy morning. I believe that the building trade was referred to by noble Lords on the other side. However, quite rightly, the building trade will suffer severely if we accept the proposal.
On a lighter vein, I told my keeper yesterday that I was coming down for the debate. He said, "Goodness, my Lord, I hope that their Lordships will not agree to

271
that proposal. I shouldn't be able to feed my pheasants until 10 o'clock. They wouldn't be off the roost". I believe that it would be quite wrong and rather selfish to seek to treat Scotland in this manner. Throughout the debate it has become clear that Scotland would suffer. To pass this Bill would be manna from heaven for the Scottish National Party. The noble Viscount said that he was in favour of a United Kingdom. But this proposal plays into the hands of those who want to divide the United Kingdom. It is playing into the hands of those who want a separate Scotland. Let us consider newspaper headlines. They might state, "The English Parliament passes legislation highly damaging to Scotland. Schoolchildren put at great risk", and so on.
The question arises as to whether we should divide the House tonight. I know that that is seldom done on Second Reading. However, there are precedents and it is seldom that we debate such a damaging Bill as this. I feel tempted to divide to see what support there is. We are told that the issue is evenly balanced. I believe that it is wrong that real hardship should be inflicted on some people, although it is a minority, so that others have more time to enjoy themselves in the evening.
9.28 p.m.
The Earl of Huntingdon: My Lords, as an unlisted speaker in the gap, I realise that I have a particular duty to be brief. I thank my noble friends Lord Burnham and Lord Crawshaw for allowing me to make my point without being too repetitive.
The noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, referred to punters paying. It is certainly a weighty argument. But in fact evening racing at present is less profitable in the betting shops than afternoon racing. In a recent survey published two days ago 78 per cent. of the British Betting Office Association were opposed to evening racing.
Speaking as a professional in the racing industry, I suppose that I should be expected to support the Bill. In our narrow world I can see the advantages of the availability of more evening fixtures for the racegoing public. But many trainers and stable staff breathe a sigh of relief when the last evening meeting at Windsor traditionally takes place in late August. That is after four months of five o'clock starts in the morning and late night returns after both day and evening racing.
My northern training colleagues in particular would be seriously inconvenienced by a later start to the morning in winter when they have to supervise their horses' exercise before going off to the races. Unlike the dairy farmers in their milking parlours, the gallops are not floodlit. Most of those colleagues are responsible enough to seek to avoid the worst of the business traffic and any confrontation with cars. A later start in the morning would make that task very difficult for them.
It would seem that our views would place us in the 4 per cent. minority—but quite a vocal one.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, we have had a lively and instructive debate on what is clearly a controversial issue. We are much indebted to the noble Viscount for having persisted in raising the issue, so long unresolved,
272
and in using the device of a Private Member's Bill to enable us to have this further debate tonight. I hope that the Bill will go through its succeeding stages.
The issue is certainly not new. One can say that it has been with us for decades. The first time the matter of Summer Time was debated in Parliament was 1908; British Summer Time was introduced in 1916, during the First World War, and double Summer Time in 1941 in the Second World War. Then there was the experiment to which my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead so graphically referred, at the time when he was Home Secretary, between 1968 and 1971.
That all demonstrates that the question of Summer Time has evolved over the years and there is no reason at all why, if we come to the conclusion that there should be a further change, we should not have one. It is not something which has always been in the shape it has now.
I believe that the Green Paper which appeared in 1989 was one of the most balanced documents on such a subject that I have read. It set out the issues clearly and if the document were to be written today it would, in my opinion, be in much the same style. We have allowed five years to go by without coming to a conclusion.
The Green Paper looked at the issue from the point of view of the impact which the proposed changes might have, the main change being to move to single double Summer Time—the phrase that has been adopted for Central European Time. I was particularly struck by what the Green Paper said about road accidents. I know that some doubt has been expressed by noble Lords on the subject, but the evidence seems fairly clear from the work done by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. In recent Questions in another place, very specific Answers were given by the Government on the impact which double British Summer Time might have on road accidents. For example, in 1993 an Answer stated that, based on the 1991 road accident data, the Road Research Laboratory estimated that a total of 29 fatalities, 125 serious injuries and 140 lesser injuries to children under the age of 16 could be avoided in Great Britain if double Summer Time were adopted.
If one used no other argument, it seems to me that, if true, the matter of life and death is a powerful argument. The research has been done; indeed, the Government reiterated that statement in a later Answer. I feel justified in stating those facts because they are the kind of considerations that we should bear in mind when examining such an issue. They indicate that in estimating the position that could arise by the year 2005, with road fatalities, the introduction of double Summer Time would reduce road fatalities among children up to the age of 15, in that case, by something like 4 per cent. Those are serious considerations and as they are supported on the basis of the work done by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory I think that everyone must take them very seriously indeed. If the

273
figures can be properly challenged on the basis of equivalent, detailed, scientific investigation, let that be done. But so far, they have not.
Lord Burton: My Lords, perhaps I may just ask the noble Lord: are these UK figures, or are they figures for England and Wales? Where do the figures come from? On cold, dark mornings a child rushing to school will clearly be at far greater risk than at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, when it should be awake.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that these are UK figures given by the Government. No doubt the noble Baroness will be able to confirm them when she speaks. They are government figures and can be found in Hansard.
The next issue is that of saving energy, in which I have some interest. There is not the slightest doubt—again based on the work that was done in the Green Paper and subsequently confirmed—that there would be considerable savings in lighting costs. At a time when the Government are committed to saving energy and to meeting their climate warming objectives, this is an important consideration.
Reference has been made to tourism. The latest estimates are that this change could lead to an extra £1 billion of earnings from tourism. I should have thought that that was a matter of some importance to a trading nation.
The report also referred to improved leisure facilities, particularly for elderly people. Then, of course, there are the commercial benefits to which various speakers have referred—the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and others.
The report also sets out the arguments against the proposal —and sets them out very fairly. But its conclusion is worth quoting. Having set out on page 26 the arguments against the proposal, it then states:
"It is not clear, however, how decisive these arguments are. The available evidence, though incomplete, does not support the theory that SDST [Single Double Summer Time] would result in more accidents, crime or lost production in winter".
Indeed, the contrary could well be the case.
Therefore, at the very least the debate is still open. At the very least we had in the Green Paper of five years ago a most important document. It is regrettable that five years have elapsed, during which time we have not reached a decision. I hope the noble Baroness will tell the House that after that period of five years' gestation the Government are on the point of concluding.
9.37 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, one can tell at a glance that the Central European Time Bill is not a government Bill. First, it is contained easily on a single sheet of paper. Secondly, it is in plain English and can be readily understood without employing the services of a lawyer. The noble Viscount deserves the congratulations of this House, not just for his brevity and clarity, but also for his truly exceptional patience in this matter.
274
I hope that the House will forgive me—although it has heard already tonight something of the history—if I produce some further edited highlights which perhaps give some indication of the reasons why the noble Viscount has at last had to resort to introducing this Bill himself.
But first I have a warning. Anyone who hopes, in looking at the history of this matter, to gain from this sorry story reassurance about the consultative and legislative process must prepare themselves for disappointment. Anyone who hopes to hear the sound of the smack of firm government will strain their ears in vain. For I am afraid that this is a tale of dithering indecision and is as good an illustration of the politics of prevarication and, quite frankly, pusillanimous procrastination as one could hope to find even in the annals of the present Administration.
I shall not go back in history to the bygone age, the golden age, before there were daily calls for the resignation of the Home Secretary of the day. I shall start in August 1987, when, the European Commission having made proposals for summer time arrangements across the Community, the Home Office commissioned its first survey of interest groups. Unfortunately, the Home Office gave five options for consideration. The result, perhaps predictably, was that the Home Office could not understand the results that it obtained or, as it put it on page 6 of its consultative document:
"Putting forward five options led to difficulty in the interpretation of replies".
So a year later the Government tried again and in 1988 a second survey was commissioned. This time they wisely cut the options down to three. Nobody can complain that they were not consulted about this matter back in 1988. Everybody was consulted. There were 410 different interest groups which took advantage of the offer and responded. They ranged from Lloyd's of London to the Bee Farmers Association, the Briar Pipe Trade Association, the British Edible Pulse Association, the Friends of the Earth, the Ice Cream Alliance Limited, the National Federation of Fish Friers and the Zip Fastener Manufacturers Association. From Scotland too the responses poured in. Groups which, on the face of it, would appear to have nothing obvious in common —groups such as the Ladies Scottish Climbing Club, the Scotch Whisky Association and the Scottish Accident Prevention Council—all submitted the same view. No more extensive consultation could possibly have been undertaken —one may think on reading the consultative document—than was then undertaken by that government. The overwhelming majority of those who made submissions or were consulted favoured the adoption of Central European Time back in June 1989, some five years ago.
So what did the Government then decide to do? As we now know, the answer was, nothing. On page 27 of the consultative document they say:
"This paper is intended to stimulate discussion on the issue and the options to assist the Government in reaching a decision".
That passage was headed "Conclusion"; but it was, of course, nothing of the sort. It was just the beginning, because the Government then went away to decide.

275
Perhaps we can now fast-forward the action three years and come to 14th July 1992. We find the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, at the Dispatch Box, on that occasion asking for a further two years of the status quo and using these words:
"to enable the Government to complete their consideration of the options".—[Official Report, 14/7/92; col. 199.]
The noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, was beginning to be restive by that time but he bit his tongue and kept his seat. Six months more passed and in December 1992 the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, could bear the waiting no longer. He asked the Government if they would please expedite this review urgently in view of the single European market beginning early in 1993 and the forthcoming Channel Tunnel. But he was told by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers:
"We shall bring forward our proposals when the approach of the Commission is clear".
That was something of a surprise to those who heard him because there had been no one in any doubt about the views of the Commission since 1987.
By 19th January 1994—a year later—the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, could no longer remain silent. He asked whether the Government would now take action. On that occasion the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was characteristically decisive. He told the House:
"I cannot say when a decision will be made".—[Official Report, 19/1/94; col. 712.]
So yet another year has passed. The noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, has finally snapped and introduced the Bill himself. Tonight, the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, has been sent to hold the reins of this somewhat difficult and troublesome hobbyhorse which has so far refused to face the obstacle of decision that is in front of us.
It is perfectly fair—the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, rubbed salt in the wound this evening with regard to this matter—that opinion on the merits of this proposed legislation is divided. I believe that it crosses all party lines and when I express support for the Bill—which I do without reservation—I express my personal point of view. There are others on these Benches, in addition to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, who do not wish to see change. I am bound to say that, over the passage of the past year and in the light of the concession the noble Viscount makes in his Bill in relation to Scotland, the noble Lord, Lord Howie, appears to have changed from acting as champion of the Scots to championing the cause of the Irish—though the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, did not seem unduly troubled by that aspect of the matter.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend realises that the Scottish and the Northern Irish are the same.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I can see that there are similarities between the noble Lord and the noble Baroness; but there are also marked differences!
For myself, when France is only a short distance from Waterloo Station; when we are well and truly part of a single market; when our business links with Europe
276
grow daily closer, whatever people's personal views about that; and when people like the noble Baroness are commuting regularly to and fro for work and for pleasure, it seems to me that business, travel, communications and tourism would be greatly eased and simplified if we shared the same time as our close European neighbours. In addition, there is abundant evidence that the majority of people, at any rate in England and Wales and probably in Scotland too, want that change.
Quite apart from business benefits and benefits for those who travel, those who live here would enjoy considerable benefits also. There is of course the important road safety consideration to which both the noble Viscount, Lord Mountevans, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred. The figures mentioned are plainly those for the whole of the United Kingdom. It is clear also that there would be substantial savings in things like lighting costs and considerable unappreciated benefits in the field of tourism, sport and leisure, to which a number of noble Lords referred. There may perhaps be a side benefit. Who knows, if Members of another place who took advantage of the offer to try the Eurostar train to Paris before the service began, and missed the return train, might not have had to be flown home if Her Majesty's Government had acted earlier and synchronised their watches for them? But it may be that they were delayed admiring the winter sunset over the coffee cups, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, said, and lost track of time.
Of course the decision the Government face is a difficult one. Some may say that it is an almost impossible one because it is bound to upset someone. They have therefore shied away from taking any decision of any sort. It is not possible in this area to please both the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, who spoke so eloquently of the troubles of the dairy farmer on a cold winter morning, and the Milk Marketing Board and the Royal Agricultural Society, which took the opposite view when they responded to the consultative document. It is not possible to please both the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and the British Clock and Watch Manufacturers' Association, who appear to hold a different view, so far as I can understand the consultative document on that matter. It is not possible to please both the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, on the one hand, and the Horse Racing Advisory Council and the British horseracing board on the other, who take the other view.
I therefore sympathise considerably with the Government. But once more tonight we are in the position where—to use the equestrian motif, because racing played a considerable part in the speeches of a number of noble Lords—the reluctant horse is again before us. I hope that tonight things will be different. I hope that, with the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, in the saddle, things will change. I hope particularly, since the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, is now standing on the other side of the hurdle, having led the way and shown how the Government should do it and particularly as he is standing holding a carrot in his hand in the form of an exclusion for Scotland, which may decide to opt back into the Bill at a later stage if it so

277
wishes or stay out if it so prefers (as indeed can the pheasants of the noble Lord, Lord Burton, if they so wish) that tonight we shall see a decision from the Government.
I should prefer the noble Baroness to tell us that the Government will, if not support the Bill, at least let it have a fair passage and ensure that there is time in another place so that a proper debate can take place. If she cannot do that, I should prefer her to say that the Government have decided not to advance this legislation than to hear yet again that the Government are going away to consider what they might or might not do. Can we please have a decision tonight?
9.50 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, one could say, "Here we go again!" I congratulate my noble friend Lord Mountgarret on initiating a Bill on an issue which never fails to produce a lively exchange, reflecting as it does the strong opinions held; and today's debate has been no exception. Before I endeavour to tackle the subject, I must make my noble friend Lady Blatch's sincere apologies for not being here this evening. She is abroad on important government business. So I am afraid that your Lordships will have to put up with me, not as a shining Lady Godiva on horseback but as a pusillanimous pig in the middle.
It is clear that there are those who share my noble friend's certainty that at least part of the United Kingdom would derive great benefit from the adoption of Central European Time, or single/double Summer Time. There remain others who have spoken in the debate, and some who may not have been represented this evening, who feel equally strongly that the balance of advantage is less clear-cut and that we can manage very well with the status quo. Incidentally, for the benefit of my noble friend Lord Montgomery, I make the voting in today's debate eight for and seven against.
I note that, while the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, made great play with the fact that, for reasons I have given and will give, the Government are taking time to consider the matter, she had finally to confess that the Official Opposition, too, have yet to reach a conclusion on the matter. I would venture to stress that it is not a matter of party politics, because opinion is immensely varied, as we have again seen this evening.
In response to my noble friend Lord Mountgarret, I must tell him that the 1989 Green Paper did not produce a clear view. Excluding petitions which were generated by pressure groups, just 50 per cent. favoured SDST and 49 per cent. favoured the status quo. In reply to the reference of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, to opinion poll results, the Government are concerned about public opinion but cannot allow it to be the sole guide. The recent NOP survey used a method of quota sampling and the result for Scotland was taken from a sample of just 93 persons.
I am well aware that the Government have been considering this issue for some time. I know that many Members of your Lordships' House are anxious for a decision to be made: but only if it is in line with their own views. The diverse opinions expressed in this
278
House are reflected in the correspondence which Ministers receive, and your Lordships may be interested to know that, despite the recent campaign conducted by such organisations as Daylight Extra Now and supported by sections of the press, these letters continue to be evenly split between those who favour change and those who equally vehemently argue for the status quo. That is why the Government continue to keep the issue under consideration. To answer one of the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, the office of my noble friend Lady Blatch receives hundreds of letters a year from all over the country.
What we have to consider is whether there is a clear advantage to be gained from adopting Central European Time in place of the status quo—that is, Greenwich Mean Time in the winter months and GMT plus one hour in the summer. If there is, there remain further questions which need to be answered.
Is the advantage sufficient to justify change? Does the advantage accrue disproportionately to one part of the population and impose unacceptable penalties on another? Is the balance of advantage one which the Government can accept for the country as a whole? These are issues which the Government cannot brush aside.
The Government have a duty to consider all the implications of a decision which would affect the lives of every citizen of this country. Many different issues have been raised this evening and I do not propose to rehearse them all now, but I should comment on some of the more notable of them.
It is often said that the most persuasive argument in favour of a move to CET is that relating to road traffic casualties. My noble friend Lord Mountgarret produced some impressive figures. The most recent Transport Research Laboratory figures estimate a net reduction in road traffic casualties of 140 deaths and 2,000 casualties, including 520 serious injuries, each year. The RTL estimates have taken account of recent changes in driving habits, but are based on direct experience which dates back to the 1968–1971 experiment with British Standard Time. I can confirm that the RTL figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, are based on a model for Great Britain as a whole.
While those in favour of a move to CET quite fairly point to the potential saving of road casualties, there are others who are equally concerned that the adoption of CET would endanger the lives of certain groups of workers. The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, has pointed out the serious nature of some of these concerns. For those, such as farmers, construction workers, postmen and milkmen, who start work outdoors early, the increased risk of accidents could be considerable and the impact would be greater the further north and west one goes. That is one reason why the Scandinavian

279
experience is not as directly relevant to the United Kingdom as my noble friend Lord Mountevans might suggest.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I came here to listen and to learn. Can the Minister say whether the apprehensions which she has mentioned were borne out by experience during the war?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, no, I cannot say that. I know that they are based on experiments that went on after the war. I cannot confirm that they include wartime experiences. The noble and learned Lord will be aware that I was around at that time, too. I shall write to him. I am worried about the time.
My noble friend Lord Mountgarret touched on the subject of crime. The extension of daylight hours in the evening and its effects on the fear of crime is hard to quantify, but we do know that the elderly and women in particular are fearful of walking alone in the dark. Nevertheless, the fear of crime has much wider causes than a lack of daylight, and there may be some force in the view that, in some cases, better street lighting, which provides a benefit throughout the year, could contribute as much, if not more, to improving the sense of security felt by vulnerable groups.
It has also been said that the leisure and tourist industries stand to benefit from a move to CET. The benefits would be generated by an additional hour of daylight in the evenings rather than the early morning, when most people are in bed or at work. The Government welcome greater participation in outdoor pursuits and I am personally aware that the British Horseracing Board is a supporter of a change which would extend the evening racing season, but I recognise that there are other cases. Indeed, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, and the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, some sections of the racing industry are against change. There are other groups such as hill walkers who may prefer lighter mornings. However, indoor sports and exercise programmes have also seen rapid growth in recent years and these sources of well-being are unaffected by a lack of daylight.
Turning to transport, I am happy to say that the problems for carriers will be eased by one recent decision which was welcomed in all parts of your Lordships' House. Our partners in the European Union have now agreed to adopt common start and end dates to Summer Time with effect from 1996. This harmonisation, which will remove an irksome anomaly is, I know, particularly welcome to the transport industry. Timetables for the increasing amount of traffic between the United Kingdom and continental Europe would indeed be simpler still if we shared a common time zone but it would not make any difference to the real time of the journey and it is an adjustment which international travellers and businessmen are used to making on journeys to a variety of destinations.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, produced some very interesting figures on air travel to and from Europe. While we are on the subject of business travel, I should perhaps also mention the possible effects on international business and finance of a change to the status quo. On the one hand, the adoption of CET would
280
bring the working hours of the United Kingdom more closely into line with those of our major trading partners in continental Europe (although different business practices would prevent a perfect match). It would also provide an overlap with countries in the Pacific rim. On the other hand, such a change would deprive business of the one-hour overlap with the working day in North America and the advantage this gives us in that market over our European competitors. But then it may also be argued that such calculations are themselves behind the times, if your Lordships will forgive the expression. Do office working hours really matter so much in a business environment which is operational around the clock? Both the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and Lord Howie of Troon, referred to the existence of a number of time zones in the United States although for different reasons. Does business on the east coast of America suffer because of the time difference with the west coast?
To set against the advantages put forward in favour of CET, not all of which are quite as clear-cut as the speech of my noble friend Lord Mountgarret might suggest, supporters of the status quo highlight a number of specific disadvantages which would flow from its adoption. The status quo itself is the standard for comparison. It is well established and well understood.
The arguments in favour of maintaining present arrangements are more than the attraction of familiarity, but defenders of the status quo are right when they say that familiarity in itself counts for something. Strong and compelling reasons are required to justify altering a system with which everyone is perfectly at home, if not perfectly happy, and the cost and benefits to all parts of the country must be carefully weighed up.
Those who are opposed to change, as well as questioning the size of the benefits claimed for CET have argued that such benefits which could accrue to certain sections of the community and parts of the country would be at the expense of increased dangers and inconvenience to others. It is undoubtedly true that those people living and working in the northernmost parts of the United Kingdom would suffer from a form of double detriment with the adoption of CET. Not only would they have darker mornings for more months of the year, but they would also be bathed in daylight in midsummer up to and even beyond midnight in some places—certainly beyond the point of any conceivable benefit to sporting or tourist interests.
But it is not only a matter of geography which distinguishes the opponents of a change. Other groups within the United Kingdom object on diverse grounds. The Orthodox Jewish community is concerned that any change would adversely impinge on its hours of prayer, and some mothers of small children dread the extension of light summer evenings.
I have so far concentrated on the general question of CET versus the status quo and have been speaking on those matters in relation to their application to the country as a whole, as I believe is right. I must now come back to the detail of my noble friend's Bill and specifically to the fact that it suggests that change could be introduced without application to Scotland. In an

281
earlier debate on this issue one of the opponents of CET, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, did indeed suggest that that was a possible answer.
What exactly would be the effect of my noble friend's Bill? It would create two time zones in the United Kingdom, thereby setting up a series of new barriers to trade and communication within the United Kingdom itself. There are both technical and practical objections to this proposal.
The technical background was explained fully by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw. But perhaps I may say that time zones occur ordinarily only in countries which are very wide from east to west, as in the case of Australia, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. In the UK the greater part of Scotland falls within the same degrees of longitude as the rest of the country, a situation which would not normally suggest the need for a separate time zone. That last point was amply explored by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead.
In addition, the practical difficulties and anomalies which would arise from the creation of a separate time zone for Scotland must surely rule it out of consideration. First, there would be the creation of a new difficulty for our transport systems between Scotland and the rest of the UK arising from the time difference. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, gave us some examples of peculiarities which exist near his home. The likely solution to this would be a transport system operating on London time in the same way as much US transport operates on New York Central Time. Potentially that would create two time systems within Scotland. In addition, the present mismatch of working hours with Europe would be transferred to business between Scotland and the rest of the country and a company's London office would need to remember that when phoning colleagues in Glasgow or Edinburgh and vice versa.
The Government have never accepted that that is an issue of Scotland versus the rest of the United Kingdom. Opinions are divided across the nation and across the parties, as I said. Not only are there many people throughout England and Wales who support the status quo; there are many in Scotland also in favour of change. It is within that context that political questions of national identity and cohesion referred to by my noble friend Lady Blatch and questioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, arise. Whatever decision the Government reach, it must be applied to the UK as a whole.
In no aspect of this question are the answers clear-cut. The Government must be sure of reaching the right answer, even if in seeking it we take longer than some Members of your Lordships' House would wish. I feel now rather like that girl in the song which the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, once quoted:
"She didn't say yes; she didn't say no".
This is a Private Member's Bill and the Government do not therefore propose to vote against it. We continue to listen to representations and to consider them. We shall be listening with particular attention to the arguments presented by your Lordships during the
282
proceedings on the Bill. We have not rejected the arguments for change, but neither are we so convinced by them that we wish to act on this matter now.
10.9 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, in view of the time, which were we on CET would be 10-past 11 and we should have finished, I hope, a very good dinner and be on our way to bed, I shall try to be brief. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not refer to every point made by noble Lords.
Perhaps I may deal first with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, who, alas, I see has had to leave, and the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Both made the same point about Northern Ireland. They were concerned as to whether or not the people of Northern Ireland would be happy about the Bill. All I can say to those noble Lords is that 75 per cent. of the responses received from Northern Ireland were in favour of adopting Central European Time.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, went on to ask about the people of Bristol, the West Country and so on. I do not know but again all I can tell him is that according to the responses, in Cornwall, 90 per cent. are in favour; in Devon and Dorset, 70 per cent. are in favour; and in Somerset, 75 per cent. are in favour. I should have thought that that put paid to that anxiety.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, made a suggestion which appeals greatly. He may remember that that is where I started from some years ago; namely, an extension of Summer Time. That would be a very satisfactory way of dealing with the matter. Unfortunately, since that ball was put up into the air, we find that we have to obey many directives from Brussels. One of those directives provided that we must change our clocks at the same time as they do. Therefore, that would not appear to be an available option because it would appear that we cannot operate differently.
Lord Monson: My Lords, perhaps the noble Viscount will forgive me for interrupting. I was suggesting that we should try to persuade our partners in Europe of the merits of changing Summer Time across Europe, not only in the EC countries but in all European countries.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord but I do not know whether there is anyone with powers which are sufficient to persuade the officials and mandarins in Brussels to move once a decision has been made.
My noble friend Lord Montgomery suggested that we might refer to it as Western European Time rather than Central European Time. I am sure that he will know how to deal with that matter at a later stage were your Lordships kind enough to give the Bill a fair run.
I knew that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and my noble friend Lord Burton were not entirely happy with the proposals. However, I am amazed to find myself so much in agreement with them. I agree with my noble friend Lady Trumpington that it would not be a very happy situation to have two time zones in the United

283
Kingdom. But, as I said in my opening remarks, I should like to see the representations of Scotland made first to opt into the Bill rather than to include Scotland automatically when one knows that there is contention and differences of opinion so that it then must take the more difficult route of opting out. That is all I say. I agree with those noble Lords about that.
I am grateful for most of the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. I do not believe that she is entirely fair when she joins forces with me to criticise the Government about their inaction and not showing their hand. After all, I am not sure that her party has any definitive views as a matter of policy. The party to which I have the honour to belong also does not have any definitive views. Indeed, I am not sure that the Liberal Democrat Party as a whole has any definitive views, although I was extremely grateful for, and encouraged by, the excellent speeches made by the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and Lord Ezra.
I may be wrong but I sense that the general feeling running throughout the country is such that if one of the political parties were to wave the flag for the adoption of Central European Time, it might find its task at the next general election rather easier. I believe that it would be good to follow the route of adopting the same time as Europe.
Indeed, this Bill affects everybody in this country and, as I said, I appreciate that there are wide-ranging views and feelings of foul and beastly complexity. However, I feel that the Government are suffering from the inability
284
to grasp the nettle and make up their mind, primarily due to fear of the reaction of Scotsmen. It is a case of the Scottish tail wagging the English dog. I do not recommend referenda, but if the Government lack the courage to allow Parliament to deliberate then that has to be a logical course.
I do not believe that the Government lack courage to take decisions that might be unpopular with a minority of their citizens. They are bold enough, at times, to take decisions which are highly unpopular with the majority. They might do worse than to draw on the book written by Richard Pape, Boldness be my Friend. May that boldness be manifested in this matter.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
Presented and read a first time.

British Waterways Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past ten o'clock.