Lords Sitting of 18 May 1995

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Mine Clearance
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
In which countries the Overseas Development Administration is helping to finance mine clearance and mine-awareness projects.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we concentrate our funding on the worst affected countries such as Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, northern Iraq and Mozambique. We have also provided such assistance to north-west Somalia, Rwanda and Yemen.
Lord Judd: My Lords, is the Minister aware that what she has been doing so far to deal with this appalling situation is welcomed widely by the humanitarian agencies and those working with them, as I myself welcome it? Does she agree that the facts are grim: some 2,000 anti-personnel mine injuries worldwide, not least to children, each month; up to 1,500 consequent amputations each month; and long-term damage to agricultural production as large areas of land become impossible to farm? In the light of all that, will the Minister tell the House what new measures the Government will be proposing at the UN Inhumane Weapons Convention in September to bring an end to that sinister slaughter of the innocents and all the economic damage involved?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for his welcome for what we have been able to do so far. In the past four years we have spent some £15 million on mine clearance and making people aware of the existence of mines which can be anywhere where there has been armed conflict. There is always the danger of old hidden mines. Unfortunately other countries are unlike ourselves in that, where we use mines, as we did in the Gulf War and the Falklands, we clear them all up afterwards. In response to the noble Lord's other question, the figures are grim. They are very grim indeed. I am working to ensure that we take action. He asked me about new measures for the conference in September. We are now discussing what further action we can take, and I shall be in touch with him about that.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, first, perhaps I may thank the Minister for a visit she made on VE Day in Hyde Park to the Halo mine clearance organisation. It was received with interest, and her support is greatly appreciated. What steps do the Government take to ensure the future well-being of those very brave British volunteers who undertake the whole area of removing mines and making them safe in uncharted minefields? She met one of them who has no arm and no leg. What does her department do to insure for the future lives of those who are wounded or
662
disabled? Can she give some assurance that their lives are insured or partially insured by Her Majesty's Government?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the noble Viscount for what he said and for mentioning the Halo Trust. I pay tribute to it and all the other organisations which are so active with us in trying to clear mines. The noble Viscount asked me about the protection of those who go out to train others in mine clearance. Obviously serving officers in the British Forces who do some of that work are covered. It is up to the NGOs to provide the insurance for others. That is part of the whole matter at which we are looking. This work is incredibly badly needed when one thinks that there are some 80 million to 110 million land mines scattered through 62 countries. We must get on with this job, and I shall be doing all that I can to assist the process.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House that these land mines are no longer manufactured in or exported from this country?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the UK has neither produced nor exported anti-personnel land mines for several years. The agreement on 15th March extended the national export moratorium. There is now a total ban on the UK export of non-self-destructing and non-detectable anti-personnel land mines, and a ban on the export of all anti-personnel land mines to countries which have not ratified the 1981 UN Weaponry Convention. In some cases it is of course necessary to use land mines, but that will be rare. One example which I believe noble Lords will understand is a land border such as that between Finland and Russia, which for many years could not be policed except by the responsible use of land mines; Finland knowing where the land mines had been put. That is what we must aim for if there are any circumstances in which they have to be used.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend in a position to report on the progress of the clearance of mines in the charted areas in the Falkland Islands?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is my understanding that any mines that might have been laid by Her Majesty's Forces have been cleared away. There was a problem with mines which we believed to have been laid by others in the Falkland Islands. We hope that those have all been cleared away. Action was taken by the MoD to try to ensure that.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, may I put to the Minister that there is one simple—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am asking a question. Does the Minister accept that there is one simple policy which we should urge upon all countries, and that is that there should be a complete ban on the manufacture, sale and export of anti-personnel land mines, and that anything short of that will result in the continuing deaths and maiming of innocent people the world over?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is a noble aspiration that there could be one simple policy. I am afraid that the world is not as noble as the noble Lord,

663
Lord Dubs. We have a huge task to undertake to get rid of land mines. We are trying not to make it worse for the future by controlling, as I explained in answer to an earlier question, their production and export. As I said, the UK has neither produced nor exported anti-personnel land mines for several years. We cannot make, but we can encourage and are encouraging, other countries to do likewise.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, can the Minister give the House any information on the progress towards ratification of the two additional protocols of the Geneva Convention?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot at present, but it is hoped that a way will be found to ensure that those protocols can be ratified.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that members of the Royal British Legion are most concerned about the situation because many ex-sappers who have undertaken such work have lost their lives? It is a most dangerous job and if there are any issues in relation to this matter about which the Minister would like to talk to those in the British Legion they will be only too pleased.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that.

Channel 5
3.10 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
What criteria they will apply in granting the licence for Channel 5.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor):My Lords, the award of a Channel 5 licence is a matter for the Independent Television Commission. In considering applications, the ITC will take into account, among other things, the cash bid; programme quality and diversity; the sustainability of the service over the 10-year period of the licence; plans for retuning video and other equipment; and the restrictions on who may hold the licence contained in the Broadcasting Act 1990.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that all noble Lords must sympathise with the ITC because it has been landed with a most difficult problem? The bids that have been received are reported as being £36 million, £22 million, £22 million, and £2 million from BSkyB. Is my noble friend also aware that we hope that the amount of the bid will not be the most dominant and overall factor in the decision? We must take a long-term view and it is difficult for anyone accurately to forecast who will provide more entertainment for those people who watch television.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend made an important point. The ITC will have much to consider before reaching a decision. Bids will first need to pass the
664
ITC's quality threshold. Thereafter, the ITC will consider the details of the bidders' business plans, the cash bid and other programme commitments.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the wide range of the bids described by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, indicates that the present system is ludicrous and farcical? However, two of the bids were almost identical; they were within £2,000. Is that not clear evidence that when the Government introduce legislation relating to the future of the BBC they should introduce a proper broadcasting Bill which will reform and bring into proper order the Financial arrangements for awarding television contracts?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. The five bids ranged from more than £36 million down to £2 million and it is surprising that two of them happened to be of exactly the same amount. The number of bids indicate that several broadcasters are interested in the fifth channel. The size of the bids suggests that it will be a successful commercial channel.
The ITC has made it clear that, if for any reason the highest bid is ruled out and only the two tied bids are deemed to be acceptable, it will invite those who submitted the two tied bids to submit further bids in order to decide the outcome. The licence would then be awarded to the highest bidder.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the franchise bidding system not only as regards Channel 5 but the recent allocations of ITV Channel 3? Does he agree that we need a reversal of the priorities in the criteria for allocation? Would it not produce better television if, instead of the present situation in which the main consideration is the top price, accompanied by a quality threshold, the main emphasis was on quality once applicants had achieved a basic price threshold? For once can we not have quality put before money?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, is entirely right. The ITC must consider a number of aspects, which include quality and price, before reaching a decision. It is clear that the level of interest in Channel 5 shows that the Government were right to make the opportunity available so as to extend viewers' choice.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, do the Government consider that there have been marked improvements, following the highest bid factor, in what was considered to be the best commercial television service in the world? In other words, do they believe that it has produced any improvements?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend had a distinguished career in commercial television as chairman of Anglia Television. He would know better than I that it is for the ITC to make decisions about quality and franchising and not the Government. The Government's role is to set up the statutory framework which provides the rules under which the ITC must operate on behalf of the country.

Nurses' Morale
3.15 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the level of morale among National Health Service nurses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, it is always possible to do more for the morale of valued, professional staff. I am confident that giving individual nurses greater responsibilities and involving them more in the decisions that affect their work will continue to do much to raise morale.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is she aware that only this month nurses at the various conferences pledged themselves wholeheartedly to the National Health Service? Is she further aware that UNISON conducted a survey among its members and the Royal College of Nursing and found that there was concern that nurses were not getting a fair crack of the whip over pay increases? Could that matter at least be examined?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as regards nurses' pay, we follow the recommendations of the pay review body. That body, which is independent, has reported for 12 years running and we have always accepted its recommendations. This year it recommended that nurses' pay should be 1 per cent, across the board, with additions of up to 2 per cent, locally determined. We are recommending that. Two-thirds of the trusts have now put their offers on the table and three-quarters of those are at 3 per cent, or more.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that press reports indicating that 1 percent, is the norm are causing unnecessary anxiety and loss of morale among nurses? Is she aware that in the case of most trusts the offer of 3 per cent, has been on the table for a long time but that local union negotiators have been restricted by their national bodies over even discussing those long-standing offers?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Gardner is right. Many trusts have had local pay for some time—for instance, Derby, Heatherwood, Southend, Nottingham Community Health and many others. There local pay has been negotiated and agreed with staff, and in many cases the staff have been involved in the new scheme. Indeed, they are benefiting and choosing to join the scheme because they know that local pay makes sense and means that their decisions and their excellence can be rewarded, whereas national negotiation does not allow for that.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, will the Minister explain why it is important that nurses' pay should be locally negotiated? Why does that not apply to doctors who are employed by the same hospital trusts? Part of the trouble is that nurses believe that they are being treated differently from doctors in the same hospitals.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, since the National Health Service began, and certainly since the new contract for GPs was introduced in the mid-1960s, GPs
666
have been on performance-related pay, which is very local indeed. Consultants have always had merit awards which reflect their performance. Doctors who were offered local pay by their independent review body—an additional 2.5 per cent.—chose not to pick it up. I believe that the nurses are very wise indeed to take up the offer that they have received. In fact, in the end their percentage increase will be greater than that of doctors.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, bearing in mind the long tradition of strike-free service by members of the Royal College of Nursing, will my noble friend assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will do all in their power to bring home to nurses the fact that strike action would inevitably harm patients, as it did during the winter of discontent, and that it would also harm the well-deserved good reputation that nurses have with the public?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dean is absolutely right that if nurses try to withdraw any of the work that they are doing it will affect patient care. Indeed, if they want to be disruptive to the National Health Service that will affect patients in that many will have to wait longer for treatment. That would really be a tragedy because we have made such progress in reducing the time that people wait for treatment. It would be a tragedy if the Royal College of Nursing's members voted for industrial action. It would cause me personal sadness and sorrow because I believe that in the long term it would erode the professionalism of the Royal College of Nursing, which would be a very great pity indeed.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of the nurses who trained at the Nightingale School of Nursing at St. Thomas' Hospital are saddened at its closure, which will take place this October? It has been in existence since Florence Nightingale herself. Is the Minister aware that sometimes change is not good for morale?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like to pay tribute to the training which nurses receive. In the past four years we have invested £400 million in the new nurse training scheme. I believe that we have the best trained and most committed nurses in the world.
The Nightingale School of Nursing is not closing. It is transferring to Guy's Hospital, which will become a centre for all sorts of teaching, research and development. We recognise increasingly in the National Health Service that there are many different professions and disciplines. The more general training that can be provided for all those different professions, the better will be the teams that we have in the future, which in turn will give a better quality of care.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, if, as is probable, the vote goes in favour of industrial action, do the Government really intend to go to war with the nurses?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we value nurses: one has only to see the enormous investment that has gone into not only their training but also their general professional development now in post-registration training. The last thing that we want is war. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that it is not a vote for industrial

667
action. Nurses will vote as to whether they will change their rules so that in the future they can take industrial action. That is an important, significant point.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, how is it that the Government have managed to lose the argument and get themselves blamed for what an independent review body has recommended when there have been occasions in the past that an independent review body has made awards which are deeply offensive to the financial strategy of the Government? How is it that the Government are blamed for this when for once it is not their fault?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is a term for that but perhaps this is not the appropriate place to use it. Some of the difficulty is that the pay review body made the recommendation but it was the nursing unions and health unions generally which promoted the idea that it was only 1 per cent. Indeed, I know that some nurses still believe that they will receive only 1 per cent. The Government cannot say that every nurse will receive 3 per cent, because 2 per cent, is to be determined locally. That was a difficult message to get across. I believe that once local pay is established, we shall not face those problems in the future. It will be a matter for local negotiation. I believe that that is the way forward. If one looks at the survey carried out recently by the LSE, one can see that only one-quarter of workers throughout the country are covered by national pay deals compared with nearly a half 10 years ago.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, will the Minister tell us how many of the local pay deals have conditions attached to them which mean that, in effect, most of those who are to receive the pay award will not receive the full 3 per cent.?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, half of the offers that have been put on the table have some qualification. But in many cases that will mean that overall nurses receive higher levels of pay. In fact, we now know of trusts which are offering between 3 per cent, and 9 per cent. In all the examples which I gave nurses will receive more than they would have done if they had stuck to national agreements.
Lord Laing of Dunphail: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that any pay system which gives the same reward to those who work less effectively and with less commitment than their colleagues, and with no regard to local conditions, must be flawed?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. As someone who has built up one of the most successful British companies and employed large numbers of staff, he will know the ingredients of success. Centrally negotiated wage agreements are fast becoming irrelevant and inappropriate in today's world. We must move away from that. No organisation can run its business when it has no control over 70 per cent, of its costs.

Russia: Military Co-operation
3.26 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton Lord Belhaven and Stenton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, as reported in The Times of Friday 12th May, Britain is planning to step up its military co-operation with Russia to an unprecedented level in spite of the continued conflict in Chechnya.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, my department signed a memorandum of understanding on military co-operation with Russia in 1993. That began a valuable, but relatively modest, programme of contacts which we believe is important in establishing good relations with Russia and promoting security and stability in Europe. Planning and implementation of the programme is of course taken forward in the light of all recent developments.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply but he does not seem to have answered my Question, which is whether the article to which I referred in The Times is correct.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have seen the article and, to some extent, I think that it overstates the amount of defence co-operation envisaged. The exercise that is mentioned in the article is due to be held in the United Kingdom and not in Russia. We have not invited a group of Russian officers to train in the United Kingdom as such. They will merely visit some of our defence establishments. However, we recognise the need to nurture our defence links with Russia in order to promote growing stability, as I said earlier, in the post Cold War era.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, do not the Armed Forces welcome the opportunity to train in new areas? Contacts between our servicemen and their counterparts in the host nation help to contribute to an understanding of Western values and objectives.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord is absolutely right. We certainly welcome any opportunities to train in other parts of the world, in particular because it relieves some of the pressure on our own training lands in the United Kingdom, which may cause a degree of concern in this country. The noble and gallant Lord is absolutely correct as regards his assertion that co-operation among the armed forces of parties which were formerly not exactly friendly can only be for the benefit of all concerned and help to promote greater stability.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, how can it be said that Western values have been drawn to the attention of the Russian forces when they continue to bombard indiscriminately towns and villages in Chechnya and even shoot at columns of refugees? That is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and the Budapest Declaration of the OSCE. What measures are available to the Council of Ministers of the OSCE when Russia continues to flout the recommendations made by that council that there should be a ceasefire and a negotiated settlement in relation to the problem in Chechnya?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will realise that we are very concerned about all reports of human rights abuses and civilian casualties in Chechnya. What is going on there is certainly a setback for hopes of greater Russian-Western co-operation. We have made that absolutely clear to the Russians. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made that clear to President Yeltsin on his visit to Moscow on 9th May.
We welcome the establishment of the current OSCE mission in Chechnya. We hope that it will make an extremely positive contribution to resolving that crisis. We have heard some fairly encouraging news that round table talks may be arranged under its auspices and we hope that that may lead to further progress.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, was not the timing and the publicity given to the remarks by the Chief of the General Staff in Moscow very unfortunate, following so close on the atrocities that we have witnessed in Chechnya? Further, will the Minister accept that the long-term objective of military co-operation is very desirable, especially to give real meaning to the rather nebulous partnership for peace?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that I am not responsible for what The Times publishes and when it does so. As I believe I made clear earlier in my response to my noble friend, we believe that The Times overstated the case and the amount of co-operation that was envisaged. I welcome the point made by the noble Lord that military co-operation, in the main, can probably only be for the good.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in the light of what the Minister said about the desirability of building bridges with Russia and, indeed, integrating her into a European security order—something which the Labour Party endorses—can he comment on the desirability of expanding NATO to include Poland and other East European countries while excluding Russia and other CIS states?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we shall continue to co-operate with Russia and develop links with that country. We obviously would like to see NATO developed further. I understand the concerns of the Russians on those particular points. However, I do not believe that we can allow the Russians themselves to impose a veto on any further development of NATO, particularly in terms of taking in—should the time come when it is possible to do so—Poland and the other Visegrad nations.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister tell the House whether the report that British officers are being enrolled in the Russian Army programme for potential peacekeepers is true? If it is true, can my noble friend assure the House that the sort of peacekeeping that the Russians have in mind is not what we have seen in Chechnya?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the sort of peacekeeping that we have in mind is certainly not what is reported from Chechnya. However, as I said earlier, we believe that co-operation between our Armed Forces and the Russians
670
is something which can contribute to the stability of relations between the East and West. That is certainly something that we shall continue to build upon.

Employment Rights Bill
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern):My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate enactments relating to employment rights. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Industrial Tribunals Bill
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate enactments relating to industrial tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill
3.32 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Permitted hours in licensed premises]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, leave out lines 15 to 17 and insert:
("(3) In subsection (6) (off-licences), the words "or Good Friday" shall be omitted and at the end of that subsection there shall be added the words "and the permitted hours on Sundays, other than Christmas Day, shall begin at ten in the morning".").
The noble Lord said: I move the above amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, who, unfortunately is required to be in Brussels today. In doing so, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4. The noble Lord has asked me to give his apologies to the Committee and to deal with his two amendments. The amendments deal with very small matters. They do not refer at all to Sunday hours, but only to one day a year; namely, Good Friday. So far as concerns Sunday, the Bill deals with the anomaly which survived after the Sunday Trading Act of last year which stated that, although large shops and supermarkets may open for a total of six hours between the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m., they can only sell alcohol between 12 noon and 3 p.m. That means that during the period before 12 noon and after 3 o'clock supermarkets

671
have to do what some of them were doing illegally before the Sunday Trading Act last year; namely, they have to put cordons around their drinks shelves and refuse to serve drinks during that time. The Bill before us removes that anomaly on Sunday.
However, the amendment refers only to Good Friday when the Sunday restrictions on the total opening of supermarkets or large shops do not apply. On Good Friday, supermarkets can be open from 8 o'clock in the morning until quite late at night. Yet the Bill as drafted forbids them to sell alcohol before 10 o'clock in the morning. That is based on the analogy of the Sunday opening provisions.
The Bill was initially rather more complicated because it included Christmas Day, but those provisions have now been taken out by government amendment in another place. I suggest that it would be a small, harmless but still welcome rectification of an anomaly if the legislation were now to be amended to allow off-licences to sell drink from 8 o'clock on a Good Friday morning rather than from 10 o'clock as is the case at present.
Of course, Good Friday is an important part of the Christian year, but it is not universally observed as a public holiday all over the country. As I understand it, in large parts of Yorkshire, Good Friday is not a public holiday and the following Tuesday is taken instead. Those who go to the three-hour services, for example, on a Good Friday will not really be affected by permission being granted to sell alcohol between the hours of 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. The benefit would be that the barriers, the cordons, the signs, and so on, which are required for the partial closure on Sunday, and which, under the present legislation have to be retained, could be removed.
I do not suggest that we are discussing an earth shattering amendment in any way, but I do suggest that it would he in keeping with the conciliatory way in which the Government have approached the Bill for it to be passed now. I can assure the Minister that, if it were to be passed in this Chamber, there would be no attempt to delay the Bill in another place on its return there. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It seems to me that we are discussing a very sensible amendment. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will consider it favourably.
Lord Gisborough: I should also like to support the amendment. It is eminently sensible and should he well supported.
Lord Skelmersdale: I second the remarks made by my noble friend. Indeed, it is a great pleasure, for once, to be able to agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. However, I should like to add to his point about Yorkshire and say that—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sure that the noble Lord and I have agreed on more than one occasion in the past.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am sure that that is so, but I was referring to today. The noble Lord mentioned the fact that Good Friday is not a holiday in Yorkshire—or in parts of Yorkshire. However, I have always regarded the most
672
fervently religious part of Great Britain as being Northern Ireland. I should point out that it is not even a holiday in the Province. Therefore, one can buy intoxicating liquor in Northern Ireland perfectly freely as one can on any other day of the week. I should like to see that extended.
Lord Monson: I was in two minds about the amendment. On the one hand, I do not believe that it would do any harm for supermarkets and a very small proportion of their customers to be mildly inconvenienced for a small part of one day out of 365. On the other hand, the original purpose of the Good Friday bank holiday has now largely disappeared; indeed, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh alluded to that fact. I would guess that not more than 5 per cent. of the population at most spend the hours between 12 noon and 3 p.m. on Good Friday in quiet, solemn prayer.
Of course, logically, if shops are to be compelled to close at all on Good Friday for religious reasons, they should be compelled to close during those three hours. However, no one has proposed that and that is not what is on offer. That being the case, I can see no reason for resisting the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: I regret not to have been present at the Second Reading of this Bill but I have read the record of the debate. In it the noble Baroness in charge of the Bill referred to a balance in this matter of religious festivals. She remarked that she believed that the balance proposed by the Government was correct. I wish to support her on that. I have the impression that such a balance would be widely thought to be fair and sensible, both in this Chamber and outside it.
Speaking personally, I noted with appreciation that the present arrangements for limited hours will continue as regards Christmas Day. I am grateful that the Government deferred to views expressed in another place on this matter, not least by the right honourable Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. On balance this seems right. Consumer interests are not the sole consideration; the protection of employees and their families is equally important. That point is addressed in another connection in an amendment which will follow.
It is against that background that we come to the more detailed matter before us; namely, that of licensing hours for Good Friday in supermarkets and stores in which there may otherwise be a cordoned off area from, say, eight to 10 o'clock in the morning. Given that extended hours are now being proposed for the opening of licensed premises on Good Friday, the amendment before the Committee seeks to eliminate what may prove to be but an anomaly. No Member of the Committee has adduced compelling reasons to retain for Good Friday this particular provision. I do not think it reasonable to make life difficult for shoppers for two hours in the year and therefore I believe it is not reasonable to resist this amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was absolutely right; these amendments would permit off-licensed premises to sell alcohol on Good Friday from eight o'clock in the morning through to 10.30 in the evening. The Government recognise that, at first sight, this might seem a simple and worthwhile change from the

673
10 o'clock start which the Bill provides for off sales on Good Friday. But, as is so often the case, a change of this kind would not be entirely straightforward, and there are a number of matters that need to be considered. Good Friday is, of course, a religious festival, and it is for that reason that licensing hours on Good Friday have traditionally been the same as for Sundays. The Bill will continue that link. The licensing hours on Sundays and Good Friday for pubs, clubs and off-licensed premises will be increased from what they are at present, but not so far as to bring them into line with weekdays.
The amendments of my noble friend—supported today by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—would mean that off-licence hours on Good Friday would be virtually the same as those for routine weekdays, which are from eight in the morning until 11 at night. The question arises, therefore, whether it is right for off-licence purposes to treat Good Friday just like any other day of the week.
The noble Lord's purpose is to enable supermarkets with off-licences to sell alcohol throughout their opening hours. That is what the Bill is intended to achieve on Sundays. Under the Sunday Trading Act large stores like supermarkets may open for six hours between 10 in the morning and six in the afternoon; and the new Sunday off-licence hours will cover which ever period of six hours within those times that supermarkets choose to open. But it is a rather different matter to tailor our off-licence hours to suit whatever times, outside of the restrictions of the Sunday Trading Act, shops choose to open.
Most of the debate on off-licence hours on Sundays and Good Friday has tended to concern supermarkets. But only a small proportion of off-licensed shops—less than 15 per cent.—are supermarkets. The great majority comprises either shops specialising in the sale of alcoholic drinks or small shops which sell alcohol along with a range of other goods—frequently the typical corner shop. These small shops are not subject to the Sunday Trading Act, and so they can open at whatever times on Sunday suit them and their customers. Many open quite early, but under the new off-licence hours in the Bill they will not be able to sell alcohol before 10 in the morning.
So while we have restrictions on off-licence hours, and lesser restrictions on shop opening hours, there will always be times when shops with off-licences may open but not sell alcohol. The only way in which that situation could be avoided would be by abandoning off-licence hours altogether. While that is a course which my noble friend, who is not present today, and perhaps also the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, might well applaud, I hope they will agree that it goes far beyond the ambit of the present Bill. Furthermore, as the noble Lord acknowledged when the Bill was read for a Second Time in this Chamber, extending Good Friday hours beyond those that are proposed for Sundays would be to move in the reverse direction from the views which were expressed in another place. There amendments were moved, albeit unsuccessfully, which would have left the licensing hours on Good Friday for pubs, clubs and off-licensed premises as they are at present—that is, from midday until three p.m. and from seven until 10.30 in the evening. There was certainly no move to extend Good Friday hours beyond those provided in the Bill.
674
The noble Lord also acknowledged, in the light of those views expressed in another place, that he would make little headway in seeking more liberal hours for pubs on Good Friday than the Bill already envisages. The amendment therefore concerns only off-licence hours. But it would be illogical if Good Friday were regarded as comparable with Sunday as far as pubs and clubs were concerned, but were treated like any routine weekday for off-licence premises purposes. I am sure many licensees of pubs would find it hard to accept that their Good Friday opening hours should be more restricted than weekdays, when off-licence hours were not.
The Government take the view that there needs to be a proper degree of consistency between on-licence hours and off-licence hours. That is not to say that hours should be the same for both kinds of business. They are not uniform now—for good reasons—and nor will they be when the Bill is enacted. But there need to be good reasons for applying different standards to pubs as compared with off-licensed shops. There seems no obvious justification for linking Good Friday with Sunday for the purpose of pub hours but with weekdays for off-licensing purposes, which is the effect of the amendments before us. For these reasons the Government believe that the balance in the Bill is about right. However, I have to say that amendments such as these must be a matter for the individual conscience of Members of this Chamber and therefore I leave the matter to the free vote of this Chamber to determine.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I find that response, or the logic of it, difficult to follow. Of course it is true that there have been those, both in this Chamber and in another place, who have been against the extension of hours proposed in this Bill and they have proposed amendments which have been defeated. They have come from all sides. I should have made it clear that neither is this a party matter within the Labour Party; a large number of my noble friends are opposed to the provisions of this Bill.
I am not convinced by the argument on amendments in another place further to restrict opening hours. When the Minister says that there are other anomalies which still remain to be corrected, I am sure she is right. It is true that what this amendment does is remove only one anomaly of many. A number of us said at Second Reading that at some time we would have to recognise that this piecemeal approach which is being adopted by the Government is not satisfactory because it does not allow us to consider all the issues at any one time. Yet the Minister appears to come to the conclusion, although she has not actually criticised the direct effect of this amendment, that somehow the anomalies which are still there do not permit the Government to accept the provisions. I am not sure whether, if the matter is put to the vote, she will vote against it. I am not sure whether she will advise any of her noble friends who agree with her to vote against it. I am not sure what the Government's position is, or whether indeed we can hope for a Government amendment which would deal with any deficiencies in drafting at a later stage in the Bill. Will the Minister advise the Committee further?
Baroness Blatch: I have said that it must be a matter for individual conscience. I do not want my intentions to influence people and for them to feel that they must take a

675
lead from me as Minister. I have made the Government's position clear and I will exercise my vote as an individual in this matter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for that clarification. Am I right in thinking that, although the Minister pointed out other anomalies, she did not say that the amendment itself was defective?
Baroness Blatch: That is absolutely right. The amendment is not defective in itself.
Lord Peston: I am sorry to have to join in the debate. This is such a sensible amendment that I took it for granted, since it was within the spirit of the Government's legislation which I totally support although I am probably more extremist than the Government, that the Minister would say, "This is a perfectly good idea and let's get on with it". Is it the Minister's wish that the Committee divides on the amendment so that Members can express their opinion? I am lost as to what is going on. I just came in for decorative purposes.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may make the position clear. What I said was that it is not for the Government to accept the amendment on behalf of the whole Committee. I think that it would be presumptuous of the Government to do that.
There is an issue here. The issue, which I believe will be a matter for people's consciences, is to determine whether Good Friday should be considered as any other day of the week or whether it should be consistent with the rules which apply on Sundays. That is the issue before the Committee. It must be a matter for individual Members to consider.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are grateful for that. Although the Minister still states that there are wider issues as to the comparability of Good Friday with other days of the week which are not dealt with within the amendment, the Minister has confirmed that the amendment is not defective and that it achieves the objectives that we seek. Although other anomalies still remain, I believe that it is appropriate that I seek the opinion of the Committee.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): The Question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". The "Contents" have it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
(-Employment protection
Schedule (Schedule to be inserted in the Licensing Act 1964 after Schedule 14) shall have effect in relation to the rights of bar workers in relation to work during the previously restricted hours on Sundays.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2, I speak also to Amendment No. 3. I make it clear from the outset that on these amendments the Labour Party has a
676
policy. It is the policy of protecting the rights of those who are required to work on Sunday. These matters were rehearsed at considerable length in debates on the Sunday Trading Bill last year. Comparable amendments were put forward although not in these terms.
The new schedule in Amendment No. 3 is lengthy and I apologise for that. However, employment protection legislation is lengthy and complicated. I was encouraged to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor move the First Reading of new employment protection consolidation legislation which may make life easier for those of us who seek to amend the 1978 Act in future.
Paragraph (1) of the schedule deals with definitions generally. Paragraph (2) defines a protected bar worker, which is the category of worker with which the amendment deals. Paragraph (3) makes sure that there is no discrimination either way by making provision for those who work in bars on a Sunday to opt into the existing legislation. Paragraph (4) deals with the notice of objection to Sunday working. Paragraph (5) provides a definition of the meaning of "opted-out bar worker"—that is someone who has chosen not to work the extended hours proposed in the Bill. Paragraph (6) deals with a notice period. Paragraphs (7) and (8), the core of the schedule, deal with the right not to be dismissed for refusing to work between the hours of three o'clock and seven o'clock on a Sunday. Paragraph (8) deals with the redundancy excuse which an employer might be tempted to use. Paragraph (9) deals with the qualifying period and the upper age limit. It again refers hack to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. Paragraph (10) goes further than dismissal by giving protected bar workers the right not to suffer detriment in their employment. I am told that in employment legislation that has a specific meaning.
Paragraph (11) requires the employer to give an explanatory statement of his policy so far as concerns Sunday working. Paragraphs (12) to (15) deal with contract of employment rights. Paragraph (16) is technical and deals with proceedings for contravention. Paragraphs (17) and (18) deal with restrictions on contracting out of the schedule. Paragraph (19) deals with transitional protection mainly in maternity cases. Paragraphs (20) to (22) are miscellaneous amendments to the 1978 Act.
The principle underlying the amendment—although it is lengthy I believe that it is reasonably clear—is this. Having extended the hours on which bar workers may well be required to work on a Sunday they should be given some protection for their family life and indeed for their religious obligations on a Sunday in addition to that which is already provided under the Sunday Trading Act 1994.
The amendment relates only to protected bar workers. The Minister, Mr. Forsyth, replied to a comparabe amendment in another place, at col. 1782 of the Official Report on 5th April. With admirable honesty, he said:
"I now come to the part of my brief marked 'Use only if pressed'. There is an anomaly, and the hon. Gentleman is right to mention it, but the people who work in off-licences arc shop workers, and as such already have the right to decline Sunday work. It would he irrational for the law to pretend that employees in pubs, restaurants, hotels. sports clubs and so on are shop workers and should therefore have the same rights, simply because the premises in which they happen to work happen to have liquor licences".
We are legislating for two groups of people: those who are bar workers working in on-licences; and those who are working in off-licences. Mr. Forsyth did not come to the conclusion to which I come: that the anomaly is that there should be differential protection—a higher lever of protection for those who work in off-licences and are shop workers—and a lower level of protection for those who work in bars. That distinction cannot be right.
Perhaps I may say this to the Minister, in the most conciliatory of spirits because she has been helpful this afternoon. I hope that she recognises that that is the anomaly which remains in the legislation. That is the anomaly which should he dealt with by this modest extension to employment protection rights. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: This Bill continues the process of sensible deregulation to which the Government are committed, allowing businesses to stand on their own two feet and make their own decisions as to how they should operate. I believe the proposed Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are unnecessary and would be a retrograde step in a Bill which otherwise moves forward in line with the demands and expectations of today's society.
Where workers in any industry are asked to take on additional work or to change their working hours, that is a contractual matter for them to decide. Hours of work are for agreement between employers and their employees, whether they work in licensed premises or elsewhere. It would he wrong to impose unnecessary restrictions on the way that businesses in the leisure and catering industries operate.
The proposed new schedule, to which the proposed new clause would give effect, is aimed at giving bar workers the right to refuse to work during the additional Sunday hours permitted by this Bill—that is, between three o'clock and seven o'clock on a Sunday afternoon. It would add to this Bill employment provisions similar to those introduced for Sunday shop workers in the Sunday Trading Act 1994 and for Sunday betting workers in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.
In the Government's view, it is plainly wrong to seek to replicate and apply provisions which are specifically appropriate in one set of circumstances to circumstances in which they are not appropriate. We do not accept that the position of employees of licensed premises is directly comparable with that of shop workers or betting workers. Their situation is in fact quite different. Until the recent changes, legislation prohibited on Sundays the very activity that shop and betting workers were employed to do, and the employees in question could reasonably have expected never to have been required to work on Sundays. However, for pubs, restaurants and clubs, Sunday has been a long established and important trading day. It has been quite lawful to sell alcoholic drinks on Sundays, and to employ people to do so, and the afternoon break is largely regarded as archaic and a nuisance.
The very nature of work in licensed premises encourages more flexible working patterns. This has long been the case and bar work and the like has provided opportunities for many employees who prefer this type of work or who may be unable to work more conventional hours. This Bill must not put constraints on the freedom of employers and employees to agree hours which suit their individual circumstances and preferences.
678
This Bill seeks to remove barriers and anomalies and to allow businesses to trade freely. The leisure industry is competitive, with various attractions vying for our attention, particularly at weekends when many families enjoy time together. Many hotels, restaurants, pubs and clubs will welcome the additional trading hours in order to allow them to compete on an equal footing with other businesses in the industry. Others may have no wish to take advantage of the new regime. However, that is a commercial decision for them to take. It should not be the role of Government to impose unnecessary administrative burdens.
Not only would the provisions contained in the amendment be extraordinarily cumbersome, they would also create new and indefensible anomalies between the rights of different groups of staff working in licensed premises. Those involved in serving alcoholic drinks would have the right to stop working for four hours on Sundays whereas their colleagues working alongside them on different activities would not. To put it another way, employees in a particular branch of a particular industry would have the right to refuse to work between three o'clock and seven o'clock on a Sunday, irrespective of what their contract of employment said, but between midday and three o'clock, and between seven o'clock and half past 10 in the evening, they would be be bound by their normal contractual terms.
Were the amendment to be accepted I only hope that none of your Lordships is ever in a restaurant ordering lunch at three o'clock on a Sunday afternoon! It would certainly be a strange experience to have the wine waiter down tools while the rest of the restaurant carried on as normal. Perhaps the scene would be reminiscent of pubs at "last orders", with customers rushing to beat the bell, ordering the drinks they think sufficient to last them through their meal. Or perhaps the bons viveurs would hold on until seven o'clock, when they would finally be able to round off their lunch with a glass of port. I see no reason to legislate in this area and I hope that the noble Lord may be persuaded to withdraw the amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The last few sentences of the Minister's reply were quite extraordinary. We had something of a debate at Second Reading, initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Bradford, about the indefensible difference between restaurant licences and full on-licences. Although my amendments refer merely to on-licences—in other words, to bar workers—the Minister has chosen to attempt to make fun of the amendments by talking as if they referred to restaurants as well. They clearly do not. Restaurants serving drinks on a Sunday will still be able to do so after three o'clock. My amendment refers only to bar workers and protected bar workers, it will not apply to restaurants.
Another curious aspect of the Minister's speech was the idea that in pubs there are people serving alcohol and people working alongside them who are not serving alcohol. It is true that in large pubs when lunch is being served there are people who are mainly serving food or mainly preparing food, but in any pub that I have ever seen, whether on a Sunday or another day, people do whatever work is to be done. They do not have

679
demarcation disputes between them. I am clear, from the way in which my schedule has been drafted, that it would apply to all bar workers and that it would apply equally.
It is simply not true that people who work in pubs have accepted unlimited Sunday working. Of course, they have accepted Sunday working and flexible working patterns for many years. But anyone who has listened to or read the debates, both in this House and in another place, on the Bill and on the Sunday Trading Bill last year, will agree that the extension of licensing hours in pubs from 12 o'clock to three o'clock and from seven o'clock to 10.30, to 12 noon to 10.30, means a substantial difference in the obligations imposed on those who work there. It makes a huge difference to their family life and their ability to make contact and spend time with their families on those days.
As I said at the time of the Sunday Trading Bill, I suspect that a high proportion of bar workers will not wish to opt out of the gap of working between three o'clock and seven o'clock. I suspect that they will wish to make other arrangements to spend time with their families or engage in their own leisure pursuits. I suspect that there will be very little disruption as a result of any amendment of this kind.
Frankly, the reasons which the Minister has given for opposing the amendments do not stand up at all. She did not really deal with my point about the difference between those working in off-licences and those working in pubs with on-licences, except by asserting that what we are trying to do is to extend conditions from circumstances in which they are appropriate to circumstances in which they are not appropriate. She said that they are not directly comparable. I suggest that in all material respects they are directly comparable. We are dealing with people who have to make judgments about the hours they work and the way they organise their lives. Those who wish to make provision of that kind have expressed the view that they need extra protection.
I do not believe that it is appropriate at this stage for me to pursue the matter to a Division. However, I give notice that we may have to return to the matter at a later stage in the proceedings. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 4 to 6 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch: Was a vote called for the amendment?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): I have called that Clauses 4, 5 and 6 stand part of the Bill, which was agreed to. Amendment No. 2 was, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Section 4(2)]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 3, at end insert:

(" 1964 c. 26

The Licensing Act 1964.

In section 60(6), the words "or Good Friday".")

The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 1, which the Committee approved. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn for 10 minutes until 4.20 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, can the Minister explain why we are adjourning for 10 minutes?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I apologise very humbly on behalf of the Minister concerned, who is stuck in traffic. I am sure that she has your Lordships' sympathy.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 4.10 to 4.20 p.m.]

Historic Monuments and Archaeological Objects (Northern Ireland) Order 1995
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd April be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I must start with an apology to the House for not being present to commence this business at 4.10 p.m. I apologise, and I hope that I will be forgiven if I say that I was pitching for investment for Northern Ireland.
This order would introduce provisions broadly in line with those already in force in Great Britain by the enactment of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. Northern Ireland has a quite different history of historic monuments legislation from Great Britain. The first historic monuments legislation in Northern Ireland dates from an Act of 1926, subsequently amended in 1937. Current legislation, the Historic Monuments (Northern Ireland) Act 1971, has maintained this distinction, but the enactment of the 1979 Act in Great Britain stimulated a review of provisions, from which this draft order springs.
The proposed draft order provides for the protection of scheduled historic monuments by the introduction of scheduled monument consent procedures, obliging persons to seek the consent of the Department of the Environment for any works which might affect a scheduled monument. There are approximately 1,080 scheduled monuments, equivalent to some 8 per cent. of the 13,000 recognised sites and monuments in the Province. Scheduled monuments, and monuments in the

681
department's care, would be further protected by restrictions on the use and possession of detecting devices on those sites.
Secondly, the draft order provides for the possibility of management agreements concerning historic monuments in private ownership. The provisions give scope for a partnership between owners and the department towards the long-term protection and management of monuments, particularly in a rural context.
Thirdly, the draft order deals with the acquisition and guardianship of historic monuments and lands in their vicinity. There are 181 historic monuments in the care of the Department of the Environment, and the provisions reflect demands for improved public access and facilities for visitors.
Fourthly, the draft order provides for the continuation of the Historic Monuments Council. This body, which advises the department on its functions under historic monuments legislation, was first established in 1926 as the Ancient Monuments Advisory Committee.
Fifthly, the draft order maintains provisions for the reporting of the discovery of archaeological objects and restrictions on searching for them.
In reviewing the application of the 1979 Act to Northern Ireland, consideration was given to the inclusion of provisions to enable the designation of areas of archaeological importance similar to those set out in Part II of that Act. However, given the limited success of those provisions and developments in archaeology and planning policy, it was decided that such provisions should not form part of the draft order.
The draft order was issued for public consultation in July 1993 and was well received by most of those consulted, especially those concerned with the archaeological heritage in Northern Ireland. Objections were raised by metal detectorists against those provisions which they felt would limit their activities on historic monuments.
Three significant amendments have been made to the proposals following public consultation. These amendments widen the advisory role of the Historic Monuments Council, particularly in relation to the new provisions for scheduled monuments. They provide for a role for the Northern Ireland Planning Appeals Commission in hearing appeals concerning scheduled monument consent. They delete reference to restrictions on detecting devices in searching for archaeological objects except where such searching is carried out on protected monuments.
The draft order is the product of several years of internal review, taking into account both the experience of those who have implemented the 1979 Act in Great Britain, and wide public consultation. The draft order brings together the results of those processes, introducing measures broadly paralleling the 1979 Act while retaining the long-held strengths of Northern Ireland historic monuments legislation. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 3rd April be approved—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we entirely accept the Minister's apology. I think that I speak on behalf of all your Lordships when I say that there is no
682
other Minister by whom we would prefer to be kept waiting. In any event, it is quite inappropriate to blame the Minister. Most people would join me in blaming the Government, and I think that that is what we should do.
We welcome the thrust of the order and its purpose. In the 10 minutes or so that we had to pass before beginning this business I turned my eye to Article 42 which makes it a criminal offence for any person who finds an archaeological object not to report it to the relevant authorities, and a separate and distinct criminal offence to be in possession of, or retain possession of, such an object. All agog, I wished to satisfy myself as to the definition of an "archaeological object". Article 2(2) states that archaeological object,
"includes any object, being a chattel … manufactured or unmanufactured … which is, or appears to be, of archaeological or historical interest and which has, by reason of such interest, a value greater than its intrinsic value".
As a lawyer I am happy to say that that will cause endless problems in court in the future.
I considered a possible example. In, say, five years' time, after the next election, the Minister, alas, will no longer be occupying her present situation. If in the next year or so she goes, as she regularly does, to Ballymena, Craigavon or Dungannon and happens to discard a pair of ministerial Wellington boots which happen thereafter to be ploughed over and if, subsequently, I happen to discover those ministerial, monogrammed Wellington boots, they will have an intrinsic value of about 75p, I suppose, while the value of the materials of which they are composed will be about 50p. However, their historic value (by virtue of their connection with the revered Minister) will be significantly greater than either 75p or 50p. It will probably be in the region of £2.50 plus VAT. According to the definition I have quoted, that would make them—absurdly, but perhaps understandably—an archaeological object, the possession, or non-reporting of possession, of which would render me liable to prosecution and condign punishment in the magistrates' court or equivalent. Can that be right? Other than that helpful question, I have nothing further to add.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, after that deeply politically controversial but extremely amusing speech, I am glad to say that these Benches wholeheartedly support the order. It is difficult to choose between whether we would rather have the Minister here discussing this very important order or trying to raise money for investment in Northern Ireland. Ideally we would have both, so I shall be brief and allow the Minister to get back to her other duties.
This is an important order. As the troubles recede—we must all pray that they have receded for ever—many people in these islands are able to discover the extreme beauty of the countryside of Northern Ireland as well as its man-made beauties. For instance, there are the splendid ring forts which all too often enthusiastic farmers seem to bulldoze. Perhaps they will be slightly better protected once the order is passed.

683
It is not only British and Irish tourists who will be visiting Northern Ireland. It is estimated that over 600,000 extra visitors may travel to Northern Ireland this year and it is essential that we have the best possible protection for the heritage of Northern Ireland. I welcome the integrationist approach that is possible in Northern Ireland because it is the Department of the Environment which deals with it. There is a putting together of the countryside and of the buildings. In a way, the regime envisaged in Northern Ireland has much to teach the rest of the United Kingdom. Interestingly, as the noble Baroness said, some of the elements maintained in the order from earlier legislation actually came from the devolved administration in its period at Stormont. This is therefore an area for bipartisanship not only in Northern Ireland, but also in this House. In that spirit I am happy to support the order.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, perhaps I might rise for a moment to refer to the point made by my noble friend on the Front Bench regarding the Minister's boots. As I understand it, the regulations only apply to. objects of archaeological interest. Though I feel sure that such boots may be objects of sentimental interest, particularly to the noble Baroness, can they truly be said to be of archaeological interest?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend. In fact the order refers to articles not only of archaeological interest, but also of historical interest. It was the latter adjective upon which I was focusing my attention.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, first, I thank the House for its forgiveness for my lateness. I have just heard possibly the most political speech from the Front Bench opposite on the subject of Northern Ireland and I fully appreciate the spirit in which it was made. This Minister is very much a part of this Government.
I would add that Ireland is full of history. I can think of no other area in the world where the past plays such a great part in the present. In designing a brighter future for Northern Ireland we must be careful to protect the past and the tremendous culture that exists there. The aim is to ensure that we should not lose that by accident. The order therefore is written in rather wider terms than may appeal to a lawyer. But it is written to make sure that people take anything that they discover to the Ulster Museum to be examined, which may reveal that they are on the brink of discovering a significant new part of the history of Northern Ireland.
I should point out that, as the Scots say, I do not think that I shall be "outwith" my Wellington boots; nor do I believe that, should I be on my second pair, the first pair would be of too much interest; and nor do I believe that it would be a possible case from which lawyers could earn money. I thank noble Lords for their support for the order and commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Bathing Water: ECC Report
4.33 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth Baroness Park of Monmouth rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Bathing Water (First Report, HL Paper 6).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak to both Motions set down in my name on the Order Paper. The European Communities Committee C, of which I have the honour to be a member, examined the European Council's proposal in 1994 for a directive concerning the quality of bathing water, intended to supersede the current directive which was put in place in 1976.
The purpose of the directive is to ensure satisfactory common standards of health protection for bathers throughout the Community; to contribute to the solution of transboundary problems of water pollution; and to ensure that there is no distortion of competition in the tourist industry. The Commission argues for the replacement of the current directive to take account of scientific advances which may permit a reduction in the parameters to be tested. That is expected to reduce costs to member states while maintaining the level of health protection achieved. The committee considers the objective of the proposal to be admirable. However, it is concerned about its probable effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
The committee now presents two reports for the consideration of the House, dealing with the issues raised. The first—Bathing Water—published in 1994, deals with the directive generally. In that report we deplored the absence of a soundly based cost-effective analysis of the proposal and indicated that the committee would wish to report again to the House when we received Her Majesty's Government's own cost compliance assessment. It reached us in February of this year. Our second report—Bathing Water Revisited—is based on the evidence we subsequently received on the implications of the cost compliance assessment for the UK. Hence we are presenting the two reports together for debate.
I should explain that I am speaking as an inadequate substitute for my chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham, for whose wise guidance we are much indebted; and the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, who was to speak in his place. Unfortunately both are unable to take part in the debate this evening. But I am happy to be supported by three members of the committee and fortunate in that the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, can offer the special expertise needed to deal with the many esoteric, medical and scientific aspects of our report, which I shall find it difficult to do. Thus I shall confine myself largely to the other issues arising from the directive.
Although it is clearly highly desirable that there should be legally binding minimum standards for bathing water throughout the Community, we have found the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Commission's new proposals to be controversial if not doubtful. In formulating those proposals the Commission did not carry out open consultation with the scientific community, which we would regard as essential. Its scientific

685
approach in the new directive is out of date, especially in relation to the analytical methods to be used, and its decision-making therefore is uninformed.
Lack of expert consultation and advice on the scientific issues was unfortunately accompanied by an equal failure to consult member states on cost benefit analysis. It is unacceptable that policy formulation could have reached the stage of formal proposals from the Commission for the revision of the existing directive without including a menu of individually accepted measures. In their response to our first report, HMG agreed the Commission's assertion that compliance with the proposal would not cost significantly more than compliance with the existing directive, which is "seriously flawed". They went on to agree that the Commission's misconception of the consequences of its proposal may have been due in large part to the lack of consultation with member states. The Government considered that the Commission should seek advice now and be prepared to amend the proposal accordingly. The committee is glad to learn that expert advice is now being sought by the Commission.
It is relevant that in order to comply with the requirement of Article 130R, a revised directive should make no charge which would either increase the net public cost of compliance without a proportionate increase in the level of public health protection, or reduce that level. Though there is a well-founded case against some aspects of the bathing water directive on grounds of subsidiarity, in our view it would probably be politically unrealistic to look for the repeal of a directive which has been in place since 1976 and is in principle desirable. However, we consider that only microbiological parameters, which are good indicators of public health risks, should have to be monitored within the directive.
A number of complex inter-related issues confront the Government in deciding how to proceed and we shall be glad to hear from the Minister tonight on how it is proposed to confront them. The first is the need for a common approach to legislation on water: the bathing waters directive; the urban waste water treatment directive; and a directive on drinking water that is due for revision. All of these have important health implications for the public. They also have very large cost implications on which the committee took extensive evidence from the water companies, the Government and interested agencies in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom alone, the full proposals of the Commission for bathing water would entail significant capital expenditure of the order of £1.6 billion and £4.2 billion in addition to that required to comply in full with the existing Bathing Water Directive 1976 and the urban waste water directive. That amounts to about £9.5 billion over the next 10 years. Those figures do not take account of what may be required for drinking water.
These costs are very significant. They might be justified if they demonstrably brought gains in public health greater than those that could be achieved at smaller cost through other actions. They demonstrate that the responsible Commission directorate, DGXI, in formulating proposals and claiming cost neutrality, has not carried out adequate research and consultation with member states, or that it has understood the microbiology and engineering involved in sewage treatment.
The committee recognises that there are important political implications in the proposals. The need for the best possible measures to protect the health of the public must be balanced against the cost, which will fall largely upon the consumer. The committee also recognises that the bathing water directive can, with advantage, be updated in the light of modern scientific knowledge and methodologies. However, we consider the following points to be essential. First, the proposal must be viewed as part of the whole future strategy of water. Secondly, the importance of timing must be recognised. All of the engineering work should be integrated so that the water companies can operate from a stable base in planning and investing if the risk of unnecessary and wasteful expenditure is to be avoided. Thirdly, the Government must at once ensure that the Council and Commission get on with the necessary further consultation and make possible the adoption of a strategic approach to improve the quality of urban waste water and bathing water and take account of economic, public health and environmental issues, though in practice it may not be possible to include drinking water if that means significantly more delay. Not least, it is for national parliaments and the European Parliament to ensure that the data on costs and health risks are publicly available and debated. The Government can make a valuable and early contribution.
One of the biggest problems encountered by the committee was the lack of transparency that appeared to be a feature of the operations of the Council and Commission. For instance, Council negotiations normally lack openness on the scientific basis for directives that have been formulated. We have also found that the Government have been unable to answer our questions on the cost of compliance with existing directives by other states. They have sought that information but it has proved difficult to obtain. Fortunately, we understand that an early opportunity to start strategic thinking will be provided by a European Parliament seminar to be held in June of this year to look at water legislation in the round. The committee hopes to be represented at that seminar.
We strongly recommend that no detailed planning for the proposed bathing water directive takes place until a strategic overview has been carried out. We hope that this will be done without undue delay and agreed, but, as the Government have said, decisions need to be taken in the light of comparable information on health and cost implications from a representative number of member states. The Government have also said in their response to the Second Report that the future heavy investment under the urban waste water directive reinforces the need to ensure that a revised bathing water directive forms part of a coherent Community policy, and that the investment implications are properly understood. In the committee's view, that makes it all the more essential for the public to be fully consulted and informed.
Other members of the committee will address other important aspects of the two reports. It only remains for me to thank on behalf of the committee the two admirable specialist advisers: Professor David Kay (whose qualities have also led the Commission to seek his views) and Dr. Gareth Rees. I also wish to thank all those who gave evidence before the committee, not least Ministers and

687
civil servants. Most of all, we thank our splendid clerk, John Goddard. As always, he has guided us with both patience and wisdom. We are pleased that the Government have responded constructively to many of our representations. We look forward to action from them. We welcome in the Minister one who should, as a former member of the committee, understand our concerns and thought processes particularly well. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Bathing Water (First Report, HL Paper 6).—(Baroness Park of Monmouth.)
4.45 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, for the admirable and concise way in which she introduced the debate. I intend to highlight some elements of the report and suggest possible action. Before doing so, I should declare a vested interest. I take great delight in swimming in the sea and in lakes and rivers throughout the United Kingdom. At some point or other I have swum in almost every coastal water around the British Isles. I also have children who swim.
Having read the reports and considered the subject in the past, I sometimes wonder how many of those involved in the drawing up of such reports are themselves swimmers who take delight in swimming in our bathing waters. I suspect that there are very few, given some of the things that can be read in these reports.
The matters to which I speak are referred to in the Bathing Water Revisited Report, which also includes a summary of the original report. The first matter I wish to highlight arises at the bottom of page 7:
"Mr. Byatt said he had not looked at the possible consequences for the local economy if bathing waters were not improved. He did not appear to consider these factors relevant to his considerations of the interests of water charge payers in his period reviews of price limits".
I suggest that that encapsulates one of the problems of the current regulatory regime of public utilities. The regulator has to work within a framework that is set effectively by the Government. Matters have to be examined within that framework. In the real world, if we think of ourselves as politicians we have to consider far wider implications than just the precise matters that the regulator is empowered to consider. That creates a real problem in trying to deal with the actions of public utilities.
Paragraph 4 on page 14 of the report states:
"In most British bathing waters, including those complying with the present directive, bathing brings a higher risk of gastro-intestinal symptoms than the public meet in normal daily life".
I had always thought that swimming, particularly in the sea, was a healthy activity, not something that increased the risk of gastro-intestinal symptoms.
Paragraph 5 says,
"there is increased risk of gastro-intestinal illness where the concentration of streptococci, measured at chest depth, exceeds about 40/100 ml.".
If one thinks that the Commission directive talked in terms of 400 per 100 millilitres, one can see that in practice there is a factor of 10 difference between the two
688
figures. That suggests to me that the European directive is not very relevant to the prevention of problems that we seek to achieve.
Paragraph 7 of Appendix 3 states:
"For children the risks from persistent diarrhoea are likely to be of greater significance".
I have children and I believe that we have a responsibility as a Parliament not just to think in terms of adults but to think in terms of the special risks that children run.
I shall not quote all the evidence in the report but the evidence from Surfers Against Sewage is quite interesting. It made the point that people can now spend far longer in the water because of the cheapness and availability of wetsuits. As a child I used to spend hours in the water. We may think of today's children being less hardy than we were as children but I am sure there are occasions nowadays when children spend hours playing in the water.
We must also take into account the fact that people go bathing all the year round and not just at particular times of the year. I was shocked to hear that the sampling is carried out only at particular times of the bathing season. Because the sampling is not done outside that season the water companies feel they have carte blanche to shovel almost anything into the water. That is a sad reflection on the water companies in terms of the responsibilities they should have but apparently do not have.
I have highlighted a number of areas in the report which I consider to be of concern. I should like now to talk about suggested actions. I am glad to echo the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, that we need a rigorous scientific basis for the consideration of action. We are gradually getting there but we have not got there yet. We need to engage in more scientific research, monitoring and analysis of the results. From that, it is to be hoped, we can determine what are sensible limits.
I mentioned the discrepancy between the limit of risk of 40 per 100 millilitres and the directive figure of 400. We need to set sensible limits that will prevent risks to health. It is not acceptable to say that we can accept a certain degree of risk to health. We need to recognise that when people go swimming they are entitled to think of that as being a healthy activity and not something that subjects them to increased risk.
In this context it may be that we need to start driving the European Union rather than appear to be driven by it. Perhaps, in Britain, we should set sensible limits that will protect our swimmers and bathers from risk of ill health and then take them to the European Union and say that we want those limits to be applied throughout Europe. We should start leading rather than allow ourselves to be led in the wrong direction.
Information should be available to the public. There is some talk in the report about the possible closure of beaches. I would not go down that road. However, it is important that we should make available information about the risks of bathing in particular waters. Then, to a certain extent, it becomes a matter for individual judgment as to whether someone is likely to engage in those risks.
The reference in the report to the "Jaws" syndrome is very interesting. In the film "Jaws" the mayor of the town refused to tell the public that a great white shark was

689
roaming off the beach because it would frighten off the tourists and the town would lose its source of revenue. We have to be honest with the public. We have to tell them that the bathing waters in particular areas—unfortunately, this appears to be so in most areas around our coast—are liable to lead to an increased risk of infection. An informed public will demand action to deal with the problem.
My final point concerns the action that needs to be taken. There is general agreement about the need for a large amount of capital investment. It is unfair and wrong that capital investment should be sought on the short-term money markets and that the premium which that demands must be paid by current consumers. This is a classic case of long-term public investment being required. The only way to achieve that is by the Government and perhaps the European Union borrowing the money on a long-term basis at low rates of interest—there would be virtually no risk attached to the borrowing—and making it available to the water authorities to invest in cleaning up the effluents from the sewage works which seem to be the primary problem. Until we are prepared to do that, we will not achieve the results which I am sure we all want.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I am delighted to participate in this debate and I shall do my best to fulfil the trust that the noble Baroness, Lady Park, has placed in me to deal with the medical side. Like the noble Baroness, I am sorry that our chairman could not dazzle the House this afternoon with his own erudition in the whole range of these matters. I strongly support the noble Baroness's remarks about our Clerk, John Goddard. As an aside, it remains a deep mystery to me that no constituency has seen in him a possible candidate for membership of the European Parliament. His grasp of Europe seems to me to be exactly what might be wanted. I echo, too, the thanks that we all owe to David Kay and Gareth Rees. It was a most agreeable committee on which to serve.
Perhaps I may say how splendidly the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, reminded us all that this House has had an interest in bathing since the days of Lord Byron, who smiles on us while we have our lunch. As a young man he bathed at Southwell and he went to Brighton when it was very much the place and swam far out to sea, as the noble Lord does.
I wish to make two points clear. First, the question of water is far-reaching and complex. It goes all the way from the tap into the sink, down the drains, through the sewers, and, sadly in this country, very often out to sea. There is also the point, as the noble Lord showed so well, that we have a new state of affairs which was not the case when I was doing my national service or serving in Australia for a time. I refer to the arrival of the suits which allow people to swim for a long time and at great depth. Wet suits have changed the picture. The directive we have been wrestling with and the proposed new directive will not, I fear, please the noble Lord because to date there has been concern for the bathers and not the surfers, dinghy sailers and people swimming far out to sea. Much more concern has been shown for beach bathing.
690
I give personal support to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, which derive from the committee's activities, and by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, about the need for some standards for the quality of the water in which we bathe. I know a young man who survived after bathing on a beach associated with a very splendid hotel in Norway. I was called to see him one morning because he had a splitting headache. He was covered with a rash—the rose spots which, in the old days, was the dreaded typhoid. Thank God he had been injected against typhoid, but he did have a very bad attack of para-typhoid fever. That was in Norway and we may draw what conclusions we like from that. It reminded me how important it is to check up on the quality of the bathing water in which my children, for example, submerge themselves.
As an aside, perhaps I may tell noble Lords that in North America on Cape Cod, at a place called Wellfleet, there is a splendid, large pond—as the Americans call it, but which we would call a lake—large enough for rowing and other activities. It is called, rightly, Gull Pond. I do not know what the right word is to describe gulls at rest in the evening. Do they roost? Anyway, they all alight on Gull Pond and spend the night talking to each other having a fine old time and, I fear, contaminating the water because occasionally Gull Pond is closed to our use. Certainly, my children have got sore throats from bathing in it and trouble with their eyes.
Personally, I go along with the committee of which I was a member, believing that we do need standards. Some of us have recently been in eastern Europe where there may not be much bathing in the sea, but there is inland bathing. I suspect that those countries are going to join us and so we would be wise to have some good regulations in preparation and in line.
Speaking as an elderly medical student, the problems as regards the quality of water are not new to the medical profession. At about the time I was doing National Service there were a great number of complaints. Many years ago there was great concern about something called "traveller's diarrhoea". The Royal Army Medical Corps and the Department of Health at the time did a lot of studies to try to find out where and why, when young men were sent abroad, they had diarrhoea. In many cases they could not find an explanation. There was a general feeling that people get nervous and nerves can upset the bowel and therefore a lot of the diarrohea was probably of nervous origin.
Again, in 1959, there was a great report from the Public Health Laboratory Service. It studied bathing water at about 40 beaches throughout the country. What it said essentially was, "Well, our bathing beaches may be a bit of a mess so far as the bacteriology is concerned, but if we search the records we do not find any cases of poliomyelitis which can be attributed to our bathing beaches. We find only two or three cases where gastroenteritis is really a classifiable disease". That continues the sort of spartan attitude about bathers which the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, himself supported. They are tough, hardy people and do not suffer many serious diseases that lead them to hospital. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Park, will nod when I say that we

691
noticed the same spartan attitude towards the people who bathe on our beaches when we interviewed people from the department. The Minister was probably there.
That is understandable. There have been so many important changes about bathing since 1959 and I should like to touch on a few of them. Without doubt, one of the wonderful things about the health service is that people are now more conscious of ill health than they were. They are more conscious of symptoms. So the threshold has moved from having cholera to having diarrhoea lasting four days, which is the kind of thing we have been studying in the committee and some of the reports we have received.
We also have to remember that four or five days out of a holiday is quite expensive for someone taking the family to Europe. We have to bear in mind that the European beaches, which seem to be so wonderful—to my mind, they very often are—are drenched with ultraviolet light from the sun and do not have the problem of tides. Very often they are protected by the kind of septic tanks which go with villas beside the sea all over the world.
Lastly, we have to bear in mind—thanks be to successive governments in this country and elsewhere— that more and more people are affluent enough to have beach holidays. It is the mode to bathe. The noble Lord is a leader of fashion and much to be respected for that. But there is increasing evidence since 1959 that there is an association between counts of organisms in bathing water and the amount of ill health created.
In 1994 representatives of the Public Health Laboratory Service came to see us. They said:
"Appropriate value should be applied to all recreational waters at all sites"—
which will please the noble Lord—
"but we lack scientific evidence to get and set the standards".
Important surveys have been carried out on beaches and on cohorts of people in resorts over the past few years. We are very fortunate that while we were sitting our specialist adviser, Professor Kay, reported a very interesting study that he had conducted from his headquarters in Leeds. It was published in that very reputable journal, The Lancet. He showed a continuous drift in the number of symptoms created against the count of bacteria in the water.
So we have a rather awkward situation which I point out to all noble Lords. We cannot say, "The water is definitely safe on any beach that we know of as yet". There is always likely to be an organism that will give something. So it is healthy but, like crossing the road, there are always risks. There is this continuous relationship between bathing risks and the levels of indicators.
In future, the United Kingdom hopes to reduce the risks, not least by having more treatment of waste water. The waste water which goes into our sewage farms so often passes out as sewage into the sea. If we can improve the quality of treatment of our waste water we shall be taking a step. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, made a very important point which I am sure other Members will be referring to; that is to say, all these things are inter-digitated and integrated. One cannot worry about
692
bathing water without worrying about waste water; one cannot worry about that without having to think about tap water and drinking water.
The committee, on which I was proud to sit, accepts the opinions that have arisen about the need for indicators. It has set out in the report the kinds of values it is concerned with. Like the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, it is concerned about the high values that seem to be in the present directive and the much lower ones which are expected to arise from what we hope will appear in future.
Basically, what we want to see in future is much more consultation by the law-givers, not only with the people who actually swim, but with the bacteriologists who actually know. Those are the people we have to encourage to come together. I was going to read some short sections from the new report but I shall not bore your Lordships with them because those are the messages.
There are problems for the scientist in future which I shall just touch on. We know that when they are consulted they are going to be asked awkward questions about the regulations. Where should the sampling be done? We believe that it should be about a foot below the surface; a metre high or chest height for a fully grown adult—perhaps one should say, a fully grown man. Where, and how often, should the sampling be done? At the moment it is done every fortnight. Those are snapshots. We do not know what happens when there is a storm which brings water out of the meadows where there may be farm animals feeding bacteria into the river, which go into the bathing water down in the estuary.
We must ensure much greater reliability of the tests that are introduced. That is one of the things about which I feel most strongly. It is very much my hope that the European Environment Agency will take close to its heart the question of the reliability of the bacteriological tests and the differences between techniques used in different countries and try to ensure that we have uniformity of quality.
The way it is done is that the equivalent of 100 millilitres of water is taken and passed through a filter paper. The filter paper is then turned over. It is grown in a medium which produces the growth of the germs, so that individual germs are not looked for, which would be tedious to do down any microscope. The germs are allowed to grow into little cultures so that the number of cultures can be counted. I am sure that your Lordships can see that there are great possibilities for differences in the culture medium between, let us say, the French and the Germans and so on. We must try to get those things sorted out. They run for a time at 37 degrees and then they are switched up to 44 degrees to pep up the growth so that it is more recognisable. Are those the right temperatures?
We shall undoubtedly be looking at the possibility of the application of the wonderful new science—molecular biology—to bathing water problems. Your Lordships should know that there are things called bacteriophages which are viruses which infect bacteria. Those are the bacterial invasions which allow our sewage farms to work. It is hoped that eventually such indicators will be possible, although when we talked to our expert he said that it would take seven to 10 years. However, that is down the line, and we must ensure that our friends in Brussels keep their eyes open to what is in the future.

693
I have no doubt that we must ensure that the public are properly informed and educated about these problems in water. We want further information. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell noble Lords tonight that the Government will fund further research and analysis to provide, soon I trust, a well-founded new bathing water directive.
5.12 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Park for introducing the debate and pay tribute to our Clerk and two specialist advisers who were of such invaluable help to the committee. As a member of the sub-committee, I was interviewed on Westcountry Television and asked what my reaction would be if, when bathing, I found solids passing me by. That was not an easy question to answer, but it illustrates the public perception of water purity. It has nothing to do with either of the two directives. Filtration of course is the responsibility of any sewerage authority. It is not even primary treatment; it is pre-primary treatment.
We have two directives, one which works broadly well and upon which there has been considerable expenditure, and another which is seriously flawed on two counts. The first is that of cost. My noble friend Lady Park referred to that. The Commission has given its opinion that the directive is cost-neutral. That has not been backed up with a detailed cost analysis by the Commission and, in the words of the sub-committee's report, it does not survive scrutiny. Our estimate is that the cost of compliance with the directive and the waste water directive could be up to £9 billion. I shall have more to say about that expenditure later. It may be a ballpark figure, but it is considerably more than cost-neutral. It has also to be said that the Government advise us that they have had difficulty finding comparable data from other member states. The cost of implementation would fall unevenly over the country, with places like the West Country being affected particularly badly. That is in addition to the rise in water charges, to which I shall speak in a moment.
Possibly no less serious, since it strikes at the whole plausibility of the directive, are our worries that the Commission has not engaged the scientific community in open discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, referred to that point in some detail, as did my noble friend Lady Park. There has been a lack of transparency in the Community's deliberations in this respect. Having on the committee my noble friend Lady Park, the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, and, as chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, your Lordships will appreciate that the committee speaks with some authority.
We have a report which has not been sufficiently technically researched and which would involve expenditure of, quite frankly, massive proportions. But at the end of the day it is a case of, "You gets what you pays for". More contamination means higher risk of illness. Less contamination means higher expenditure on sewage disposal.
The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, referred to worries about diarrhoea, whereas in the past the worries would have been about much more serious illnesses. The present directive is no doubt in need of updating in the light of scientific progress, but there is no evidence to suggest—
694
the committee found this—that it does not afford a satisfactory level of protection from serious illness. The more important point is that it was the sub-committee's opinion that neither the present nor the proposed directive would provide complete protection from the gastro-intestinal symptoms or respiratory illnesses which are essentially self-limiting to four days, as the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, said, and which have always been a risk in sea bathing—the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, referred to this—and which are basically acceptable to the public.
Perhaps I may return to the subject of costs. We have this potentially massive cost in addition to the costs already incurred which have resulted in such large rises in water charges. Sewage works are expensive engineering projects which have to be planned and built over a period of years before improved water quality is achieved.
Changes in policy on water quality standards need to be taken well in advance if wasted expenditure is to be avoided. In 1990 the UK Government's sharp change in policy on sewage treatment had a major impact on costs incurred by water companies and, therefore, on water charges borne by consumers. This causes real concern, particularly to holiday areas in the South West.
In 1990 the Government announced policy changes which effectively increased the capital investment required over a 10-year period from £1.4 billion to £2 billion. We must bear that in mind in relation to the £9 billion cost of the proposed directive. Water bills in the South West had to increase not, as had been planned, by the 6.5 per cent, above the rate of inflation but by 11.5 per cent, above the rate of inflation.
The committee is concerned that there should not be money wasted by another sharp shift in policy, causing expensive new engineering works to be undertaken and making unnecessary some works already completed and in the process of being built.
We are therefore concerned that engineering decisions by the water companies should be able to be taken against the background of a stable policy for water quality. The committee sees a need for decisions on the water quality standards in any new bathing water directive to be taken with all speed so that the water companies can take a strategic approach to the treatment of urban waste water and to the quality of bathing water. If decisions on the mandatory standards of bathing water quality and on the engineering and treatment programmes they require are delayed, there must be a risk of considerable wasted expenditure. We hope the Government will press the Commission and the Council for the necessary speedy decisions.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I, too, echo the tribute paid to our chairman on his handling of what has been an extremely difficult investigation. I compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Park, the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, who dealt adequately with the technical, financial, medical, and policy issues contained in the report.
I came to the sub-committee somewhat late in the day and I have approached the problem from a slightly different perspective. I hope that the House will bear with

695
me if I present a slightly idiosyncratic view. I have had only one friend of whom it was said, "If he fell into a septic tank he would come up with a diamond ring". Ordinary mortals such as myself, who become involved in the subject of wastes, sewage and water quality, usually finish up thoroughly mired in it.
It is interesting to note that as the committee was studying the possible new bathing water directive from the European Commission two newspaper reports threw a sharp light on the problems of our maritime location. First, much was made of some intrepid plastic ducks which, if my memory is correct, had been frozen into the Arctic in the Baring Straits as a result of a sea disaster and were washed ashore in the United Kingdom some four or five years later. The second was a survey which revealed that a surprising proportion of the flotsam washed ashore on our westerly coasts originates in North America.
The oceans are restless. Ocean currents flow round the British Isles in a generally clockwise direction. The North Sea is a large eddy with the Gulf Stream feeding in from the north and an outflow through the Dover Straits. Pity the poor water companies which have responsibility for bathing water quality and which know that, with few local exceptions, every time they test, the water that they are testing is travelling steadily down the coast. Unless everyone applies the same meticulously high standards, their task is impossible.
The second problem involved in dealing with bathing water quality is historical in its origin. When sewage systems were first constructed for seaside towns in the 19th century it was not at all unusual for them to use short sea-outfalls for disposal rather than install the expensive filtration and treatment plants which were necessary inland. Smaller populations, fewer visitors and an absence of some of the modern materials that are now in regular household use meant that coastal communities could dispose of their sewage quickly and cheaply. Now a century later we see the consequence of such a past.
In paragraph 11 of the second report, Bathing Water Revisited, we see that South West Water believes that the cost of compliance with the proposed new directive in their region was disproportionately high because the region has almost one-third of the designated beaches in the United Kingdom while having only 3 per cent, of the population.
The cost of compliance is not exclusively a factor of the number of designated beaches in a region; it is also due to the number of communities which have had the advantage—if advantage it be—of disposing of their sewage directly into the sea. Of course, that problem is exacerbated by high seasonal numbers of tourists who, while contributing to the problem, at the same time expect—and rightly, in my view—that beaches should be clean and hygienic.
That brings me to the issue of costs and benefits. The first European Council Directive on Bathing Water (76/160/EEC) dated December 1975 contains the following statement:
"Whereas"—
696
the Commission seems to love "whereas" and "having regard to" because there are many of them. I have chosen the essential one.
"Whereas, in order to protect the environment and public health, it is necessary to reduce the pollution of bathing water and to protect such water against further deterioration".
That was the motivation for the first report.
Interestingly, the next directive in the field (91/271/EEC), relating to urban waste water treatment and dated 21st May 1991, does not mention public health as a motive but contains the following statement:
"Whereas [again] to prevent the environment from being adversely affected by the disposal of insufficiently treated urban waste water, there is a general need for secondary treatment of urban waste water".
The waste water of seaside towns is urban waste water.
The second committee report that we are considering, Bathing Water Revisited, establishes at Table 1 on page 6 the different costs of meeting the various standards that might be set over and above the £9.5 billion, which appears in paragraph 7, required to comply with the urban waste water directive. In trying to calculate whether those costs are justifiable, your Lordships' committee has a problem. The public health cost of sickness as a result of sea bathing is quite small. There is a very small number of acute cases where the consequence of a dip in the sea is tragic for the individual concerned. Beyond that, diarrhoea and nausea are the main problems and they soon pass. That is as may be, but I have never heard or believed that savings in public health costs were the sole determinant for cleaning up our sewerage and industrial waste disposal problems. If that had been the case, many of the rivers in industrial areas which used to be so offensive would never have been tackled. In those cases, the public health cost was marginal because no sensible person would go anywhere near them, still less would anyone use them as a source of water supply.
The issue of trying to cost environmental benefits or disbenefits presents an even greater problem. I intend to approach that aspect in a different way by reverting to the problems faced by South West Water. In that part of the country the tourist industry succeeds because of a belief in clean sea bathing, clean rivers and clean countryside. Can the West Country afford to put that industry, which is vital to its economy, at risk by allowing the reduction of one of the assurances of environmental quality? I suggest not. Mr. Byatt of Ofwat may be right to be concerned about the impact of high costs on water customers. But unless the communities in the South West arc prepared to put the tourist industry in jeopardy in their region they have little option but to shoulder their share of what is a much wider problem. Perhaps some form of tourist levy can be considered to assist in financing but that runs the risk of persuading people to go elsewhere, possibly abroad.
There are no easy answers. These problems are not exclusively national; they are international. One has only to consider the problems of the Baltic or the northern Adriatic to appreciate the need for the establishment of a common, acceptable standard and its enforcement. What is certain is that the privatisation of the water industry has helped. Examination of the water companies' capital construction programmes reveals that since privatisation there has been a great expansion of expenditure on capital

697
works in sewage disposal because government financial control totals no longer apply and the industry now has access to the money markets. The proposal for a new directive is in tune with public demands for high standards and these two reports should help the Commission towards an appropriate decision.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, as always, we are immensely indebted to noble Lords and others who have given their efforts to producing these reports; to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate so far; to the noble Baroness for filling in at rather short notice; and to the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, for an extremely interesting and illuminating speech on the health situation.
In particular, I wish to follow the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Monkswell and Lord Dixon-Smith. In spite of our gratitude to the people who have produced the report, I believe that there is a general unease in relation to the results. There was a time when bathing water was not a problem. Apart from anything else, our climate saw to that. But if for no other reason than the use of wetsuits for various water sports, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, the number of bathers and other people using the sea has increased dramatically. And so it is a problem that so many of our beaches and much of our bathing water are frankly disgusting. They are a major turn-off for tourists and a source of crippling disease, although I accept not for great numbers of people, and cause a great deal of discomfort and unease.
We spend a great deal of money on the problem, the costs of which seem to fall rather inequitably—or at least the people of the South West seem to think so. We should probably look again at the whole problem of financing what needs to be done.
We accept that Brussels has not done its homework properly on this matter and that should be rectified. But that is no reason for us not to take such precautions as we can. Paragraph 58 of the report states that:
"Some of us are attracted by the idea that if sufficient effective resources were devoted to reducing pathogenic content of sewage discharges there would be no need for a bathing water directive".
However, it goes on:
"on reflection … the Committee concluded that 'belt and braces' were both desirable".
I am informed that it is extremely unusual for a Select Committee to report even initial disagreements in that way. I conclude that that paragraph masks a considerable unease on the part of at least some members of the committee.
I would argue that end-of-pipe solutions are the best way forward for public health. Certainly there are plenty of examples of the inadequacy of long sea outfalls. The Eastleigh pipes blew within seven months of installation and the Worthing ones all failed. Yorkshire Water spent £32 million on a system which produced water of an appalling quality and now will have to spend another £35 million to meet the urban waste water directive requirements. That is £67 million spent on long sea outfalls, whereas an effective end-of-pipe solution would have cost only £45 million.
698
This is not a very pleasant subject, made more unpleasant by what has been referred to as the "Jaws" syndrome, to which the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, referred. Your Lordships will remember that in "Jaws" people continued to be eaten by sharks because the local authority was afraid that, if it admitted that anyone had been even sniffed at by a shark, tourists would not come and the local resorts would be ruined. Likewise, inhabitants and authorities in resorts are afraid to mention the problem that we are discussing this evening, and the fact that they do not like, do not want and are afraid of mentioning it militates against its solution.
With others of your Lordships, I am reaching the end of the sittings of your Lordships' Select Committee on sustainable development. Therefore, I am well apprised of the necessity of value for money and not using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I have heard all those arguments and I accept them. Nevertheless, I accept that the problem at which we are looking today must be tackled radically or it will both continue and cost much more in the long run.
Today, we are making both "Jaws" and "The Return of Jaws". In spite of all the work undertaken, I am no more happy with the results than I was with the original work of Brussels. Unless we take a truly radical approach in the next few years, however expensive that may be, in a few years time we shall be here in this Chamber debating "Jaws III".
5.35 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, like all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate who are not members of the Select Committee, I begin by echoing their thoughts that this has been a work of considerable diligence and skill. I commend also the noble Baroness who opened the debate on doing that with characteristic thoroughness.
I support a great deal of what is in the report but I should also like to make some criticisms of it. I shall not go quite as far as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, who preceded me. There must be some anxiety about costs. A balance must be drawn. One has also to apply a cost benefit analysis to this form of legislation. However, I am not so sure that that is as easy to apply as has been suggested by some of your Lordships in this debate.
The background to our considerations starts with the bathing water directive of 1976. Perhaps I may add the thought that that was adopted by unanimity. It was adopted because there was a considerable fear that polluted bathing waters, especially those polluted as a result of sewage, represented a serious health hazard. Of course, it provided also a very generous period for compliance.
In this report, the extent and seriousness of such hazards is questioned to a considerable degree. Certainly during the period for which I was responsible for environmental affairs in the European Commission a good deal of thought was given, even i n those days—up to the beginning of 1989—to a revision of that bathing water directive, the drinking water directive and, indeed, to endorsing that which the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, asserted; namely, that this should be seen in the context of a water policy as a whole. There is much to

699
commend that. However, I am not sure that we have the time to be able to develop a policy of that coherence and have it enacted within a reasonable period of time.
I have browsed through the report but I believe that, unless I am mistaken, the Select Committee did not consider in relation to the 1976 bathing water directive—and I confess that I only knew yesterday that I was to speak in the debate—the dilemma which confronts the Commission in relation to the enforcement of any law. The Commission is the guardian of the treaty. Even though there were strong arguments to suggest, even in 1985, that the bathing water directive had some serious defects attaching to it, that did not remove from the Commission and the Commissioner responsible the duty to ensure that the law was properly enforced. There appears to be no mention of that in the report.
The fact that the background to the whole matter had been that the original draft directive—which, presumably, had been negotiated over a period of two or three years— had been subjected to all the scrutiny of the Council of Permanent Representatives before it reached the Council of Ministers, must have given governments the opportunity (and at that time it was a Labour Government) to investigate any doubts before the directive became law.
However—and I am being a little anecdotal here—when I came to study such matters and the way in which the question of identifying bathing waters was being applied (which was a requisite under the draft directive) I found that a number of governments were seriously deficient in their recognition of fulfilling obligations which fell upon them and that they failed to recognise the duty of the Commission in enforcing the law. In my judgment, the United Kingdom Government sought to sabotage the directive; indeed, there is some reference to that in the first report that we are considering today. The Government took an attitude which, essentially, was, "We don't like this directive and we hope that it will go away"; and they did nothing about it.
As is pointed out in the report, in carrying out the duty of identifying bathing waters, I believe—although I am speaking now from memory—that France identified something like 1,100, Italy about 1,000 and then, in lovely little landlocked Luxembourg, 39 were identified. But the United Kingdom, which has the longest coastline of all, identified only 27.1 believe that that shows a scant regard for carrying out their duties in that respect. That caused the Select Committee to say that there had been a sluggish British response.
It was for that reason that I authorised the commencement of infraction proceedings. The Government failed to recognise that Blackpool, Southport, Bournemouth and Great Yarmouth actually had beaches. But, happily, there was a subsequent U-turn; or, at least, a partial U-turn. In 1987–88 the compliance rate improved. Then there was another U-turn represented by the adoption of the urban waste water directive which is designed to stop the dumping of sewage sludge at sea by the end of 1998. All towns with a population of more than 10,000 will have to apply secondary treatment before discharge. I believe that that is unquestionably an advance. Whatever one may say about the efficacy of the Commission in producing those proposals, there has,
700
undeniably, been some considerable improvement in standards over those years. That is to be commended. Of course, it is not something that is due simply to the Commission; it is due to member states improving the way in which they are working in that regard.
Doubtless the latter will involve very substantial capital investment in the future. One of the problems has been a great deal of not duplicity but certainly misinformation about the costing of the programmes. An enormous estimate was given by the Treasury and a different estimate given by the Department of the Environment. That hardly leads to a recognition of the credibility of the Government. I entirely endorse the views of the Select Committee in saying that it is important that we should have a proper assessment of the capital cost involved. In relation to the draft directive proposed, it is right to say that there should be a better assessment, if at all possible, of the cost involved.
In relation to the latter, I saw that Mr. Henningsen of DGXI said in evidence to the Select Committee that there was considerable difficulty in building such assessments into a draft directive. He said that,
"cost estimates always depend on information that we get from the Member States".
The burden of his argument was that that information is sometimes difficult to procure and, at other times, unreliable. If, as a country, we are to play a more important role than we have done in the past in producing a meaningful policy in that regard, I believe that we should look at some of our own warts while being ready to criticise the work of the Commission. But is there anything in the argument of Mr. Henningsen? Has the Select Committee properly addressed those points?
Doubt has been cast on the environmental credentials of the Government over a long period of time. Indeed, it is interesting that the Minister for Agriculture said only recently, that he regretted the posture of the Government in earlier days when he had been a junior Minister because it had not helped Britain's reputation in the field. Of course, I am only offering a resume of what he said. I respect Mr. Waldegrave who played a notable part in the discussions that we had, although he did not always seem to have the backing of his colleagues. I believe that the arguments about nooks and crannies, the arguments that took place in Edinburgh, the assertions that environmental policy was always going too far, and even the suggestion that it ought to be repatriated, hardly led to an enhancement of the Government's credibility.
I turn now to the argument that the Commission had not consulted the scientific community. If the Commission has failed in that regard, it is a serious fault on its part. But before a draft directive reaches the Council of Ministers and while it is being considered by the Council of Permanent Representatives, are not those points vigorously argued by the Government? So what did the Government say in that respect? Did they take the view that the scientific community was not consulted and did they not say, as they ought to have said, "Well it's not too late to do it now"? I think that it is uncharacteristic of the Commission. In my experience of the Commission, its members did consult very widely and as best they could. I find it surprising, but it may well be a correct assessment of the position.

701
I turn now to the question of subsidiarity. I believe that the case has very clearly been made out for action in the sphere of bathing; and, indeed, as regards bathing water. It is important to establish common standards for the protection of bathers' health throughout the European Union and, at the same time, to recognise the trans-boundary dimension of water pollution. It is right that the Select Committee should have drawn attention to the effects on tourism.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Monkswell made some very pertinent points regarding the interests of ordinary people who are, perhaps, not quite so knowledgeable of the complex scientific arguments involved in the presentation of the report. They are entitled to have clean water when they bathe; they are entitled not to have to confront faeces even if treated; and they are entitled to expect higher standards than they have been getting hitherto. Whether, of course, that justifies the enormous amount of expenditure involved is a matter of balance and requires a further assessment.
The question of local decision-making was also referred to on page 10 of the seventh report. I am a little dubious about that. At paragraph 20 the report states:
"We think there is a need for a more serious attempt than appears to have been made hitherto to assess the economic benefits which might flow from a reduction in the minor illnesses associated with bathing".
The report further stated:
"It might appear after investigation that the higher standards to be achieved should not be made mandatory under Community legislation or, perhaps, even under domestic legislation, but should be left to local decision within each water company area after full consultation with water charge payers and other groups concerned".
I must say I find that a somewhat extraordinary proposition to advance. It virtually means that one accepts ultimately the total bona fides of the water companies in carrying out their consultations with the local people concerned. I have found in dealing in the past, not only with water companies but also with governmental organisations, that there is a great deal of special pleading involved in the public relations exercises that they undertake. I am not totally convinced that they are prepared, because of the special position they are in, to provide that totally balanced and objective view as a result of consultations. Are they able to carry out the consultations anyway? What would be the nature of the consultations that they would be prepared to carry out? How reliable would it all be?
I have mentioned a few of the criticisms that I have but that does not in any sense mean that I do not believe this report is other than an excellent one. It has been well presented and it is coherent. I will not say that it is without complexity. When I was reading it last night I found some of it rather difficult to absorb and it did not manage to keep me awake. But having said that, I commend all those who participated in this extremely difficult work.
5.52 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I ought first to declare what is perhaps an historical interest, having had the opportunity to participate as a member of the sub-committee in the deliberations leading to its first report on bathing waters. But setting aside my own earlier involvement, I wish on behalf of the Government to
702
congratulate the committee, under the exceptionally able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, who I regret is not able to be here today, on the two excellent reports on the proposed revision of the bathing water directive. It is with my inside knowledge that I can endorse the tributes which have been paid by various committee members both to the special advisers who were involved and also to the clerk, who was invaluable throughout. I would also like to pay tribute to the quality and expertise of some of the speeches today, not least that of my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth, who gave us a lucid presentation of the two reports.
Your Lordships invariably bring great expertise and insight to discussion of proposed Community legislation both in the Committee Corridor and here in the Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is an example of the experience and expertise that are available to this House in debates on European affairs. I should at the same time express the Government's wish that it had been possible to reply earlier to the committee's second report, Bathing Water Revisited, to give more time for the response to be considered before this debate.
The existing bathing water directive was adopted as long ago as 1975. Many would say that it has had a chequered history in the UK—the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, pointed this out—and this has contributed to the comparatively high level of public interest in its revision. I shall not dwell on the past, which perhaps continues to influence public perception of the quality of our bathing waters. But in looking to the future and the proposed revision we would be wise not to forget the lessons that can be gleaned from the history of the existing directive.
It is clear to me from your Lordships' reports that these lessons have not been forgotten. This scrutiny and debate have identified weaknesses in the proposed revision that require a positive response from the European Commission. I want to put on record that the Government consider that the need for revision is unquestionable and that there is merit in some of the Commission's proposals. However, we share the committee's concerns on some important aspects. Revision is the opportunity for thorough updating and correction of the shortcomings of the current directive. It is not the time to replace one set of shortcomings with another.
I understand that your Lordships' reports have been studied in Brussels and that the conclusions and recommendations, together with criticism from other quarters, have caused the Commission to re-examine its proposal. The result is not yet known, but it may become clearer before long, when the Commission explains its proposals for water legislation to the Environment Committee of the European Parliament and to a wider audience. I hope that the results of your Lordships' deliberations will be influential. I say this because the Select Committee has carried out a thorough and independent scrutiny of the proposal. This scrutiny deserves a proper response. It is, of course, reassuring to us that so many of the committee's views accord with those of the Government. Our response to the first report, Bathing Water, shows the extent of the agreement. There is a similar convergence of views in our recent response to Bathing Water Revisited.

703
A dominant theme of both reports (and indeed of the debate today) is the need for greater openness and wider public debate on bathing water standards. There can be little doubt that a better exchange of information and views during the formulation of the Commission's proposal would have helped to improve its quality and may have saved time in the long run. I believe that, although the committee's criticism of lack of consultation has been taken to heart, there is still a lack of information in the public domain on the implications of the proposal for other member states. The Commission itself has only recently started a study to collect basic information about levels of faecal streptococci, which is a parameter with greatly enhanced significance in the proposed revision.
In the UK the Government have commissioned extensive research, and published the results, to shed light on the complex issues of water quality and health. Many noble Lords today have pointed out just how complex issues of water quality and public health are. We have also carefully assessed likely compliance costs. We have made this information widely available—
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the noble Earl continues, may I ask, dealing with the question of scientific assessment, what is the role of the European Environment Agency in relation to this? Is it doing any work in this regard, and what is its relationship in connection with any such work with the work going on in DGXI, and indeed in the member states?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I was going to mention the European Environment Agency a little later but, as the noble Lord will know as well as any of us, it is only just now properly in action. It has distributed various specific studies to various topic centres. The topic centre based in the UK will be dealing with water. It may be a little too soon to say exactly what will be the extent of the agency's contribution, but I think everyone who has an interest in the agency hopes that it will provide authoritative information across all environmental media.
As I was saying, we have made the information that we commissioned on both costs and the health quality parameters widely available in order to inform the debate and it is apparent that it has been a significant part of the evidence considered by the committee. But we have still to see comparable information from other member states. EC legislation should be developed in the light of comprehensive, Europe-wide knowledge of the consequences. Armed with the committee's conclusions we shall try to ensure that standards of information are improved. I stress that point to my noble friend Lady Park.
Your Lordships, and especially my noble friend Lord Bridgeman, have drawn attention to the need for a public debate on acceptable levels of health protection. While the principle must be welcome, given the complexity of the issues, a meaningful and informed debate presents a considerable challenge. The effects on health at the standards under consideration are not so great as to be immediately obvious—except perhaps in some cases to those intent on sensationalism. The effects cannot be distinguished by looking at the number of people who go to their GP or the chemist following bathing. So research has to be based on the results of questionnaires which seek
704
bathers' and non-bathers' views on their perception of their state of health. Moreover, the results of the different surveys which have been carried out do not show agreement on the effects on health associated with particular levels of indicators of sewage contamination. There are difficulties, too, in knowing the precise water quality to which bathers have been exposed.
These problems make establishing relationships between water quality and the chances of suffering minor illnesses difficult to quantify other than in rather broad terms. However, on the basis of the evidence which is currently available, the Government share the committee's views that there is no justification for imposing on the public significantly higher costs in order to reduce the present level of risks.
The Government have made considerable efforts to ensure that the public has information about any risks associated with bathing. We funded the Water Research Centre study, which is probably the most comprehensive study of its kind undertaken anywhere in the world.
It looked at a large number of bathers, a spectrum of different bathing water qualities and a variety of different bathing activities. This research concluded that the existing standards provide adequate health protection. But any risks must be seen in their proper context—for example, against the background of risks associated with the other activities in which people participate on their holidays. Also relevant is the finding from the WRC research that bathing in clean, cold, salt water can itself cause certain health effects. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, was astonished that a healthy activity such as swimming could possibly lead to any form of ill health. However, I believe that he confused the difference between the exercise and the environment in which that exercise is taken, as do joggers when they jog along a busy road.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, as someone who suffers from raynaud's phenomenon—I should explain that that is gangrene of the extremities—I know the risks associated with cold water bathing. They are recognised and acceptable. I take issue with the Government on the fact that contamination from sewage causes extra health risk to people and they seem to think that that is acceptable. I do not think that the British public would recognise that risk as acceptable.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, if the noble Lord will be patient, I believe that he will find his assertion to be absolutely untrue.
With some sympathy, I turn to some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, made. I have more than a few children who, like the noble Lord's children, like to be in and out of the sea. The Government take very seriously the likely effect of sea water quality on children who are swimming off beaches. The Government plan further detailed analysis of the data on children specifically.
Quite rightly, the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, pointed out that closing beaches or prohibiting bathing—one of the suggestions in the proposed revision of the bathing directive—would be difficult. The Government agree wholeheartedly with the committee and feel that it would

705
be disproportionate, inappropriate and hugely impractical. Not only would preventing people from swimming cause problems for those seeking to enforce the ban, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, knows, the time taken to undertake microbiological analysis is such that by the time one decides to close the beach the problem may no longer exist. The Government feel strongly that, if for some reason health factors within the water tested cause concern, appropriate action should be taken.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, stressed that information and advice must be given to the public. Two or three noble Lords referred to the "Jaws" syndrome. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, got as far as "Jaws III" before he sat down. That scenario is very much not the case. The Government recognise that the provision of information is the only sensible response to bathing water problems.
Perhaps I may point out that in the UK a scheme is in operation whereby the results of monitoring by the NRA are displayed on notices at bathing waters. An associated leaflet explains in simple terms the significance of the monitoring results.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, and the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, also referred to the challenge of sampling and the difficulties associated with it. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, wanted sampling conducted over a much longer period outside the traditional bathing season. However, it is during the traditional bathing season that the directive requires water to be sampled. The UK season, from mid-May until the end of September, is longer than that of some other member states. If the National Rivers Authority carried out monitoring for longer periods, there would be a significant increase in costs without any commensurate benefits.
Perhaps I may refer again to the European Environment Agency, which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis mentioned. Sampling comparability and techniques could be one area in which the European Environment Agency takes an interest and on which it seeks greater conformity across the community. Comparability of data is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, mentioned. Concerns have been expressed that the directive and the proposed revision allow too much scope for different interpretations of the monitoring requirements so that, for example, the UK's diligent approach places us possibly at an unfair advantage. I have some sympathy with those views. I believe that the Commission is aware of the concerns and has taken some steps in its proposal to reduce potential discrepancies.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, highlighted two important issues from his own experience in this area: first, the extent of comparability of enforcement or the application of the directive's obligations; and the duty of the Commission to enforce the law. The Government recognise the importance of both issues.
The public's concern about bathing water quality is likely to continue, despite the massive investment being made in sewerage infrastructure. Some £9.5 billion is already earmarked for the completion of the first bathing water directive and the urban waste water treatment directive. I believe that it is not possible to shift the costs either on to central government or to the European Commission, as the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell
706
suggested, because, first, that would defy the polluter pays principle, and, secondly, one is in effect still charging the public at the end of the day. It goes round in a circle and is not an endless corridor, as the noble Lord might wish. It is the responsibility of us all to seek to ensure that the debate about costs and benefits is as constructive as possible given the sheer volumes of investment which are required.
A number of shortcomings of the present directive which need to be addressed concern the bathing water quality parameters to be monitored and for which mandatory standards are set. The committee has focused most attention on the microbiological parameters because it is these, rather than for example transparency or dissolved oxygen, which are most closely related to the directive's fundamental objective of health protection. The committee has quite rightly endorsed the Commission's proposed deletion of total coliforms and salmonella as not adding useful information. Fine tuning of the faecal coliform parameter by changing it to E. coli is a further useful improvement. The Government noted the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, on bacteriophage. Indeed, we believe that it could well be a promising and good indicator. But clearly more work has to be undertaken first.
There is a view that deletion of any particular parameter represents a weakening of the standards of protection. I am pleased that the committee has rejected that line of argument by recommending that monitoring for enterovirus should no longer be required on the grounds that the test methods are too unreliable. They are also very expensive. In other words, it is an unsuitable indicator for routine monitoring under the directive. There is unchallengeable logic to this recommendation which I hope the Commission will accept.
Your Lordships' reports have given great emphasis to the proposed mandatory standard for faecal streptococci. There is common ground that this is a good indicator, with a simple and reliable test. The debate concerns the numerical value of the standard to be set. The committee has exposed the lack of scientific justification for the proposed standard of 400/100 ml and has called for further analysis of the evidence. We are planning further work but, because of the complexity and limitations of the research, and the difficulty of measuring actual health effects related to water quality, which I mentioned earlier, it would be unwise to expect unequivocal evidence in support of a particular numerical standard in the near future. And, unfortunately, the same difficulties in deriving reliable quantification of effects would arise in meeting the committee's suggestions in Bathing Water Revisited for more serious attempts to assess the economic benefits of more stringent water quality standards.
I point out that the Government are participating with the NRA, the water industry and others in the development of methods to evaluate the economic benefits arising from improvements in water policy. We are not sluggish on the subject but, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, pointed out, measuring cost benefit analysis in this area is not straightforward. It will take

707
further work. I know that both the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith had quite a lot to say on the subject.
There is a lack of hard evidence from other member states. This reinforces the need for fuller debate and the sharing of information from as many sources as possible. I commend the committee's contribution to encouraging this fuller debate both in this House and elsewhere.
Finally, my reply would be incomplete without covering the important matter of costs. Much of Bathing Water Revisited concerns the committee's analysis of the compliance cost assessment carried out for the Government. Indeed, costs have been fundamental to many of the points raised in this debate. My noble friend Lord Bridge-man gave us a great deal of thought on the subject.
We have recently responded to specific points in Bathing Water Revisited, including such matters as the need for a coherent Community water policy which recognises relative priorities and the implications of legislation for investment. One of the most fundamental points made both by the report and by my noble friend Lady Park was the need for coherent strategic policy-making and investment in the whole water area. The Government are not being led. They are leading, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, suggested. We are keen that the various strands of Community water policy should integrate properly and interrelate where they have to overlap and that the timing is sensible. Given that resources are not infinite, we are keen that priorities are properly set on cost benefit analysis, where it can be achieved, and on proper scientific evidence, where it is available. The Government are fully aware of the need for a coherent strategy throughout the area. When we consider the extraordinary sums of money involved in the investment, that factor is vital.
However, I should like to draw attention once again to perhaps the committee's most important opinion: it was unconvinced that there was justification for imposing on the general public significantly higher costs in order somewhat to reduce the present risks of self-limiting illness associated with bathing. Through the debate today, the House has, I believe, endorsed that view. Furthermore, there is no question but that the UK cost study shows that the proposed provision would mean the imposition of significant additional costs. Avoidance of unjustified additional costs is a principle which the Government can readily support.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to respond to today's debate. I believe it has been a useful opportunity for us all to exchange ideas on some of the very complex technical issues arising from the revision of the Bathing Water Directive. I have noted the many issues raised here today and I hope that I have managed to respond to most, if not all, of them. Above all, I have been reminded of the widespread consensus on the fundamental issues which must shape the UK's objectives for the revision of the directive.
6.13 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I wish to take the opportunity to thank everyone who has spoken for the interesting contributions. I was particularly glad to hear from the Minister that the Commission is reconsidering the proposal in the light of our comments. I was pleased to hear that the Government are working closely with the NRA and that there are many convergences of views between us. I am glad that the Government are leading, not following.
I agree on the need for more information on the position in other states. We can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on that. He is particularly well placed to comment on the issue. His argument that the Government should be pushing for it is one which we wholly support.
Finally, I wish to pick up a point from the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. Paragraph 58 did not conceal a sinister rift. It simply recorded a discussion and a difference of view.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene, I know that the paragraph did exactly that, but I understand that it is unusual for a committee report to record a discussion in that way. The fact that it was done and that the powers that be allowed it to be recorded must surely show that there was an unusual reason for the matter to be recorded like that.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I bow to the superior knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, which naturally exceeds mine on the usual habits of committees. I can only make my comments from the view of one who was there. I commend the Motion to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Bathing Water Revisited: ECC Report
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the House will be aware that we debated both Motions together. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Bathing Water Revisited (Seventh Report, HL Paper 41).—(Baroness Park of Monmouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Signs
6.15 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, before the regulations governing road signs are relaxed, they will carry out assessments and research with regard to the potential environmental impact and confusion to road users as a result of the proliferation of road signs.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, today's convention demands scrupulous declarations of interest by Members of both Houses, and since the Question involves tourist signposting perhaps I may begin by confessing that I am involved in one of the largest tourist attractions in Great

709
Britain. It is set in an area of outstanding natural beauty, the New Forest. I am President of the Southern Tourist Board and a member of the Heritage Committee of the British Tourist Authority.
The Question is deliberately designed to draw the attention of Parliament for the first time to proposed amendments to the traffic sign regulations which, if introduced as proposed, will, I believe, have a very detrimental long-term effect on our environment, being unmanageable and potentially confusing to touring motorists.
Britain is justly famous all over the world for its green and pleasant land and its historic towns and villages, largely uncluttered by a profusion of signs. For many decades, governments of all persuasions have made it their policy to keep our roads and particularly our countryside clear of a proliferation of signs. With the growth of tourism and leisure, this policy had to be altered, so in the 1980s the brown and white tourist signs were introduced, denoting a tourist attraction with symbols indicating their type because bona fide tourist attractions are visited by a large number of people who are unfamiliar with the area. The numerical criteria relating to the number of visitors to each site and other conditions have been generally accepted by the tourist industry as a valid limitation, as the stated purpose of signs is to provide directions to ease traffic flow not for advertising.
This system has worked very well with the tourist boards supervising compliance with criteria. The current policy already allows a large range of tourist establishments to be signed. They include theme parks, Zoos, historic properties, museums and leisure complexes. Consequently the brown and white sign has a defined and recognised meaning. There have been some justifiable requests for a limited extension of the criteria to other types of destination which attract large numbers of tourists.
Now, as suggested by a circular from the Department of Transport, this successful scheme, which has won widespread public acceptance and confidence, is to be replaced by a virtually unregulated free-for-all. The new definition of an eligible establishment is proposed as any,
"permanently established destination or facility which attracts or is used by visitors to an area, and which is open to the public without prior booking during its normal opening hours".
That description is so wide that it would cover not only all guesthouses and bed-and-breakfast establishments, but also every pub and restaurant—even shops if they chose to apply—and the department proposes a presumption in favour of approval. There are approximately 5,000 visitor attractions in England, many of which are not currently signed, but the number of premises that could potentially be signed under the new suggested definition could be well over 200,000.
So how would the physical requirements of locating and installing so many signs be met? Stranger still, it is suggested that establishments be permitted to supply and put up their own signs. That raises the question of who will maintain them and keep them up to date in future years.
Another problem is that the new widened definition of eligibility without any qualifying criteria will allow establishments to have a sign, even if their opening times are such that they may often be closed when visitors who
710
follow the signs arrive. Surely it is wrong that signs should be a source of misinformation. Under existing criteria, attractions that have limited or seasonal opening periods below established levels must indicate that on their signs.
The total lack of nationally accepted criteria for the signposting of tourist attractions based on numerical justification, or quality and operational standards is surely unacceptable. Significantly it is a step which Scotland has refused to take; it will wisely continue to administer its signage through the Scottish Tourist Board. Wales will do likewise. It surely must be right, in line with the recent tourism policy statement of the Department of National Heritage, Competing with the Best, that tourism sign eligibility in England should comply with prevailing tourist board standards which are accepted by the industry, such as the "Visitors Charter" code of practice for attractions and the national grading and classification schemes for accommodation which the Heritage Secretary only recently pledged to strengthen.
There is no doubt that an appropriate broadening and flexibility of eligibility criteria would be welcomed, to permit signs for other types of permanent destination which attract large numbers of tourists and visitors from outside the area. If hotels, pubs, fast food establishments, supermarkets and picnic sites need and deserve further signs, could they not be known as tourist facility signs, and be in a different colour so as not to downgrade the credibility of the brown and white signs to proper tourist attractions?
Unfortunately there is nothing in the proposals to reflect the special requirements of areas such as national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty or the New Forest, in whose recently designated heritage area there are 38 hotels and 88 bed-and-breakfast establishments. In the county of Hampshire alone there an; 2,000, all of which, it is suggested, should have a presumption in favour of a sign.
It is further proposed that local roads authorities may establish their own criteria. Yet surely signs must also be continuous and not differ between adjacent local authority areas. Most importantly, signs must be clear and reliable sources of information. The application of consistent conditions is needed. Signage policies must be comprehensive, and be devised in full collaboration with environmental and regional and national tourist interests.
There is no evidence that the issue of sign proliferation has been evaluated, either in terms of physical requirements, information need, or, in my view most importantly, environmental impact. As the proposals stand there is a real risk that large numbers of signs could damage the very environment that tourists want to see, and that they could confuse rather than assist.
The proposed proliferation of signage will undoubtedly bring about a devaluation of the existing brown and white signs, and will have a detrimental effect on visitor attractions that serve high volume need, through their signs becoming visually insignificant. If so many establishments are to be signed, either in a cluster or all on one post, the result will surely be self-defeating.
The House may wonder why this radical new policy has not received wider publicity. For reasons that are unclear—I refrain from saying "sinister"—the

711
consultative paper and the draft orders were issued just before Easter with little over a month allowed for representations. Very few local authorities or amenity bodies have had time to consider the paper. Indeed, one local authority told me that it did not even have time to put it to the relevant committee.
Surely eligibility for signage must continue to depend on establishments adopting nationally agreed codes of practice and minimum standards—and minimum numbers should continue to be accepted by the Department of Transport as preconditions for signage, especially on motorways.
I am sure that everybody will agree that the object of signs is to inform and direct. They must be accurate, clear and reliable. If there are no standards, there will be chaos. So what is the rush? I plead with the Government tonight to carry out further consultation to achieve nationally agreed criteria, to come to a sensible agreement with regard to the definition of tourist attractions relevant to tourist facilities, and to delay implementation of any proposals until such time as a proper assessment is made of the undoubted damage to our countryside, towns and villages. It seems inconceivable that the Government would choose to ignore the strong representations by such bodies as the Association of County Councils, the tourist boards, motoring organisations, RoSPA and the CPRE, which have a long history of fighting against the proliferation of signs.
I have considerable sympathy with my noble friend who will answer this Question this evening. He will be valiantly representing the Department of Transport, which over the years has traditionally been in the forefront of preventing unnecessary signs on Britain's roads. To defend such a complete capitulation to the proposed free-for-all must be very painful for many in his Ministry. It must be especially cruel, since the idea for these far-reaching changes comes not from the Department of Transport but, ironically, from the Department of National Heritage—set up, as it presumably was, to protect our heritage. It should have known better.
This Government's general record will be judged by history, and there will inevitably be a difference of opinion as to their successes and failures. The proposed deregulation will, if enacted, be virtually impossible to reverse. One thing that I would have thought no government would wish to hand down is a bitter legacy of polluting this country with tens of thousands of brown and white signs, hence ruining our green and pleasant land.
I shall leave the last word to Ogden Nash, who said:
"I think that I shall never see
A billboard lovely as a tree.
Perhaps, unless the billboards fall,
I'll never see a tree at all"!
6.26 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, for tabling this Question. We all know the considerable expertise and experience that he brings to the subject. Like him, I must begin by declaring an interest as chairman of the National Trust. The National Trust could also be considered a tourist organisation. We have over 270,000 hectares—or in plain
712
English 600,000 acres—of land, and associated with it, relevant to tonight's discussion, 190 houses of historic interest, 114 gardens, 62 landscape parks, and so on, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Therefore the "white on brown" signs are certainly useful to us and to our 10 million plus visitors.
Along with English Heritage, the National Trust currently enjoys the special dispensation of not having to consult the local tourist board for approval that our properties should be regarded as tourist attractions in order to qualify for "white on brown" tourism signs. The trust has for many years used its own oak leaf logo on these signs; it has become widely recognised across the country. We have been involved in the Department of Transport's consultation process on this difficult subject for over four years.
With regard to the present proposals, the National Trust, as an organisation responsible under Act of Parliament for landscape conservation, is deeply concerned about the proposed dramatic expansion in the eligibility criteria. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, listed them: cinemas; hotels; B&Bs; restaurants; retail establishments, and so on. We, too, have no doubt that the ensuing proliferation of signs will have a dramatic and detrimental effect on the appearance of our countryside.
For example, the Department of Transport's circular of 3rd April states:
"Local authorities now have"—
I assume this means that it "would have"—
"much more flexibility to consider applications. In response to last year's consultation national qualifying criteria (such as minimum visitor numbers) have been abolished. Other qualifying criteria imposed by Circular Roads 1/91, such as only allowing signs from the nearest A or B road, and requiring attractions to be open for one year, have also been abolished. The Department expects that under the proposed new arrangements all reasonable requests for signs will normally be met".
This proliferation will be especially serious in designated areas such as national parks and AONBs, as the noble Lord mentioned, but it would also be deplorable in the open landscape as a whole. The chief planning officer of the Lake District Planning Board has commented that,
"visitors to the area both from this country and abroad frequently remark on how attractive the Lake District is because of the absence of unnecessary signs. Inevitably that will change if the proposed amendments go ahead and it is not inconceivable, for example, to envisage twenty or more signs on the Crook Road to Bowness advertising the presence of hotels, pubs, caravan parks, camp sites and bed and breakfast establishments. The cumulative effect over the whole of the Park would be devastating".
As someone who has his home in the Lake District, all I can say is "Hear, hear". He knows what he is talking about. I think that it would be quite appalling.
It should be a matter of pride that, thanks to sensible controls, our countryside has hitherto not been disfigured by the plethora of notices and signs which confront the visitor in many overseas countries.
If we are to enter a world of visual free-for-all, to use the noble Lord's phrase—because that is what it seems to amount to—the only controlling bodies will be individual highway authorities. Surely it would be wise to make the erection of those signs subject to the normal planning process as well.

713
We consider that the proposed liberalisation of signing is a passport to declining standards of design and taste. The removal of proper vetting standards and restrictions is in our view certain to lead to inconsistency and, in many cases, shoddy and inappropriate signs. Moreover, the prospect of plans for the grouping of establishments on a single sign is not encouraging. Already many places bear a multiplicity of signs of different shapes, sizes, colours and significance, to the confusion of the motorist or visitor, rather than to clarification. To make an already cluttered situation worse is a short-sighted and unwise policy.
We particularly regret the removal of tourist boards from the approval process. The tourist boards have accepted some responsibility for promoting environmental objectives as well as those of tourism—a principle also supported by the Government. They are better placed than the highway authorities to insist on some degree of quality and consistency—and this surely is a case where national consistency is important.
The trust is further concerned about the proposed definition of a "tourist attraction" as one which is,
"open to the public without prior booking during its normal opening hours."
The trust maintains a number of properties where such visiting patterns are not practicable but where it is still important to ensure that adequate signing is provided.
One of the worst aspects of our urban environment as we approach the millennium is visual clutter in our streets. The proliferation of signs, of instructions, or mandatory injunctions is particularly intrusive and offensive. Perhaps they may be necessary in our towns but, for heaven's sake, let us not compound the situation by allowing this awful contagion to spread unnecessarily to our wonderful countryside.
What the department is proposing seems to me to cut right across, for example, the good work it is increasingly doing to harmonise and design our roads into the landscape. I refer, for example, to its excellent publication The Good Roads Guide published in 1992. Incidentally, it has a whole section on road signs, which I would not have thought was consistent with the proposed policy. What I ask myself is: what does the Department of the Environment think of all this? What is the point of trying to protect our fine countryside from unsightly development if, at a stroke, the essential regulations which control signs in the countryside are so diluted as to make them ineffectual. I submit that that is what the proposals will lead to. I beg the Minister to think again.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, I should declare an interest in that I am a vice-president of RoSPA. I am also on the public policy committee of the Royal Automobile Club.
At the outset, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Montagu and, like the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, remind your Lordships of the immense amount of work that over many years my noble friend has put into the business of tourism, in the promotion of stately homes, and the heritage generally. I doubt whether many Members of your Lordships' House know more about the subject than he does.
714
I appreciate the detailed points that have already been made and share those sentiments—but I think that I share them probably to a lesser degree than my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, made clear in their contributions. I give a qualified welcome to the measure because I am basically one who supports deregulation, and this is part of that process.
I share with my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu a sense of misgiving in that the letter from the Department of Transport, starting off the consultation process, is dated 3rd April when the closing date for submissions was 5th May. As has been said, that is a very short response time for the 126 consultees named in the annex to that letter. I have seen a number of the submissions—I shall quote from one or two later. As I said, I am a little worried about that aspect.
I was also a little alarmed when I saw that the draft regulations are dated 29th March. My noble friend the Minister shakes his head, but I have a copy of the draft regulations dated 29th March. I shall be happy afterwards to let my noble friend see it. One might assume that the decision had already been made. But enough about that because the statutory instrument—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, perhaps I can help my noble friend. When I reply to the debate I shall be happy to go into this in a little more detail, but we must be clear that the statutory instrument has not been laid. The draft statutory instrument has been consulted upon.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, [did not suggest that it had been laid. What I said was that there is a draft statutory instrument—I have a copy of it—which is dated 29th March. That is some few days before the invitation to consult went out. One could draw a sinister conclusion, if one so wished.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and apologise for intervening again at this stage, but perhaps it might clarify the situation. The point is that that is is what is consulted upon. I should not like the House to get the impression that the consultation is in any way pre-empted.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am not going to argue the pitch and toss of that one. Of course, I accept what my noble friend says. In fact, I thought that we were going to consult on the draft circular on tourist signing. All that I am suggesting is that a draft instrument dated 29th March was available whereas the invitation to consult is dated 3rd April, and with that invitation comes the draft circular on tourist signing, which is the matter about which the consultation was to take place. I have spent far too much time on that aspect, but I thought that it was right to make that small point. Perhaps my noble friend can tell us, out of those 126 consultees, how many submissions have been made to date. Most of the submissions that I have seen express a number of serious reservations. All of them express the fear about the proliferation of signing and the relaxed criteria which have been mentioned.

715
If the decision to grant a sign is to lay with the local highway authority, I have no quarrel with that. They are eminently suitable people. But they will have a delicate balancing act to perform between the genuine tourist need; the understandable desire of those providing tourist facilities to make tourists aware of them, and the third aspect, to which my noble friend Lord Montagu referred, that of the commercial, the hard-nosed greed element.
In paragraph 3, relating to the removal of restrictions, the submission states:
"However, the statement 'The Department expects that reasonable requests for signs will normally be met' does not go on to clarify 'reasonable'. Many requests may be 'reasonable' but, if erected on the highway, contribute to"—
then follow a number of disadvantages. The submission goes on to say:
"The Society strongly disagrees with the Department's recommendation to group establishments on a single sign. Bolting new signs to existing sign arrays is rarely good practice without considerable modification".
It goes on to talk of wind forces, the footings, and so forth.
The Freight Transport Association, the RAC and the Automobile Association all emphasise the danger that more signs and more directions will bring to road users. There are good reasons for that. We must make sure that, if we are to add new signs, they do what they are meant to do. At the same time, we must look at existing signs and see whether or not we can get rid of some of them. The proliferation of signing will be a real hazard.
I should like the Government to expand on the draft circular and issue guidelines so that there can be a consistency of approach across the country. Above all, as the RAC said in its submission, road safety must be the paramount consideration in the erection of any new signings.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, in adding my tribute to my noble friend Lord Montagu for raising this matter, I wish to underline his immense experience and the contribution he has made to the whole of the world about which we are talking today. I am sure that it will be recognised by everyone.
As chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, I must declare my interest. But if those on the opposite Benches will excuse me, I should like to put this matter into a political context and talk primarily to the Members of my own party, particularly my noble friend who is to reply, and remind them of what the Conservative Party stands for. It is totally relevant to this proposal.
The central role of the state is to protect the citizen; to protect the employee; to protect householders; to protect consumers; to protect investors; and, more recently, it has been increasingly recognised, to protect the environment. That is one of the main roles of the state in the context of Tory philosophy. Having said that—and on this point I may not wholly receive the agreement of all Members of the party opposite—I am an enthusiastic deregulator. I do not believe that there should be any unnecessary regulation. I am well aware that regulations can grow into pernicious little empires which hassle other people.
716
But this proposal is peculiarly ill-founded. I hope that the Government recognise that the countryside is an important part of our environment. In this country we can be extremely proud of our success, particularly in comparison with other countries, in the way in which we protect our countryside. England is still extremely beautiful. Its protection is rooted firmly in the planning system.
I have no difficulty or hesitation in paying tribute to the Labour Party and the Labour Government—I hope my noble friend is not looking too astonished and surprised—of 1945 to 1951, which laid the foundation of the planning system which has enabled our countryside to survive in the way it has. It is a system which has since been refined. But we must be extremely careful before we interfere in a way that leads us to take a backwards step. I particularly regret that the noble Lord, Lord Barber, is not present this evening. He authorised me to say that he very much agrees with my opposition to this proposal.
I want to make another slightly political point. I am aware, because my noble friend Lord Astor wrote it in a letter, that my honourable friend the Member for Harwich, Mr. Sproat, is the person responsible for the proposal. But may I remind the Government of the considerable difficulty my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding had, as Secretary of State for the Environment in the early 1980s, when he put forward some tentative proposals—I do not blame his integrity in putting them forward, though I may question his judgment—to mess about with the green belt? He had to withdraw them in confusion. That is a lesson the Government should have learnt.
These proposals will be thoroughly provocative to many people on whom the Government should depend. What particularly worries me, though it is supposed to be a consultative document and, like other noble Lords, I deplore the unnecessarily short period of consultation that has been given, is that in writing to Mr. Ian Bruce, MP, on this subject, my noble friend Lord Astor concluded,
"I am convinced that the new proposals will benefit tourism and leisure establishments, whose contribution to the rural economy should not be underestimated".
I hope that the Government are not prejudging this issue. I hope that the consultation is genuine. I have a lot of time for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport and have had the opportunity of raising this matter with him at a meeting in this building. He made it clear that if the reaction against the proposal was as I said I felt it would be, then the Government would take action accordingly. I hope that that will be the case.
The idea behind the proposal appears to be to put policy in the hands of local authorities and allow them to decide what signs there should be. We know that local authorities themselves do not want that. Their reaction is in general against the change put forward by the Government. I do not believe that it is fair to trust local authorities to withstand local planning pressures; that is, applications for signs that may be thoroughly undesirable. Nor do I believe that what the Government put forward is consistent with what they have said in other areas. For example, in Planning Policy Guidance Note 21 the Government supported their tourism task force's document Maintaining the Balance published in 1991.

717
They said that they supported the development of industry in a way that could contribute to, rather than detract from, the quality of the environment. I believe that to be a very important statement. I am amazed that the Government should have brought forward this matter in that context.
My right honourable friend and my MP, Mr. Gummer, the Secretary of State for the Environment—for whom I have the highest regard—in a paper published last year spoke of the need to improve our surroundings and to conserve and enhance the environment of town and country. The document to which he provided the introduction said that the design and use of roads and the impact of parking signs and roadside furniture all affected the quality of an area. He even went on to say that local people could identify surplus signs that might usefully be removed.
I believe that there is much to be done in the opposite direction to that set out in these proposals. I mentioned to my noble friend yesterday that I wished to raise two points. He may say that they are not wholly relevant to these regulations, but they are certainly relevant to the spirit of them. I take the example of a road I know well: the A. 12 Witham bypass. In that rather attractive part of Essex there is a plethora of large hoardings along the side of the A.12 road, the hedge having been cut down to reveal them. I am told that they result from a dispute between Braintree District Council and Essex County Council. That may not matter very much, but it is illustrative of the kind of thing which we do not want and which can happen, even under the present regulations, when the matter of signing and advertising is left wholly to local authorities.
I suggest that much needs to be done in the way of improving the facias of petrol stations with all their flags and unnecessary advertisements. They often disfigure our countryside.
Those who have already heard of these regulations—they are relatively few in number—have almost universally reacted angrily to them. But I suggest that that anger is as nothing to what will happen if the countryside begins to be despoiled in the way we know has occurred in other countries. One of the painful rules of politics is that you may not intend to give the wrong impression or to do something, but perception is reality. I believe that it is extremely unfortunate that the Government have even brought forward these proposals.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, for bringing forward this important matter this evening. I suppose that most of us, together with members of our families and friends, spend a lot of time driving through unfamiliar territory. I have no sense of direction and no bump of locality and so I am permanently bewildered and rely a great deal on signs.
In principle, I am in favour of some liberalisation, but very much provided that certain elephant traps along the road to this desirable result are avoided. Road signs have been with us in Britain since the Roman occupation, but they have become crucial because of the increasing speed and particularly the exponential increase in the volume of
718
traffic over the past 20 or 30 years. One might paraphrase the words of Lewis Carroll in "The Walrus and the Carpenter" to summarise road traffic growth:
"And thick and fast they came at last, And more and more and more".
I believe that the crucial factor in road signing is that schemes should first be devised comprehensively for an area on paper, or perhaps on computer, before anything is erected. While I suppose a highway authority has to devise its own plan, I rather wish that this was done by an outside highway authority for a particular area. How used we are to the situation where our destination is clearly marked at a roundabout, for example, but after a mile or so one comes to a T-junction where there is no indication at all. "But everyone knows you turn right for the city centre", the locals will say. But everyone knows that except the person for whom the sign is; intended, the stranger to the scene.
The first area in which the current proposals may be thought to be deficient is that of eligibility for signing. The definition of a visitor attraction is imprecise and will cause considerable confusion as regards the type of attraction that may be eligible for signs. The presently proposed definition is likely to lead to signs for anything and everything, as several noble Lords have said already. I believe that that is called information overload.
In March my wife and I were driven extensively around Dublin. We saw for ourselves the results of too much information. Having to read a long list at some speed in heavy traffic puts the driver in an extremely dangerous situation of inattention to other vehicles, particularly cyclists. Surely, after listing essentials such as city centres, railway stations, hospitals and the like, the criterion in most areas should be a relationship to the popularity of the attraction or facility. It is hard cheese on less visited attractions, but I believe that they should in their advertisements, literature and related material make plain to visitors how they can be reached. In this way, forests of signs, as can be seen in the Republic of Ireland, will be avoided, satisfying both aesthetic and safety considerations.
But the essential step in all this is first to make a plan and to decide such questions at that stage as to whether an attraction is signed at all, with the onus on the attraction to make representations, how early on it is to be signed, if that is the case, and so on. An exception perhaps in lightly trafficked areas may be remote or awkward destinations, such as hotels, inns, camping sites and the like, where no danger of proliferation, and hence confusion, prevails.
Common sense seems to be the best aid, perhaps guided by traffic statistics. People and organisations should be given some idea of how soon they may expect a sign or signs to be erected, on which the circular is silent, with a suitable explanation if their application is refused. The consultation circular is notably silent on the environmental impact of signs. I have a strong personal preference for placing signs high up and making them of durable materials. Why high up? Perhaps my preference springs from living in the republic of Islington. We live in the age of the graffiti artist. While it is a matter of balance, from an environmental point of view I prefer to see a pristine sign well raised up than a shabby, overwritten one

719
lower down, which may also have been rendered unreadable. I give a small example. My wife and I regularly travel on the M.1 to Sheffield. At a certain point the road crosses the River Erewash. This is marked with a low road sign. Inevitably, it has been scruffily altered to read "River Eyewash". I hope that I am sensitive to environmental considerations, but for the purposes of legibility and other reasons I adapt the wild western film expression (albeit for a different scenario) "Hang 'em high".
The use of symbols is self-evidently useful in space saving and legibility to those who hurry past, provided that the department authorises all symbols and they are nationally coherent. There are already many such examples: British Rail and Underground station logos, H for hospitals, the outline of a building for an historic house and so on. Others may usefully be introduced after research. The general road traffic signage that we have been familiar with for years relies almost entirely on symbols alone, alas often much too close together. There is an argument for the spacing out of roadside information, especially with the night driver in mind.
There must be exceptions for perhaps less common signs, such as the words "side winds" which appear under a windsock on motorways. The most intriguing one that I have come across on this theme is a sign beside the Suez Canal, where words really are necessary. It reads "Please dip your headlights to oncoming shipping". Colour also has its part to play. I believe that the habit, or policy, that has grown up of signing subsidiary destinations in brown and white is a good one. It is an easy visual separation to make from the more important road traffic management signs, which are mainly coloured black and/or red on a white background.
In conclusion, I believe in some liberalisation provided a first step is the construction of a comprehensive signing plan. In this way we shall, it is to be hoped, avoid confusion, a reduction in the quality of information, and forests of signs leading to environmental degradation and traffic hazard. Relying on the chaotic alternative might lead to the action summarised by the last words of a short story by the Canadian humorist Stephen Leacock:
"He jumped on his horse and rode off madly in all directions".
That, I think, is what we must strive to avoid.
7 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu for the opportunity to discuss deregulation of tourism signposting. I find it slightly saddening that, while strongly supporting deregulation, as many of us do, and indeed as much of the tourism industry does, that tourism industry, in which I declare an interest, shares many of the concerns expressed all round the House this evening.
I welcome the fact that the range of tourism businesses allowed to apply for white on brown signs is being widened. Of course tourism attractions and facilities should be given every opportunity to promote their products. But the present criteria, requiring a specified volume of visitors, tourist board vetting and local highway authority administration, have, as my noble friend Lord Montagu reminded us, proved a little
720
restrictive. That is no excuse for going right over the top in the opposite direction. But total deregulation would be an over-reaction—a view which I feel is shared by many who have spoken tonight.
On the one hand, tourists, British and foreign, regard these signs as a seal of approval, a good housekeeping endorsement, an indication that the product or facility fulfils certain quality criteria. But if we go for blanket deregulation as presently proposed, it seems that ability to pay for signposting would become the only criterion for any business applying for a sign in England. Suitability or relevance to visitors would go by the board. The number of signs we could—even would—come across would become limitless and, far from being helpful, would detract from the environment which tourists want to experience, could certainly be confusing and could, very importantly to me, be detrimental to road safety.
We should, of course, be going for some measure of deregulation in this field. But may I suggest a number of criteria which I hope will be taken into account before an order eventually comes before Parliament.
First, with regard to minimum quality criteria, facilities granted signs should in future, as now, meet visitor rather than purely local needs, as well as meeting statutory tourist board standards and codes of practice. Secondly, I would very much hope that there would be a Britain-wide and consistent approach to signage, even though we are discussing only England and perhaps Wales tonight. Although tonight's Question deals only with those two countries, may I pay tribute to the Scottish concept of grouping relevant signs together. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, touched on that point. I also pay tribute to a modest fingerpost which is at the bottom of Bridge Street as one goes into Parliament Square—so modest that many noble Lords may not have noticed it. But it draws attention to all the major attractions—they are national attractions—in this neighbourhood which the tourist may wish to visit. In their ways both the Scottish and the Westminster fingerposts are examples of best practice and should not be overlooked in our future consultation. They are appropriate to visitor needs as well as to environmental ones in the areas in which they are sited.
Thirdly, I should like to see authorities guided at a national level. I appreciate that we are discussing a DoT subject tonight, but I feel that we need something akin to a PPG as to the planning issues. Beyond that I would like to see consultation with both facility providers and the tourist boards.
Fourthly, I would remind the Department of Transport that there is already a compendium of tourism symbols published by the British Tourist Authority and evolved by it over many years. It has the agreement of the English Tourist Board, the Scottish Tourist Board, the Wales Tourist Board, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and the Countryside Commission and promotes symbols—or pictograms—which also enjoy the endorsement of the British Standards Institution and the ISO. As we are talking considerably of an international business, I believe that international standards should be followed.
I have expressed a number of my concerns. I have touched on the environment, on the quality of attractions, on safety and on suitability. But my real concern is that, in going for total deregulation we are

721
damaging the very reputation of the product which visitors wish to experience. As my noble friend Lord Montagu reminded us, the Department of National Heritage has recently published the discussion document Competing with the Best, which sets out the department's agenda for tourism. I very much hope that in progressing these orders the Department of Transport will not overlook the aspirations of the Department of National Heritage and, most importantly, will not let total deregulation of signage destroy the very quality of the impression which British tourism seeks to provide.
7.5 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, for opening this debate. I agree strongly with the view of other noble Lords that a proliferation of signs along country roads or within towns is not desirable either on environmental or on safety grounds. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seemed to be veering away at one point from his very natural and deep concern for safety but later in his speech he emphasised very forcefully the requirements of safety, so I do not feel that I need repeat all the excellent points that he made.
Surely the Government do not wish England to follow in the steps of the United States and, more recently, of France where every small town is surrounded by forests of signs which totally obscure such things as street names and direction signs put up to assist travellers in moving through or around the town. We cannot wish to encourage that. We have heard from noble Lords who have spoken with knowledge of the national parks. A large part of the county from which I come is covered by areas of outstanding natural beauty or outstanding landscape value. We all share with the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, the feeling that we do not wish these beautiful parts of our country to be despoiled by signs.
How does the proposed approach serve the Government's countryside policy? Why has the Department of Transport apparently abandoned its former opposition to a proliferation of signs on or near roads? I am disturbed by the presumption that local authorities will grant all reasonable requests for new signs which, combined with the relaxed criteria for determining which organisations can make such requests, involves the danger that the protective approach to the countryside adopted by many local authorities, including my own, an approach enthusiastically endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, will be swamped and overcome.
On the other hand, local authorities and the national parks have a proper interest in the maintenance of the local economy. That is true even in rural areas. Problems can arise when, for example, local shops, pubs or tea shops, which have had a modest tourist trade over a long period, are bypassed by a new road. One thinks also of good but smaller tourist attractions which cannot meet the visitor numbers required by current legislation but which nevertheless have a more than purely local interest. For example, I, as a resident, have an interest in trying to get to a large
722
number of things in order to acquaint myself what is going on in various places within my county. I might have to travel 25 to 30 miles to get where I am going. I may not necessarily know well the area I am attempting to visit. Surrey is not a particularly large county. There are others which, geographically, are much larger. We have to think of a sort of hierarchy of signing to which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, briefly referred. He said that if there were to be signs directing one to smaller places, perhaps they could be of a different colour. It is difficult to think which colour to use because both blue and green are already accepted for other uses. I understand the point he is making. The point I am making is that there are some places of interest with facilities for drivers and visitors which could legitimately be signed, perhaps not from the motorway system but from other roads which are in the discretion of the local authority.
A properly developed and nationally authorised system of pictorial signs or symbols would also assist local authorities who wish to establish such a lower hierarchy of signage to places of local interest. It would very much reduce the amount of space that any such new signs would take up. One can imagine a pink sign, which is not a colour used by the Department of Transport. It could have on it a teacup, a windmill, or whatever, located where one of the excellent brown signs we have all learnt to follow would normally stand.
I do not believe that the Government should do what they propose. Some relaxation of the current criteria, however, might avoid the sort of conflict to which a noble Lord referred—that is to say, that which applies to Braintree and Essex County Council. As I understood the reference, that is precisely the situation where the local district council wishes to encourage the local economy, which is one of the duties laid on it. The county council says, "You cannot do that; you cannot put up those signs along the road because that does not agree with our policy or national policy". So the signs are put in a private field along the hedgerow. It is precisely that sort of proliferation I am anxious to avoid by allowing local authorities greater freedom to, first, determine what sort of local places of interest should be signed and, secondly, to rigidly control the type of sign which is put up. We cannot have masses of different signs whether on one or 15 sticks. There is no difference with 15 signs on one stick because they are just as confusing, particularly if they are all prepared in different ways. For example, there may be the logo of the little craft shop on one and a copy of the local pub sign on another. Such an arrangement of signs would be very difficult for anyone to follow and extremely distracting from the point of view of safety.
I hope that the Minister will consider allowing local authorities to combine both their role as supporter of the local economy and as protector of the countryside and of road safety by instituting further discussions as to how one can lay down nationally agreed but reasonably flexible rules for a second rank of tourist signing. I see the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, nodding his head gently in my direction. That might prove to he acceptable to a wide number of people.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I, like other Members of this House, join those who have already congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, on initiating this important debate. It may be that the Minister feels a little set upon. There has been not a word of commendation for what the Government are seeking to do, at least as far as the detail is concerned. What emerges from this debate is that this House and everybody who has spoken will be expecting from the Minister an assurance that the consultation period, which is much too short, will be extended and that the Government will think seriously about the draft statutory instrument which has been published, if not laid.
I can understand why the Government wanted to consult about this. We have here a massive document of several hundred pages and full of detail. Why did the Government not say more specifically that this was a consultation document? They should have said so. However, maybe that is not an important point because in his intervention the Minister said that this is a consultation document. Let us have an assurance from the Minister tonight that the Government are in fact entering into these consultations in a thoroughly bona fide way.
I want to know why the consultation period was designated as one month. Was that reasonable in the circumstances? Why the rush? If there is some need for this very substantial change—and the burden of proof rests fairly and squarely on the Government here—why do they have to limit the consultation period to one month? The Government have to discharge the assertion that there is an overly bureaucratic system currently in force. We had all this during the debates on the deregulation Bill. Nobody wants unnecessary bureaucracy. One wants to sweep aside unnecessary red tape.
The main charge which has been made in the course of this debate is that there is a real fear, not simply on the part of individuals, but on the part of reputable organisations dealing with tourism, the environment and safety, that the situation that could emerge under the Government's proposals could lead to a serious degradation of environmental and safety standards which would impact badly on tourism. Those are charges which are not lightly laid.
The noble Viscount is a thoroughly reasonable Minister whom we all like and admire. But we shall like and admire him that much more if he makes a positive response to the criticisms that have been made that he will discuss with his colleagues—this is not one of his responsibilities—ways and means of ensuring that the process of consultation will he real and that the period will be extended. Perhaps he will also be kind enough to say who actually supports the proposals. Most people have said in their responses that they want some relaxation of the regulations, and that is as far as they go. Then the criticisms really come with great force.
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, was right to mention all the associations that have come out in support of these criticisms. For example, the Association of County Councils says:
724
"whilst efforts to deregulate, reduce bureaucracy and support tourism are to be welcomed, the general thrust of the present proposals effectively jettisons the delicate balance which the [Government], with others, has striven to maintain between a large number of competing and inherently conflicting interests".
The Association continues:
"What is being generally proposed, however, not only consigns that patiently constructed balance to the dustbin but, worse, introduces a new and vastly enlarged competitive element which has the potential to bring the whole system of tourism signing crashing down about our collective ears".
There is deep anxiety about proliferation, and the Minister must answer that charge too.
Far from making the situation easier for tourists and drivers, it will be much more confusing if deregulation were to take full effect. Is the Minister satisfied that the application procedures required, and the criteria set out, are in any sense adequate? What are the guidelines to be inserted here? What is the key information that will be required? Does he believe that there should be nationally defined common criteria? What would be the situation if adjoining highway authorities were to adopt different criteria? Those are the questions, with the others that have been put during the debate, with which the Minister must deal.
How does all this stand alongside our system of planning control? I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for the remarks he made about the Labour Government of 1945–51 and the impetus they gave to proper planning procedures. I was interested in his philosophic meanderings on the subject of the Conservative Party. I suppose it needs something like that. It does not have much going for it at the moment, and perhaps it should refer to the noble Lord for further advice. I am not sure that would do it much good either.
The debate has shown that there is great disquiet about this situation on all sides of the House. I hope that the Minister will tell his Secretary of State that we are not satisfied with what the Government have produced.
7.21 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Montagu for raising this important subject and for giving us the benefit of his considerable experience in the tourism field. I shall explain in more detail the proposals which have been put forward, but I should like to start by answering a number of criticisms made by noble Lords about the consultation exercise. I can give a categorical assurance that this is not a fait accompli; the decisions have not been made; the consultation exercise is an entirely bona fide one; and the responses to that consultation exercise, and indeed to the sentiments expressed in your Lordships' House this evening, will be fully taken into account.
That having been said, I was also pleased to hear the general recognition of the value of deregulation and the feeling that a relaxation of the current prescriptive rules is due. There has been a considerable difference on the question of degree. As ever, we must try to seek the correct balance. There has been a considerable thrust for this type of deregulation from a number of sectors in the tourism industry. That is worth pointing out to balance the counter-arguments which have been expressed strongly this evening.

725
The question asked by my noble friend refers to the regulations governing road signs and the consequences of sign proliferation in general. I believe noble Lords have generally accepted that this was prompted by our current proposals for a relaxation of the policy on signing tourist destinations and facilities. I should like to emphasise that our proposals relate only to extending the use of white and brown traffic signs to a wider range of destinations and facilities.
Under the Road Traffic Regulation Act, the design of all traffic signs must conform with regulations made jointly by the Secretaries of State for Transport, Wales and Scotland or be specially authorised by the Secretary of State. The placing of individual signs is the responsibility of the relevant highway authority. All local highway authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that signs are safe and to have regard to the effect of particular signs on local amenity. It is important to note that the existing regulations do not place any limit on the number of traffic signs that can be erected for any purpose. That is left to the decision of the local highway authority in the light of local road conditions.
We have discussed safety. My noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, commented on that issue in particular. Again, it is worth recognising that the 1994 regulations give local highway authorities a great deal of flexibility in the detailed design of direction signs. In particular, there is no restriction on the type of destination that can be named on black and white local direction signs. In other words, the statutory provision for controlling sign proliferation is the general requirement in the Road Traffic Regulation Act for local highway authorities to ensure that signs are safe and to have, as I said, regard to local amenity. That is the control that is used at the moment to stop sign proliferation, and it will continue to be the control used to stop sign proliferation. The regulations are of course supplemented by Department of Transport guidance and advice.
The effects of the draft statutory instrument—I apologise to my noble friend for interrupting him at an early stage in the debate, but I must emphasise that this is a draft statutory instrument—are to extend the range of destinations that can be signed with white and brown signs and the range of symbols that can be included on tourist facility signs and to reintroduce the use of white and brown signs to indicate the facilities available in bypassed communities. An issue that has not been mentioned this evening is the value of indicating facilities that are available in villages or small towns that have been bypassed. We are increasingly seeing smaller conurbations being bypassed to relieve traffic pressures on them.
As the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said, the definition of a tourist attraction eligible for white and brown signs would be amended under the proposals to remove the requirement for tourist board recognition and to remove the prohibition on using white and brown signs for establishments engaged primarily in retailing and catering. The arguments put forward against amending the traffic signs regulations fall into two rather different categories. The first is the argument that allowing the use of these signs for a wider range of establishments
726
will give forth dangerous and unsightly sign proliferation. But I have already explained that the existing controls on sign proliferation will continue to be used to prevent that hazard.
Our proposals emphasise the need to ensure the safety of particular signs rather than to consider applications on the basis of inflexible general assumptions. There is no reason to suppose that the use of white and brown signs will be less safe, or more damaging to the environment, than black and white signs. The use of white and brown signs allows drivers to identify at a glance the types of destination being signed. Research suggests that drivers are likely to look for details on white and brown signs only if they are looking for tourist information. In other words, the message put across is that the white and brown sign is tourist information and not for general directional purposes. That is an important point when considering the question of the overload of information on the driver.
Also, when we consulted last year on the principle of deregulation, we received representations that the provision of clear and well-designed traffic signs could do more to help traffic and local businesses in a safe and environmentally acceptable way than the many, often unofficial, directional advertisements found on hoardings or parked vehicles in fields beside the road.
That was the point my noble friend Lord Marlesford was making when he expressed his concern about garage signs, for instance, in fields and possibly illegal signs erected on the highway.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will not that unsatisfactory situation continue to persist? It is an additional burden.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, no. Of course, I accept that one cannot easily stamp out illegal signs and that there is a problem. However, increased access to legal, properly designed and located signs with the official authority of the local highway authority is preferable to unofficial, illegal, badly designed signs which could be found at inappropriate places. I fully accept the problem raised by my noble friend Lord Marlesford about unsightly illegal signs. I can assure him that the Government see that as an important issue.
My noble friend Lord Mountevans argued that white and brown signs should not indicate merely the type of destination that is being signed but should provide evidence that they meet certain quality standards. The eligibility criteria were tightened up in 1991 at the request of the tourist boards. That was intended to improve standards rather than because or any evidence that the widespread use of white and brown signs was having an unacceptable impact on the environment or causing any confusion at junctions. However, more recently we have been reviewing the policy of limiting eligibility for signing because of the many representations received by my department that it did not meet the needs of the tourism industry as a whole.
When we reviewed the policy we received strong representations that the white and brown signs should be available for a much wider range of tourist destinations and facilities than those recognised by tourist boards and that it should not be left to the tourist

727
boards to decide which destinations and facilities should be signed. We also received representations that the procedures for applying for signs should be simplified.
The detailed proposals, which we circulated on 3rd April, reflect a policy that signing applications should be determined on the basis of local road conditions and the safety and environmental implications of erecting signs at particular locations, rather than central prescription or blanket policies. They also reflect the Government's view that it is not the function of traffic signs to control or maintain standards of service in the tourism industry and that white and brown signs, like other direction signs, indicate the route to a particular destination and not official approval of its quality. The determination of the quality of the attraction should not be related to the sign.
That brings me on to the subject of the departmental guidance that has been issued, or that we intend to issue, to help local highway authorities to ensure that signs are safe and appropriate to their environment. The traffic signs regulations are supplemented by guidance on the design and placing of direction signs generally in order to enable local highway authorities to provide drivers with appropriate information to complete their journeys efficiently and safely. The DoT design guidance is underpinned by a solid body of research about drivers' ability to absorb information from signs of different shapes, sizes and colours. I was much taken with the idea of the pink sign, which was put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. I am sure that there has been full research on the qualities of the colour pink for signposting—
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, of course, the suggestion of the colour pink was a joke. However, the principle is one to which the Minister perhaps inadvertently referred. He distinguished between signage such as to major tourist attractions of the National Trust which have a seal of quality. That is what gives them the right to use the brown and white sign. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, was making the point that I made; that if we
728
allow signs to places which have not been guaranteed by the tourist board, or whatever, a different colour would be suitable.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I note the point made by the noble Baroness and I will ensure that her suggestions regarding a further level of signing are taken fully into consideration. However, perhaps another type of sign could cause further confusion.
All white and brown tourist signs are required to meet the design and siting standards for direction signs generally to ensure that they are clear and legible. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, that that will continue to be the case under our current proposals.
The draft guidance also indicates that the responsibility for signing lies in the first place with the highway authority responsible for the road providing direct access to the tourist attraction or facility. There is little benefit to the tourist or to the business if signs are provided a long distance away but disappear as one approaches one's intended destination. We know from considerable research that lack of continuity in signing is the biggest cause of confusion, frustration and complaint.
We have had a full discussion on the issue of signing for tourist facilities. My noble friends and other noble Lords have made clear their views on the dangers associated with deregulation. However, I believe that there has been an acceptance of the value of deregulation and the fact that some relaxation is due. As has been noted, the Government have put forward detailed proposals. They have been subject to consultation and a wide range of responses has been received.
I conclude by repeating the assurance that the consultation will be taken extremely seriously. Responses to the consultation and the sentiments expressed tonight in your Lordships' House will be taken fully into account.

Sheffield Assay Office Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before eight o'clock.