Lords Sitting of 30 October 1995

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

Barclays Bank: Employment of School Students
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of the plan by Barclays Bank to employ school students on cashiering and book-keeping work in its high street branches for six hours per week covering three evenings; and if so, whether they are concerned that this plan will be damaging to job prospects in the financial sector if expanded and will impinge on study time available to 16 to 18 year-old A-level students.
The Minister for State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, we have been following this development closely. There is no difference in principle between this and many other forms of work which students do outside school hours. Indeed, that initiative offers valuable work experience which will benefit both students and Barclays Bank and therefore have a positive effect on job prospects.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. What safeguards exist to prevent Barclays from utilising those young people as cheap labour in preference to adult employees? Is he not aware that the chairman of Barclays has said that the young people concerned will be doing actual jobs and that that can result in casualisation of employment within that sector? Is he aware also that it has been estimated that some 50,000 employees in clearing banks are currently doing cashiering and book-keeping work? If that spreads, such work will be severely endangered. That must be of interest to the Government.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as regards the allegations that Barclays are recruiting those young people merely as cheap child labour, it may be best to quote the chairman of Barclays who said:
"This is amazing rubbish. It is a work experience scheme which we have had for many years and anyone who believes that teenagers are exploited by working four or six hours a week must be barmy".
I agree with the chairman of Barclays. It strikes me as an extremely imaginative scheme which will provide positive benefits for all those involved. It will improve their job prospects in the long term.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is better for students to do that work for a couple of hours, three nights per week rather than squandering their pocket money in amusement arcades?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have no idea where the youngsters might or might not go if they were not working
1268
at Barclays. However, my noble friend is right to say that the work can act as a very great motivator and, as I made clear earlier, provide useful work experience.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, are the Government issuing any guidelines regarding the hourly rate paid to those youngsters by such organisations as Barclays Bank, bearing in mind that we now have a reputation for being a low-wage economy as a result of the Government's present policies?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are not issuing guidelines. We do not believe that it is proper or appropriate to issue guidelines. It is entirely a matter for Barclays. The allegation that we are a low-wage economy is simply not true. We are a low-cost economy where the non-wage labour costs are kept well below those of our European compatriots whereas the workers very often take home exactly the same amount of money.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, in view of the noble Baroness's supplementary question, will my noble friend help the House and define what are not "actual" jobs?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure that I can answer that question. All I know is that Barclays Bank provides a great number of jobs and a vast amount of training for its employees. It spends some £300 million per year and intends to invest something in the order of £3 billion on technology over the next few years. Its profits are considerable and from those profits comes a considerable sum in corporation tax.
Baroness David: My Lords, can I ask the Minister if there has been any consultation with head teachers or principals of sixth form colleges to find out whether they thoroughly approve of this scheme for students who are taking A-levels?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is not a question of consulting head teachers. There is no evidence that children suffer when they do part-time work. That is something that children have been able to do for many years. On this occasion, Barclays wrote to a number of schools in the Reading and Slough area to ask whether they were interested in taking part in the scheme. I believe that Barclays should be commended for such an imaginative idea.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as many of today's teenagers are more competent than their elders at operating computers and electronic screens, might it not be wise for the Bank of England to make use of such help since it seems to need all the help it can get in at least two of its functions: first, in regulating the activities of British banks; and, secondly, in formulating advice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on interest rates?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as my noble friend is aware, fortunately I do not answer for the Bank of England from the Dispatch Box but I am sure that note will be taken of the points made so well by my noble friend.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, further to the supplementary question put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, will the Minister assure the House that, following those developments, there will be a great

1269
improvement in the service provided by the banks and we shall not see occurring those juvenile errors which apparently have occurred among their elders and betters?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not think that I can take the noble Lord any further. However, I note the point that he has made.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, perhaps I may just return to what the Minister said. Is the noble Lord aware that at the time Mr. Buxton, the chairman of Barclays Bank, said that anyone who believed that it was cheap labour must be "barmy"; he also said that the individuals concerned would do an actual job rather than just stand around watching someone else working? However, there was no indication in that statement that the bank had any plans in mind for training those people; they were going to do an actual job—a job, moreover, that, in normal circumstances, would be done by an adult member of staff. Is not the Minister concerned about the possible effect of this development on adult employment?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the best form of work experience would be an actual job. To say that school students will destroy jobs for other people merely by doing six hours a week on rare occasions is, I think, economics of the Stone Age. The noble Baroness simply ought to realise that it is a highly imaginative scheme which can only be of benefit both to Barclays Bank and the children involved. It is a scheme which will positively improve their job prospects in the long term.

GPs: Dispensing Payments
2.44 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will refund to dispensing doctors the difference between the scale rates of the Discount Abatement Scheme introduced on 1st April 1995 and the Revised Discount Abatement Scheme introduced on 1st October 1995.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): No, my Lords.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that rural dispensing practices are now very hard pressed? Doctors in the larger practices have lost something like £10,000 in six months. Moreover, they are having to pay extra money for staff funding because FHSAs are not reimbursing them; they cannot increase their capitation fees because they have a mainly statis population: and they cannot do clinical duties because they are so far away from hospitals. Will the noble Baroness please look again at the problem? That £10,000 could have gone to patient care, especially when one compares it with the £68 million which is being held by fund holders at present in excess.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should make the point that GPs who take on the responsibility do so
1270
voluntarily. When the BMA recently had a survey, only one in four GPs actually wanted to carry out dispensing. We recognise some of the problems that the noble Countess has mentioned. In fact, as she will know, we reviewed the scheme which was agreed by the BMA because we appreciated the points that it made. We have altered the scheme, and we now understand that the BMA is satisfied with it.

EU Nationals Remanded in British Prisons
2.45 p.m.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many nationals of other European Union member states are currently on remand in the United Kingdom awaiting trial on charges brought against them here.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, on 30th June 1995 there were 235 nationals of other European Union member states held on remand in prisons in England and Wales. Separate figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland are not available.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, can she say whether this country has taken the initiative in establishing agreed guidelines within the European Community for the refusal of bail? The Minister will be aware of the great and understandable concern caused in this country recently by the knowledge that a British lorry driver had spent 20 months in custody in Spain before being brought to trial for, I believe, a motoring charge on which he was acquitted. Obviously, if that causes concern in this country, similar concern must be felt in other European countries. Is it not now necessary to establish guidelines for the refusal of bail which will be acceptable in each of the European countries?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that the concept of some degree of harmonisation underpins the noble Lord's comments. We do not wish to go down that road. However, we wish to have the highest possible co-operation among member states. Indeed, if one takes the situation of Roy Clarke, who was alluded to in the noble Lord's question, it is not right to assume that for such a serious alleged crime, with millions of pounds being involved in drug peddling, this country would not have granted bail or not have imposed custody. It would be a matter for the courts to decide. That is how it should be.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can the Minister give the House an assurance that the length of time that such people are on remand in British prisons before trial, although they are nationals of European Union countries, is approximately the same as if they were British subjects?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is absolutely no distinction whatever made between a foreign national, a European national or a British subject. As I said, it is a

1271
matter for the court to determine whether someone should be detained on remand or whether bail should be granted. The time factor for anyone, a foreign national or a subject of this country, is a matter of concern. I know that the Government are doing what they can to ensure that such time is minimised.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is there not a particular problem in the case of persons held in custody awaiting extradition hearings? Does the Minister recall a certain case where someone who was to be extradited to Hong Kong remained in custody in this country for eight years but, on his return, was finally acquitted of the charges? Is not such custody an enormous burden on taxpayers? Further, should not some mechanism be found for releasing persons who are held beyond a certain time, which I believe is done in Scotland?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, whether someone should be released is a matter for the court; it is not a matter for me to comment upon from the Dispatch Box. As regards this country's record on extradition, in the United Kingdom we believe in the principle that people should face court proceedings in the country in which they are alleged to have committed the offence. Our record for extraditing people so that matters can be expedited is a very good one. For someone who commits an offence in another country, we still believe it is important that that should be where he or she faces court proceedings.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend explain why precise figures are available for England and Wales but not for Scotland or Northern Ireland?
Baroness Blatch: No, my Lords, I cannot say why, but I shall find out why they are not readily available.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, why are the Government against harmonisation of approach in this matter within what is a relatively small community, the European Union? Why is it undesirable to have an agreed approach and harmonisation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we believe that harmonisation has implications for the judicial system and for jurisdiction in this country. We do not believe in harmonising that aspect of the legal system in this country. Nor do we believe that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that this is a problem which needs to be tackled in this way. I have already given the figure of 235 people who are held on remand. I do not believe that that is sufficient justification for changing the legal system in the United Kingdom.

Iraq: Kuwaiti Prisoners
2.51 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to alert the international community to the continued suffering of Kuwaiti prisoners in Iraq.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we take every opportunity at the UN to raise the subject of Kuwaiti missing persons. In June we were instrumental in obtaining a progress report from the International Committee of the Red Cross. Iraq must produce substantive information on the fate of all missing persons and prisoners of war. We shall keep up the pressure on Iraq.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. I am sure she is aware that the people and the Government of Kuwait are grateful to our country and government and the United States who did so much to enable them to have their country back. The problem they are now facing is that those who were taken back to Iraq by the Iraqi forces—men, women and children—are now suffering abominably. Information is being leaked out describing the terrible things that are happening to them. Would it not be possible, please, for the United Nations to press further so that the people of Kuwait will know that mankind is on their side, and Iraq should receive a proper warning that if it does not return these men, women and children and prisoners of war but continues to punish them, it will pay a heavy penalty?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is absolutely right. I think he understands that the ICRC is the key organisation for dealing with the prisoners of war and the 600 or so missing persons. One of the matters which concerns us is a tendency on the part of the Iraqi authorities not to work with the technical sub-committee which has been set up by the tripartite commission to speed up the review of the ICRC case files. It is making slow progress and part of that is undoubtedly down to the Iraqis. The message to Iraq is simple. We expect full compliance with all the United Nations Security Council resolutions and that means getting on with this job. The situation as regards prisoners of war and detained missing persons is a matter to which the whole world gives much attention and it is one that it wishes to resolve. I would simply add that the only way that this matter will be resolved is by the Iraqis producing the evidence which will allow the ICRC to resolve the matter.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister know whether any inquiries have been made of the defectors from the Iraqi regime—I refer in particular to Hussein Kamil—about the fate of the 600 missing persons? If that is not the case, can inquiries be made of him via the Jordanian authorities not only as regards those persons but also those who were held hostage at the beginning of the Gulf War when about 1 million people were expelled to Iran by Saddam, some of their relatives being detained to prevent them making a fuss?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raises an interesting point. Certainly the defection of Hussein Kamil was a serious blow to Saddam Hussein. I do not know the details of the information he has given but we have found that the Iraqis are still not giving us the information that they must give under Security Council resolutions. Therefore I am certain that the discussion with Hussein Kamil

1273
will continue. We know that following his defection the Iraqis provided much more information. Let us see whether we can obtain more information of the kind that the noble Lord described.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, although I support the thrust of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, on Iraq, is it not the case also that the people of Kuwait are trying to obtain the privileges that accompany living in a democratic country, such as the right to vote? Has there been any more progress as regards that matter despite the fact that the family which is ruling that country is running it as a private company?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am not sure that I entirely follow the noble Lord, Lord Dean, but I shall read his question and if I have not understood it correctly I shall write to him. I should add that much progress is being made in Kuwait. As regards the franchised vote, about which the noble Lord is concerned, there have been recent moves to extend the franchise further in Kuwait and we fully support any measures designed to broaden consultation.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, my noble friend asked about Kuwaiti prisoners held in Iraq. Is the Minister aware that according to Amnesty International there are substantial numbers of prisoners in Iraq from other nations? Will the Minister indicate how many there are and what representations have been made on their behalf, particularly on behalf of the many Palestinians who are apparently being held?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe the noble Baroness will know that there has been continuing discussion with the Iraqis as regards the position of all types of prisoner of war who are being held. As regards Iranians and some Palestinians, I believe this is now the subject of active discussion with the Government of Iraq. However, unless Security Council Resolution 598—the resolution which called for an exchange of PoWs after the Iran/Iraq war—is complied with in full, there will not be much progress. The same is true as regards Palestinians who were caught up at the time of the invasion of Kuwait and as regards some other nationals. However, we shall continue to press this matter.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there are people in Iraq who welcome all the pressures that are being put on Saddam Hussein because they want to see progress being made towards a free society and towards the holding of free elections in Iraq? The pressure enables us to help the people of one country who have suffered and also the people in the country which has imposed its evil will on another country who believe in freedom and the political right to elect their own government.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is perfectly true that the rights of ordinary Iraqis are disregarded. We know full well that the Iraqi National Council is making a big effort to form a united opposition to the regime of Saddam. However, the people of Iraq must be allowed to have a proper say in their future. The farcical attempt by Saddam Hussein in
1274
the referendum on 15th October—in which he claimed a democratic legitimacy—will not work. The Iraqi people must one day, and soon, be able freely to decide their own future.

Business of the House
2.58 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
It may be of some assistance to your Lordships if I emphasise that the purpose of this Motion is to enable the House to take the Second Reading and the remaining stages of the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Bill on Thursday next. The Bill provides for the release on licence of prisoners in Northern Ireland to whom Section 14 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 applies, and fulfils an intention announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in a speech on 25th August. I understand that the purpose of the Bill has the support of all parties and that the intention to take the Second Reading and remaining stages on one day has the support of the usual channels.
Your Lordships may feel that the Bill is not in need of amendment. However, if your Lordships wish to take amendments this Motion does not preclude having a separate Committee stage after the Second Reading debate, and the Public Bill Office will exceptionally accept amendments in advance of Second Reading.
Moved, That, if the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Bill is brought from the Commons, Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Bill to be taken through its remaining stages on Thursday, 2nd November.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1995
Viscount Cranborne Viscount Cranborne rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd October be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this draft order provides for the annual uprating of salaries of Ministers and other office holders. The new salaries under this order are, as they were last year, the result of applying procedures described by my noble friend Lord Wakeham in 1993.
Ministers and officer holders in another place should normally receive the same percentage increase in their salaries as do Members of Parliament. I should explain to your Lordships that the increase for Members of Parliament is, in turn, linked to the settlement for middle ranking civil servants, which this year was 2.7 per cent.
The arrangement for Ministers and office holders in this House—because we do not receive a parliamentary salary—is that we should normally receive the same cash increase as our counterparts in another place, taking account of their combined ministerial and reduced parliamentary salaries. That principle will apply to all Ministers and office holders in this House who are covered by the order, including the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip.
I should also reassure your Lordships that the increases are entirely in keeping with the Government's approach to public sector pay. The linkage with Civil Service pay, which is settled in full accordance with the guidelines, ensures that we apply to ourselves the restraint that we ask of others. That approach has helped to deliver realistic settlements throughout the public sector, and it is reflected in the increases effected in the order before your Lordships. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd October be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Cranborne.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I realise that, as my noble friend explained, the order follows the pattern of previous changes. However, I want to express my personal view that ministerial salaries, and indeed the remuneration of Opposition leaders, is out of line in comparison with the much higher levels now prevailing in the private sector. I suggest that consideration ought to be given to revising the formula, which my noble friend explained, under which the salaries are determined. It is a pity that those who have to undergo the stress and strain of office or of Opposition leadership should find that their remuneration is becoming very much out of line with that of people in responsible positions outside.
I realise that this is a difficult and delicate question for Ministers to handle. If the matter is to be considered further, as I hope it will be, they may feel that they should obtain the advice of Members of your Lordships' House and of another place who do not hold ministerial office.
The difference that now exists between the remuneration of chairmen and senior directors of a large number of companies and of Her Majesty's Ministers and Opposition leaders is now considerable. I believe that it is in the interests of good government in this country that the position should be reviewed.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does this not indicate not so much that Ministers and those in Opposition who receive salaries are under-rewarded but that those in the private sector with whom the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, drew a comparison are grossly over-rewarded? Is this not a perfect example of the evil that results from the unrestricted greed of top people in the private sector, against which the Prime Minister himself has inveighed on more than one occasion, attempting, without success, to persuade them to exercise restraint? The Institute of Directors and others in responsible positions have tried to persuade those such as the chairmen of public utilities not to accept
1276
enormous increases or to take in addition to their salaries huge pay-offs in the form of share options and so on.
If comparisons are to be made between those directors and heads of large companies and Ministers sitting on the Front Bench, how would one create an equivalent for Ministers of the share options which are enjoyed by the fat cats in the public utilities? I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has made an extraordinarily dangerous suggestion and one which should be vigorously resisted by your Lordships.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I believe that it would be appropriate to draw attention to evidence which was given to the Nolan Committee by a Member of the other place, Sir Terence Higgins. This has nothing to do with fat cats, directors' salaries and share options. Sir Terence said that since he joined the other place in 1964 average earnings in the economy as a whole have increased in real terms by 80 per cent., MPs' salaries have stayed the same in real terms, and Ministers' salaries have reduced by between 35 per cent. and 50 per cent. in real terms. Those salaries have become completely out of kilter.
The problem is that the media have homed in on what even the noble Lord opposite referred to as fat cats. We are talking about average earnings. We want to ensure that the right people can afford to come to Parliament and accept ministerial positions. There are a great many people who cannot at the moment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, while I admire the restraint of Her Majesty's Government and the noble Viscount the Leader of the House in these matters, I depart slightly from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Is the noble Lord aware that the restraint that has been shown by the Government in regard to their own salaries ought to be followed by action in the European Community, where commissioners and other civil servants in Brussels get roughly twice the remuneration of the British Prime Minister?
Lord Renton: My Lords, it might be helpful if a comparison were also made with others receiving salaries in the public service, such as members of the higher judiciary and the few remaining quangos which have not been privatised.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Viscount the Leader of the House can help the House. As a member of a party dedicated to market forces, can he give some indication of the amount of difficulty which the Government currently face in filling ministerial vacancies?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, to a certain extent I support what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said. However, I believe that he made the wrong comparison, as has been pointed out. Ministerial salaries are absurdly low compared with salaries paid in other public sector jobs, even to officials of this House. When one bears in mind that the chief executive of a relatively small local authority will

1277
receive more, excluding the parliamentary salary, than a Secretary of State, we have reached a ridiculous position.
Whatever party is in power, the jobs of the Prime Minister of this country and his government are very important. Many people try to play down the importance of government, but Ministers run the country. They deserve a decent salary and should be seen to be paid a decent salary. Therefore, I hope that, as has been suggested, the situation will be reviewed with a view to ensuring that the Prime Minister and all his Ministers are properly remunerated for the job that they do. The same applies to Members of the House of Commons.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, while I agree with much that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, I have even greater anxiety for the public sector generally. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Victoria and Albert Museum. There the funding has been frozen for some three years. That is causing enormous anxiety and will almost certainly result in the redundancy of some crucial staff. That factor applies equally in organisations such as the citizens advice bureaux, for which the grant has been much reduced. I have an interest to declare there. My daughter is a senior executive.
I hope that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will recognise that the issue involves more than Ministers. I believe that he referred to realism as regards what is happening in the public sector generally. The issue involves more than realism. In many parts of the public sector there is literally no choice: bodies have to accept the government grant. In that context, the net result is that it involves major consequences for the public sector staff. I hope that the noble Viscount will deal with that issue.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, having listened with great interest to your Lordships' exchange of remarks, I am pulled emotionally in more than one direction. On the one hand, there is what I hope is a Gladstonian respect for economy in public finances; and on the other a perhaps unworthy desire to enlist my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in particular, as my personal shop stewards. However, with your Lordships' permission, I shall resist the temptation to go down that path.
I recognise—it is a remark that I have made before in your Lordships' House—that taking a long perspective, let alone the somewhat shorter viewpoint that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter took, ministerial salaries have fallen way out of line with other salaries, and not only in the private sector. We are all aware that Lord Palmerston was able to live in what I believe is now the In and Out Club purely because of his ministerial salary as Foreign Secretary of £5,000 a year—in the days when £5,000 a year was £5,000 a year. I suspect that on a rather larger ministerial salary in nominal terms, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs would be hard pressed to live in the same state in Piccadilly today.
1278
Nevertheless, no matter how admirable the concern for adequate rewards may be—it is an anxiety which has been articulated today in all sections of your Lordships' House—the formula, whether or not it has shortcomings, has one enormous benefit: at least for the moment it takes the difficult and sensitive question of ministerial pay out of the immediate cockpit of adversarial politics. I believe that that is a prize well worth striving for and achieving. Perhaps the good natured character of the remarks in your Lordships' House today are evidence to that.
I could be tempted down many paths as a result of the coats that your Lordships trailed before me. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I resist that temptation. I merely remark to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that the public sector generally can pay more if it makes sure that the gains made in productivity and efficiency justify that. We are all aware that museums find that a somewhat more difficult factor than other areas. I am the first to accept that. I also congratulate the noble Lord on the splendid hereditary principle which clearly obtains in the Barnett family: not only is the noble Lord an ornament to the public service, his daughter clearly is too.
I hope that your Lordships will feel that noble Lords on these Front Benches in particular, and indeed noble Lords in receipt of public salaries on the Front Benches opposite, provide remarkably good value for money—except in my case, where I note that the press has made some unhelpful remarks about the size of my pay increase. I merely point out that despite that, a Cabinet Minister in the House of Lords is still a great deal better value, in money terms if not in terms of actual performance, than a Cabinet Minister in another place. Perhaps we can take pride in that.
Setting aside party political controversy, it is worth noting—I hope that I spare the blushes of my noble friends on the Front Bench—that your Lordships have a dedicated Front Bench team who are worth more than every penny of their ministerial salaries.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, before the Leader of the House sits down, perhaps I may point out that other sums of money are drawn by Ministers and those on the payroll in the form of expenses. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House may recall—perhaps it arose just before he took office—that in your Lordships' House I raised the matter of the ridiculous overnight allowance paid to Members of your Lordships' House. It is not a salary. I believe that I received the general support of Members of your Lordships' House. While I do not think that a firm undertaking was given, there was an understanding that the matter would be kept under review. Nothing has occurred since then apart from what I class as a pitiful allowances increase. If one travels to London on government allowances in any capacity other than as a Member of your Lordships' House, one receives a much larger overnight allowance. When will the Government consider some of the problems regarding Back-Benchers? Why are they restricting the increase

1279
only to those on the Front Bench? In any political party, not only those on the Front Bench but many Back-Benchers do a great deal of work.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I do not believe that noble Lords will disagree in any way with the latter part of the noble Lord's sentiments. Everyone knows the dedication with which regular attenders of your Lordships' House contribute to the work of Parliament.
However, I refer the noble Lord to a recent discussion which took place, as I am sure he knows, in the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee—the noble Lord shakes his head; the proceedings of that Committee are available to your Lordships—in which the issue was thoroughly investigated.
I believe that the matter goes a little wider than the terms of the order. If the noble Lord wishes to discuss the matter further on the Floor of the House, channels are available to him to do so.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Queen Mary and Westfield College Bill
3.9 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 7 [Construction of bequests, etc. and powers of trustees.]
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 7, after ("(1)") insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) below,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in raising the matter I shall repeat one or two remarks that I made in July last when the Bill was read a second time.
First, I should make it absolutely clear that the Bill has nothing whatever to do with the wider question of the closure of St. Bartholomew's Hospital. We are not talking about that but about a much narrower matter.
As noble Lords will remember, I spoke on the matter last July at the request of my old friend and colleague, Ron Brown, the former Member of Parliament for Shoreditch and Finsbury. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, will remember him well. Mr. Brown's concern was with the St. Bartholomew hospital trust, with which we are dealing in the amendments.
I wish to speak to both amendments together as one is consequential upon the other. I am merely interested in the effect of Clause 7 of the Bill and am not opposed to the merger with which the Bill deals as a whole. I wish to make absolutely certain, beyond peradventure or doubt, that the intentions of the hospital trust are continued after the merger in the same way as they were and in the manner in which the trust was originally intended to function.
The problem is that as a result of the provisions of Clause 7(1), the objectives of the charitable trust are likely to be prejudiced. At present the trustees are authorised to seek the promotion and advancement of all aspects of education at the medical college and hold the trust's assets for those purposes. Under the terms of
1280
the Bill, however, the assets of the trust will be held on different terms, as Queen Mary and Westfield College will replace the medical college as the holder of the assets. That would mean that the assets held by the trustees after the amalgamation would be applied towards the promotion and advancement of education at the amalgamated body, which will clearly not be confined to medicine and surgery, as they are at present. The crux of the matter is to ensure that the assets of the trust are devoted to medical education and not to education in general.
The Bill as it stands will permit the new body to spend its funds over a much wider range of educational functions and that would be quite wrong. The medical college building at Charterhouse Square was purchased in 1932 for the benefit of medical research with funds raised by public subscription. I believe that it is important to maintain the property for the purpose of the medical college, thereby respecting the wishes of those whose generosity originally funded the purpose.
We had a considerable debate on the matter last July and considered whether the new trustees would carry on in the same manner as at present or whether they would be tempted to change their attitude. In the course of the debate there was an interesting contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, which is to be found in Hansard for 19th July 1995 at col. 351. He drew attention to the fact that the university authorities cannot always be trusted to do what they are asked. He put it in the following words:
"I have seen a number of dubious transactions in universities. I have seen chairs in accounting converted to the study of the more esoteric crevices of economics. I have seen bequests to teach drama used to fund lectureships in English literature. And who can forget the dismay of Lord Nuffield at seeing a college which he hoped would teach practical engineering and train industrialists converted into a temple for the social studies by that wily operator Lord Lindsay of Birker?"
That was amusingly put, but it points to the fears which some people have that, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said at Second Reading, although a form of words might be agreed between the merging groups which would protect the purposes of the trust, nevertheless the changes to which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, so amusingly drew our attention last July indicate how the best laid schemes of mice and men "gang afta-gley".
Although a form of words was hoped for and promised, I do not believe that any such form has been agreed. If I am mistaken, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, will tell me. It had been suggested that the Charity Commissioners might permit changes in the trust deed in order to deal with the matter and to protect the original purpose of the trust. However, the other day I was told that the Charity Commissioners have not agreed to that course of action. Thus we are left with a situation where the form of words has not been agreed and the Charity Commissioners have not undertaken to permit the trust deed to be changed, as was hoped. That leaves us with the only possible course of action to protect the objectives of the trust: to amend the Bill in

1281
the manner which I suggest. I do not wish to meddle with the Bill, but that is the only way to ring-fence the intentions and purposes of the trustees. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, it was perhaps a little disingenuous of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, not to quote the next passage in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I too remember it with the utmost pleasure. Having made the points particularly about Lord Nuffield and Lord Lindsay of Birker, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, went on to say at the end of his speech (again at col. 351 of Hansard for 19th July 1995):
"With great respect, although it is perfectly true that bogeys do exist, this bogey is a pumpkin, and fit only to frighten tiny tots".
Therefore, I must confess that it was with some disappointment that I saw that the noble Lord, Lord Howie, had tabled the amendments. Those who were present at the Second Reading will remember that we had a splendid debate. Several former vice- chancellors of the University of London and other universities spoke eloquently in support of the Bill. I received a message today from the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, that he too assures me of his fullest support.
However, since then the Bill has been painstakingly examined by a Select Committee of this House. I am pleased to see all the members of that Select Committee present here today. They reported the Bill without amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie, is perfectly right. At Second Reading he and the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, drew attention to the point on Clause 7 about the trust. They were concerned about what the effect of the Bill would be. The matter was examined painstakingly by the Select Committee and counsel for the objectors to the Bill produced a witness specifically to deal with the point. He was examined and cross-examined by counsel for the promoters, who also addressed the committee, and the committee reported this Bill to this House without amendment.
But it does not stop there. Only last week, the council of St. Bartholomew's Hospital medical college debated the issue again. It came to the conclusion that the Bill should not be amended. This amendment is not wanted; it is not required. As I said, it is not thought to be necessary by the council of St. Bart's medical college or by the chairman, Sir Anthony Dawson, and the trustees of the St. Bartholomew's Hospital Medical College Trust, or by the Charity Commission, which the noble Lord mentioned, or as I said by our own Select Committee.
Perhaps in view of the noble Lord's remarks, I might be permitted a sentence or two to say why the amendment is unnecessary. It is unnecessary because the trustees, who renew themselves, retain complete discretion to continue to use their assets for the support of medicine and research within Queen Mary and Westfield College. Nothing in Clause 7 of the Bill constrains the trustees in any way whatever. It would, of course, be another matter if the Bill were to require them to give support to non-medical matters; or if the power to appoint new trustees passed away from the
1282
trustees either to the college or to some other body. But that is not the case. Indeed, the promoters of the Bill obtained counsel's opinion to the effect that the trust's powers are not widened in the way that was supposed or assumed. I believe that that is what lies behind the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howie. Queen Mary and Westfield College agreed with the trust that it will use its best endeavours to ensure that the trust continues to support matters relating to medicine, surgery and dentistry. A number of courses are open to it, including approaches first to the Charity Commissioners and to the courts.
I am also advised—although I entirely take the point that when laymen come to draft amendments it is not always very easy—that the amendment on the Marshalled List is defective. The noble Lord was offered discussions with the principal of the college, who wrote to him last July. He did not take up that offer. So far as I am aware, he has not discussed the matter with any of those who represent the promoters of the Bill. The fact is that the amendment moved by the noble Lord would have the effect of narrowing the powers of the trust, and the provisions would then conflict with and override to some extent the wishes of the donors who originally endowed the trust. I hope therefore that, having reflected on my remarks, on the very wide support that the Bill received at Second Reading, and on the fact that the committee examined this very point and reported the Bill without amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, will not press his amendment to a Division.
Lord Annan: My Lords, since my name was invoked by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, I apologise for not having observed the very wise dictum, first stated, I believe, by St. Thomas Aquinas, about being economical with the truth. I did, as it were, give hostages to fortune by indicating that there were occasions in universities when the wishes of donors were not observed. However, the wish of a donor in giving a gift is a very different matter from the solemn obligations that trustees take upon themselves. That is why I entirely support the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for his very detailed reply to my remarks. I must make it clear that my intention was not to oppose the Bill, as he perhaps hinted, but merely to amend it. I also sought, as I believed, to strengthen it. The noble Lord suggested that my amendment was defective in a technical sense. The noble Lord may very well be right. That happens in this House from time to time, even when parliamentary draftsmen, and not laymen, draw up amendments.
However, in view of the fact that the debates as reported in Hansard are widely read and have greater legal strength now than once they had, and in view of the noble Lord's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
On Question, Bill passed.

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

Atomic Energy Authority Bill
Read a third time.
Clause 3 [Supplementary provisions as to the Authority's powers]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) The Authority shall not have the power to dispose of any undertaking unless provided for by a transfer scheme.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope to speak very briefly to this amendment. On reflection, I should probably have raised it at the Bill's previous stage in this House, but did not feel that I wanted to do so at that time. It looks rather odd to raise the point now, but as this is my only opportunity to deal with the matter, I shall do so.
My concern is that, almost separately from this Bill, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority also seems to be selling off other parts of itself. I find that in any case rather odd, but I gather that all kinds of bits of it are available for sale within what is called the government division. Typically, the sections being sold are small. The numbers of people involved range from one in something called the book drying group (I have not yet discovered what it is) through to the Dounreay engineering squad, which involves 90 people.
It seems to me that there is a serious point of principle here. First, it is not clear on what basis UKAEA is able to divest itself of these bits of its own business without a transfer scheme and in a sense without any further consideration by its ultimate owners. Secondly, there are certainly safety reasons behind my concern about parts of the business being sold off. If possible, will the Minister comment on that?
I am also worried about a matter that arose when we first debated this whole subject; namely, fragmenting the business and selling off bits and pieces. Assuming that the business as a whole is worth more than the simple sum of its parts, selling it in this fragmented way will not achieve the maximum gain for the taxpayer. I should certainly therefore like the Minister, if possible, to say a word or two on the taxpayers' interest in the commercial side of the selling off.
Finally—again I reveal my normal ignorance of these matters—I am not very clear what the process of selling off is or will be. Will it be a matter for competitive
1284
tender, therefore guaranteeing that the very best price is achieved; or will it be by negotiation, in which case the best price is not necessarily achieved? I apologise again for delaying your Lordships by raising these matters, but I believe they are worth some ministerial comment.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has raised an important issue. One of the main points raised during earlier stages of the Bill was that AEA Technology, with which the Bill is mainly concerned, should be sold off as a whole. It now appears that some parts of AEA Technology as well as the government division may be disposed of otherwise. It would be most helpful to have some elucidation of this issue.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, when a comparable amendment was moved in Committee I hoped that I had provided a sufficiently full and satisfactory response. But perhaps I may take a moment now to go over some of the ground and clarify matters further.
A transfer scheme is the most effective and economical way of dealing with the many varied and complex issues involved in separating out AEA Technology from the authority. Most disposals by the authority, however, involve the sale of small operational units with few assets and a handful of staff. In those cases, sale by normal commercial contract is all that is required. As I advised the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, in Committee, using a transfer scheme to give effect to such sales as this amendment would require would be to make something of a mountain out of a molehill. It would not prevent such disposals being made but would unnecessarily increase the administrative cost of making them. I can confirm that all sales in these matters will be on a competitive basis.
So far as AEA Technology is concerned, the divestments which have taken place or which are envisaged contain only a handful of employees. The areas involved are clearly outside the core activities of AEA Technology. It is not true that their sale would in a sense damage the synergy of the sale value of AEA Technology. I do not depart from anything that I said at an earlier stage of the Bill.
I suspect that what lies behind this concern is that, while AEA Technology is being sold off in the way that I described earlier, there are other small parts that are being disposed of that are not part of the core. But if the noble Lord is concerned to ensure that the Secretary of State should retain control over other disposals by the authority, perhaps he will be satisfied when I tell him that the Secretary of State already has extensive powers of control over the authority, including the power, under Section 3(2) of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954, to issue directions. Disposals by the authority are already subject to control under such a direction which restricts disposal without approval of the Secretary of State.

1285
We do not seek to operate a completely different system but those early disposals—maybe future disposals—which were made fall rather differently out of the core of the AEA Technology business which, as I indicated last time, we intend to sell off in a single sale.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer, which was particularly enlightening. I assumed that the statement that he made during Report stage still held. He reassured your Lordships that the Government's preferred option was to sell AEA Technology as a whole. I had not thought that the Government were back-tracking on that.
What I find most helpful—I pause to look at the Minister when I say this to make sure that he nods in agreement—is that in all these cases the Secretary of State has an involvement. Let us take the simplest possible case: selling off the book drying section employing one person. If we were to say that it is fundamental to this Government's policies that book drying in the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority remains in the public sector, the Secretary of State would at least have a locus to do that. I take it that that is what the Minister has said. With that reassurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Transfer schemes: supplementary provisions]:
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 15, line 25, at end insert—
("Redundancy
.—(1) If any employee of the Authority is transferred to a new employer by a transfer scheme or otherwise and is declared redundant—

(a) the Authority's redundancy rules and benefits applicable to that employee at the date of the transfer shall apply unless the trade unions or other bodies representing the employees transferred by the transfer scheme have agreed to their modification for such employees; and

(b) the redundancy rules shall apply as if the Authority were the employer and all employees transferred from the Authority's employment by transfer schemes were employees of the Authority.

(2) This paragraph shall have effect for employees transferred on or after 1 March 1995.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Minister may feel that we have been over this ground before. Certainly we attempted to persuade him earlier in the Bill that further steps were necessary to provide protection for employees in the event of redundancy as a result of privatisation. The present amendment, as will be seen, includes an element of backdating in that it attempts to protect the rights of those involved in the sales of FSD (as I think it is called) and the sale of seven people to EMS Medical.
The Minister has always argued that this is an unnecessary amendment because the employees will have the protection of the TUPE regulations. That is absolutely true. The Minister has also said that before
1286
changes could be made to contractual redundancy terms the agreement of the members or that of their unions would be required. There is wording to that effect included in the amendment before the House this afternoon.
However, as we have always pointed out, TUPE protects only at the point of transfer. Afterwards, changes can be made, and often are, frequently to the detriment of the employees. I received some further information since the last time that this issue was discussed. It shows exactly why employees are so concerned and why they feel that simply relying on TUPE will not give them sufficient protection.
I understand that 950 employees were involved in the sale by UKAEA to Procord Limited, a subsidiary of Johnson Controls Incorporated of Wisconsin, on 31st March 1995. The managing director of Procord wrote to the prospective new employees on 7th March saying:
"Procord will take over and honour all your employment rights, including redundancy entitlements—and has no redundancy plans".
The managing director of UKAEA Services Division on 31st March said:
"We are … confident that the sale offers excellent prospects to our colleagues who are now joining Procord".
Procord's human resources director repeated on 27th July that there were no redundancy plans.
However, Procord announced 150 redundances to its ex-UKAEA workforce on 10th August, citing as the reason misleading assurances as to non-guaranteed work given by UKAEA during the sale. Despite the earlier assurances, Procord now say that it plans to worsen terms and conditions of employment, including the redundancy terms, when the current redundancy programme is complete.
The Procord employees, therefore, need the protection of their redundancy terms offered by this amendment. Making any redundancy exercise cover both Procord and UKAEA will ease the process, as there will be greater possibilities for redeployment; and, as we have said on past occasions, the redundancy agreement existing for UKAEA employees lays great emphasis on the need for redeployment.
For those reasons, I again put these amendments before the House, even though, as I indicated, we have already been over this course substantially before. But I must emphasise that feedback from employees through their unions shows that there is great concern about the prospects of redundancy following privatisation and a belief that once privatisation has taken place, the employees will cease to have the protection that they had under their former redundancy terms. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, this is an issue which, although important, we have discussed both in Committee and at Report stage. I had hoped that on previous occasions I had succeeded in reassuring the noble Baroness that AEA Technology employees would have all the protections in respect of redundancy provided for by the TUPE regulations and that any modifications to contractual redundancy rights will require the consent of employees.

1287
As I explained at Report stage, the width and retrospective effect of this amendment seemed to us entirely inappropriate. I repeat that our concern in the Bill is with the privatisation of AEA Technology and not with any other divestment that the authority has carried out or may carry out in the future under its existing powers. So far as concerns other divestments, the authority is in the same position as any other public enterprise. Notwithstanding what the noble Baroness said, I do not consider that there is an argument which justifies treating authority staff differently from other public servants. Indeed it would be inequitable to do so.
TUPE ensures that employees join their new employer on the same terms and conditions as they left their old one. As the noble Baroness previously suggested, it is the case that the new employer can change those terms and conditions with the employee's consent, but the same, of course, is also true of the old employer.
I cannot agree that the exceptional arrangements in this amendment are justified in the circumstances. It would be beyond the terms of the Bill to go over what Procord did or did not say. If it is intending to bring about redundancies or seek voluntary early retirement from employees, that is a matter for the company and not for me.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am not entirely surprised at the Minister's response, though I find it slightly disappointing. He says that there is no reason to treat these employees differently from any other employee. We made it clear in previous discussions on the Bill that we are talking of groups of people who went to work for a public authority—UKAEA—believing that it held the prospect of security for the future both in regard to pension provision and employment. Those hopes have been frustrated as a result of the Government's privatisation plans and therefore, through no fault of their own, those employees cease to have the element of security that they once had. That has been made even more clear by what is happening to Procord.
It was for those reasons that we felt that there was an obligation on the Government to make exceptional arrangements in regard to a group of employees whose security had been put at risk in their eyes as a result of government legislation and policy. However, we have failed yet again to convince the Minister that it is right and proper to accept the amendment. I regret that; but, at this late stage of the Bill, I have no alternative but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Pensions]:
Baroness Turner Baroness Turner moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 29, line 36, at end insert—
("(4A) No person who, in consequence of a transfer of an undertaking ceases to be an employee of the Authority (in this paragraph referred to as a "divested employee") and who immediately before ceasing to be an employee of the Authority is a participant in an Authority pension scheme, shall cease to be a participant in that scheme by reason only that he has ceased to be employed by the Authority.
1288
(4B) No divested employee who, immediately before ceasing to be an employee of the Authority, is not a participant in such a pension scheme, but—

(a) is eligible to become such a participant; or

(b) would have become eligible to become such a participant on attaining an age or fulfilling a condition specified in the scheme;

shall be precluded from being or, as the case requires, becoming eligible for participation in that scheme by reason only that he has ceased to be employed by the Authority.
(4C) Sub-paragraphs (4A) and (4B) above shall have effect for transfers of undertakings occurring on or after 1 March 1995.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we are revisiting this matter finally at Third Reading, mainly because the feedback we had from the organisations representing the staff is to the effect that they remain extremely concerned about the position of those who cease to be employed by the authority as a result of privatisation. The Minister will know that much of that anxiety centred upon what will happen in regard to pension rights.
It is true that, on Report, the Minister made some substantial concessions, particularly in regard to index linking. We are grateful for those and I emphasise that this afternoon. However, anxieties remain about those divested of employment rights other than under the transfer scheme provisions of the Bill.
The amendment would make entitlement retrospective to 1st March 1995. I am advised that two groups of employees were involved in sales on 31st March 1995. They are the facilities services division with 950 people involved in the sale to Procord and Harwell Dosimeters and seven people involved in the sale to EMS Medical Group. In each case a different non-index linked pension scheme was imposed.
The Government will no doubt claim, as they have done on previous occasions, that the pension packages are broadly comparable, which I understand to be the view of the Government Actuary. However, an independent actuary consulted by the unions disagreed, mainly because the GAD assumed an average rate of inflation of 5.5 per cent., whereas the experience of the 30 years from 1964 to 1994 was an average of 8.2 per cent.
The unions therefore believe that the people concerned have suffered a worsening of terms and conditions. While we all hope that inflation will not escalate, nobody can be sure. We therefore return to this issue in a final attempt to persuade the Government that it would be in everyone's interest—including taxpayers—for those people to remain in the UKAEA pension scheme. The Government argue that changing the terms of the sales would be a breach of faith with the purchasers. My information is to the effect that the purchasers were well aware of the unresolved pension issues at the time the sales were completed. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for acknowledging what I said during the Report stage of the Bill. However, it will not surprise her to hear that what she now proposes in Amendment No. 3 is unacceptable as it would bring

1289
within the scope of the Bill all transfers of undertakings by the authority and make retrospective provision back to 31st March 1995.
The Bill deals with the privatisation of AEA Technology. It has been specifically designed to deal with that privatisation. I made it clear that it is unacceptable to the Government to allow employees who have moved to the private sector to continue to participate in the authority's pension schemes. It is for the private sector employer to devise arrangements which are appropriate for its employees and the operation of its business.
But let me say that the employees of other parts of the authority which may be divested need not be concerned about their future pension arrangements. It is the authority's clear policy, irrespective of employment law, that employees who move to the private sector should be able to join a pension scheme which is broadly comparable with the authority pension scheme. Indeed, to do otherwise might mean that employees had a claim for constructive dismissal.
We also discussed in Committee the question of employees who have already left the authority's employment being allowed back into the authority's schemes. I explained then and repeat that it would be wholly unacceptable as it would re-open the basis on which the businesses were sold earlier this year, subsequent to the date I mentioned.
To change the basis on which parts of the authority have already been sold would create substantial uncertainty for the employees involved and potentially put their jobs at risk. Such uncertainty was in the forefront of our minds at Report stage. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and I agree that we should not add to the uncertainty of employees. That would be one of the effects of this amendment and one reason why it is unacceptable.
With that brief explanation, I hope the noble Baroness understands why, for reasons of retrospective features if nothing else, the amendment is unacceptable.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. As I said earlier, we have been over this ground several times before and my reason for revisiting it was because my information was that people are still concerned about their future prospects, particularly in the area of pensions. However, I note what he says about the general principles being unacceptable to the Government. I am sorry about that. As I said earlier in connection with Amendment No. 2, people's expectations have been damaged or frustrated and uncertainties imported into their employment situation as a result of government legislation. There is therefore an obligation on the Government to do the best they can to ensure that those uncertainties are put at rest.
As we have said repeatedly, people join this kind of organisation, this type of public service, believing that they have the prospect of security of employment and of pension entitlement. During the passage of the Bill we have done our best on this side of the House to try to ensure that those fears are put at rest, at least to the
1290
best of our ability. Unfortunately, we have not always been able to persuade the Government that something needs to be done, though we are grateful to the Minister for the assurances that we received at various stages of the Bill, and in particular when we discussed pension entitlement at Report stage. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
At earlier stages of the Bill there were full discussions both of its content and of some of the wider issues surrounding it. I was not a participant in the earliest stage but I am grateful to those on the Front Bench opposite for the way in which the Bill has been taken forward and the care with which the various issues have been debated. I also extend my gratitude to other noble Lords who participated in our discussions.
Our debates have been notable for the fact that there has been agreement on all sides of the House that AEA Technology is an important national asset with the potential to make a significantly greater contribution to United Kingdom competitiveness. Where there has been disagreement, it has been over how best to realise that potential and take forward the development of the business in a way which best serves the interests of its staff and the taxpayer. The disagreements have, in turn, provided a basis for a constructive examination of the Bill, through which the House has gained—and I have certainly gained—a better understanding of what it and the sale of AEA Technology entail.
Our main objective in bringing the Bill before Parliament has been to promote the commercial development of the business and set it on a path from which it can take full advantage of the many opportunities open to it. That is in all our interests. The more successful AEA Technology is, the more it will be able to contribute to the United Kingdom economy. Privatisation will offer AEA Technology the opportunity to build on its already impressive track record by stimulating the drive for new business, enforcing market disciplines and offering genuine commercial freedom unencumbered by the demands of government. It is not only the best way forward for the business; it is the best way forward for its customers and the staff. With those brief thanks, I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his kind remarks. I had the opportunity to congratulate him only a few days on how admirably he guided us through the Gas Bill. I repeat with great sincerity those same remarks in congratulating him on how admirably he has guided us through the Atomic Energy Authority Bill.
The Bill has not been to everyone's taste in the sense that to my recollection it has been largely dealt with by the Front Benches. It does not seem to have attracted the interest of many other noble Lords. One or two have

1291
joined us occasionally. However, that does not make the Bill any less important or any less interesting. The Minister has done an excellent job. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, on his part. As always, I thank my noble friends Lord Clinton-Davis, Lord Haskel and Lady Turner, and repeat the point that, as compared with the Minister, whenever the going got tough, I turned to them and let them take over.
I was opposed to the Bill. I felt that its basis was ideological, and my view has not changed. But I have to say that as the Bill will become an Act and AEA Technology will be sold into the private sector, I would not then be curmudgeonly. My hope is then—it will be the Minister's hope as well—that the new business will succeed. Setting ideology on one side, the country depends on our businesses succeeding, and this is certainly one where the prospects are excellent. Although I would not have done it in the first place, so to speak, if we are going to do it, then I want it to work.
I have one final remark to make. We have scrutinised the Bill in detail and with our usual precision. It has been an excellent example of how noble Lords do their job. But if I could harp back to some remarks made an hour or so ago on ministerial and other salaries, when I think of the effort we have all put into the Bill, I wish occasionally that we received something more by way of material reward. I am told that I may be thanked in heaven, but occasionally there are bills to be paid as well. Leaving that frivolous note on one side, I repeat my thanks to the Minister and look forward to whatever we do in the next Session.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I wish to join in the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Peston. This is an important measure. I believe that it has been dealt with extremely constructively and sympathetically from the Government Front Bench. Right from the start there seemed to my mind to be one overriding issue. AEA Technology, about which the Bill is mainly concerned, has been established as a very successful and highly developed consultancy body. The fear, which was expressed from all sides of the House at Second Reading and was taken up at the Committee stage, was the risk that, according to the wording of the Bill, the Government had reserved the right to dispose of it either in whole or in part. There was grave anxiety that to dispose of this admirable body in part would seriously weaken its future activities and set at nought what it has achieved so far. The Minister agreed at the Committee stage that he would come back on that point and he gave us very firm assurances on Report that it was now the Government's intention to dispose of AEA Technology as a whole. For that we are very pleased. All I can say in conclusion is that I wish it very well in its new phase of life.
On Question, Bill passed.

Town and Country Planning (Costs of Inquiries etc.) Bill
Report received.

Dogs (Fouling of Land) Bill
4.5 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: 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.—(The Earl of Northesk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMIITBES (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Offence]:
Lord Kimball Lord Kimball moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert ("but not to any gutter or ditch of, or in or adjacent to, any road or path").
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 2. It deals with the same point—where a ditch or a gutter is not available. The object of the first amendment is to ensure that it is not an offence for a dog to spend tuppence in a ditch or a gutter beside a path or a road in an area which has been designated by a local authority as an area in which your dog should not spend tuppence. The second amendment seeks to ensure that where a ditch or a gutter is not available, the local authority should provide within the area of land that has been designated a suitable receptacle into which the offending dog mess can be put. That is the point of both the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, has moved his amendment. This is a very far-ranging—in some ways extraordinary—Bill. It creates an offence of strict liability. In other words, the owner of a dog may be liable to a swingeing fine even though he knows nothing of the offence and is in no present position to prevent it.
The fouling of sidewalks by dogs is extremely unpleasant and unhygienic. If we had any doubt about that we would have been persuaded by the clear and attractive arguments which the noble Earl put forward in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. However, as I said, the Bill goes very far indeed. It centralises the offence in place of it being the subject of by-laws. Not only that, it creates a very wide offence, leaving it to the Minister, with exiguous parliamentary control, to make exceptions. That is the old dispensing power of the Crown which was found so objectionable in Stuart times and was finally disposed of in the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights.
As I say, the Bill makes the fouling by dog faeces of any land open to the public an offence. The Committee may believe that we have much too much legislation in

1293
any event and that we have been creating new criminal offences every Session that we have had in recent times. That is sufficient to make the Committee at any rate wish to scrutinise very carefully these kinds of provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, has moved this amendment at a very late stage in the Session—the Bill comes before the Committee at a very late stage—and that may weigh with him in deciding whether to ask your Lordships to divide on the matter. But that does not excuse us from passing the measure through on the nod without any question.
This is in fact a government Bill although it was moved by a Private Member in the other place and by the noble Earl himself in your Lordships' House. It bears all the marks of a Whitehall Bill, which is handed to a Back-Bencher who has been lucky in the ballot. As I say, it goes extraordinarily far in creating a very wide offence subject only to a dispensing power.
There is one other initial matter which I should mention before we come to the specific proposal in this amendment. It was raised at Second Reading by, I believe, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland; namely, its effect on foxhunting. It is the local authority which is given power under this Bill. We have had examples of local authorities inimical to foxhunting who have used powers in order to hamper that country sport. That has been done in the West Country. The decision was challenged in the High Court. The local authority appealed and failed in the Court of Appeal.
As I have said, this measure could be used—I do not doubt that it would be used—by a local authority unfriendly to foxhunting in order to allow the hampering of that country sport. The recent White Paper on rural England, which we are to debate next week and which has been very favourably received, expressly welcomes country sports. If we are to see foxhunting abolished or suppressed, it should be done openly by Act of Parliament and not by the back door through the misuse of powers under Bills such as this.
There is one other preliminary matter that I wish to mention. As the noble Earl explained at Second Reading, this Bill centralises powers that at the moment are exercised in some cases by by-laws, so that the whole matter is governed by a Whitehall Act of Parliament. Is it altogether right to assume that central direction by Act of Parliament is superior to a by-law? A by-law is a local law of the locality. It is a local authority which makes the by-law and which knows local conditions. This Bill takes account of and enforces a criminal offence, notwithstanding the wide variety of local conditions. Having given a Second Reading to this Bill, albeit in circumstances to which the Salisbury convention does not apply, we are bound to accept that by-laws shall be abrogated in place of this measure. That is an additional reason why we should regard this Bill with close scrutiny.
The recent White Paper on rural England drew attention to the desirability of local authorities, not least parish councils, having powers in the locality. After all, a by-law is a legislative subsidiarity. One of the most notable achievements of the Prime Minister at
1294
Maastricht was getting the principle of subsidiarity written into that treaty. Subsidiarity, like charity, begins at home. We should apply it domestically.
Having said that, I turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball. That excepts defecation in a gutter or a ditch. Many well-trained dogs are trained to defecate in gutters and ditches. They are channels for collecting rainwater and sweeping away waste products with it. Surely, that is a very reasonable exception. I hope that the noble Lord will accept the amendment but, as I say, if he does not, he will need to give some cogent reasons why defecation in a gutter or ditch should be a criminal offence committed by the owner of a dog who may know nothing about the committal of the act of defecation and be in no position to prevent it. He will then be liable to a fine of £1,000 under this Bill. Under those circumstances I welcome and support this amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Somehow or other, we seem to have got on to foxhunting, the abrogation of by-laws and some serious constitutional problems. I do not believe that any of those are relevant to this discussion. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept this amendment. It relates to one aspect of this Bill brought from the Commons. That aspect has to be seen in the general context of the problems arising, some of which are comprised in Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 of the Bill.
In many respects, the common law has for a long time recognised the absolute liability of owners for certain antics of their animals. Although a dog may have one bite—unless it is one of the dangerous dogs (as defined by statute) of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby—it may not have one defecation within the meaning of Clause 1(1) without exposing
"the person who is in charge",
who is, in fact, not in charge, to prosecution by reason of the presumptions in paragraphs (a) and (c) of Clause 1(6) of what I call "the dirty dogs Bill".
My noble friend Lord Kimball has asked me to have a look at the Bill and the amendments. I assure the Committee that no question of payment arises—although a dram or two might not be unacceptable, but if it were a bottle or a hogshead, that would have to appear on the proposed register. Will not that become a total nonsense for your Lordships' House?
Reverting to the amendment, I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister has ever lived in Kensington in the vicinity of Kensington Palace and whether he has ever owned a Chow dog. If he has, he will know that there is a secret meeting of Chow dogs every morning—or there was about 10 years ago. The Chow dogs leave their homes and cross the roads, having learned to do so, and then meet together in a circle (more or less) in Kensington Gardens. It is not so easy to identify individual Chow dogs because they do not take kindly to anyone handling their collars or to whatever else their identification is fixed, and they all look alike. If my noble friend were to say, "Why not keep the wretched dog at home?" I should say, "Just try keeping a Chow

1295
dog at home". It seems to me that this is a somewhat unrealistic Bill in practice and that imposing a level 3 maximum fine is assuredly making a mountain out of a molehill.
Lord Lucas: I shall confine myself to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 which, if I understand my noble friend correctly, we are to discuss. We are not sympathetic to either of the amendments. Amendment No. 1 would exclude any gutter or ditch from land to which the offence of failing to clear up after one's dog applies. In the past it was considered acceptable for dogs to foul the gutter. Indeed, going further back it was acceptable for humans to foul the gutter. We believe that that is no longer the way in which people think. Those of us who have lived in central London for any length of time will have experienced much discomfort from finding that dogs have been in the gutter before us.
Furthermore, we do not think that it should be forbidden by the Bill for a local authority to outlaw defecation in a ditch. Dog faeces which are deposited on dry land are disposed of quickly and efficiently by invertebrates. If disposed of in a ditch, they will dissolve, cause eutrophication and destroy the wildlife in the immediate vicinity. It is generally a much less ecologically acceptable means of disposal. We do not believe that the Bill should require local authorities to exempt defecation in ditches if they feel that that would be undesirable in the particular circumstances.
Amendment No. 2 places a requirement on local authorities to provide bins for the disposal of dog faeces on designated land. We are not sympathetic to that amendment. Under the dog fouling by-laws, there has never been a requirement to provide bins. The dog faeces are the owner's responsibility, not the council's. My noble friend would presumably not seek to argue that it is alright to drop litter if there is no convenient litter bin. We think that the same argument applies to dog faeces. The adoption of the amendment would force local authorities to bespatter town and country with dog-mess bins. We do not find that prospect financially, visually or nasally acceptable.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Before the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, rises to reply on the amendment, may I ask the Minister about the second amendment? Does not the Bill impose a duty on the dog owner? The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, called it "absolute liability"; I call it "strict liability". They mean the same thing—that the dog owner is responsible whether or not he knows that the act has been committed and whether or not he can prevent it. I ask the Minister to answer that question with a yes or a no because I think that it can be so answered.
It is a defence if the person in charge of the dog removes the faeces into a receptacle, but there is no provision that any receptacle for that purpose shall be provided. I see that the Minister nods in acquiescence. That is how I read it. Moreover, it is no defence that there is no utensil available to the person in charge. Surely if it is a requirement to remove the faeces into a receptacle, we cannot really expect dog owners to go around carrying receptacles for that purpose. Does the dog owner also have to carry a shovel and a dust pan
1296
and brush? Does he have to provide every member of his family who might walk the dog with rubber gloves or surgical gloves? I trust that the Minister will tell us the answer to those questions given that he is proposing to brush off most of the amendments.
Finally, I note some element of schizophrenia between whichever departments or branches of departments have prepared the Bill and the White Paper which has recently been presented.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: As this is Committee stage, perhaps I may say briefly that in view of what the noble and learned Lord has just said, I think that my noble friend the Minister ought to be in a position to give some constructive and satisfactory reply.
Lord Lucas: I do not quarrel with most of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said. Perhaps I may amplify it, however, by saying that an owner has a defence of reasonable excuse and that no offence is committed if he removes the faeces. All that I can offer the noble and learned Lord is my personal advice and suggest that he does what I do—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Can the noble Lord say what he regards as a reasonable excuse?
Lord Lucas: That must be for the courts to decide. I can only offer the noble and learned Lord the advice to do what I do. I carry a plastic bag in my pocket and use that to pick up the dog faeces. All that he needs to do is to be careful that it is not one of the plastic bags which supermarkets provide for packing vegetables in because they have small holes in the bottom.
Lord Mancroft: Before the noble Lord sits down, I had not meant to intervene but I cannot now resist it having heard the debate. For clarification, is the noble Lord really suggesting that a gutter or ditch is no longer the right place for a dog to empty because it has been the right place for many hundreds of years past? If it is suddenly not to be the right place, where else in London or other cities when one is not close to a park, and where it cannot be done anyway, would the dog do it?
4.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: It does not matter where the dog does it so long as the owner clears it up.
Baroness Hamwee: We seem to be straying back to the fundamentals of the Bill rather than the amendments. While I understand that many Members of the Committee may view these things differently, as the Minister said, life moves on. There are different views as to what is now appropriate and hygienic. There are many parents of young children, as well as older people, who find it offensive to have to cope as pedestrians with dog fouling in the streets.
I am an urban person. I cannot talk about the countryside, but it is a major problem in our cities not just in the streets but in playgrounds. There are serious diseases related to dog fouling. I applaud the Minister for having taken such a firm and blunt stand with those

1297
Members of the Committee who, if I may say so without intending to be offensive, may be a little more old fashioned about these things than are some of the public.
The Earl of Northesk: Like my noble friend the Minister, I shall attempt to confine my remarks to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. As I explained on Second Reading, one of the primary purposes of the Bill is to rationalise and simplify the existing procedure for making by-laws with respect to dog fouling. In that context, an overarching principle which has guided its drafting has been a conscious attempt to carry forward the model by-laws, for all intents and purposes unchanged, onto the face of the Bill.
Thus, there is little enough in the Bill that cannot already be achieved by a local authority under the by-law-making procedure. That is an important point for the Committee to understand. Furthermore, the Bill's provisions will be exercised locally under the direction of any regulations made by the Secretary of State, which I hope will go some way towards resolving the difficulties expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon.
With that in mind, the first point I should like to make with respect to Amendment No. 1 is that local authorities can already create no-fouling areas in gutters. Accordingly, far from rationalising the existing procedure, which is the Bill's desired effect, the amendments would considerably diminish the Bill's effectiveness. There is a consensus, certainly in urban areas, that dog-fouling is a serious problem that requires a more efficient and enforceable means of redress. Therefore I find myself unable to sympathise with my noble friend's amendment which, notwithstanding its good intentions, would clearly serve to undermine the procedure already in place.
As my noble friend has explained, the intent of Amendment No. 1 is to prevent local authorities being able to designate gutters and ditches as areas where the offence of dog fouling would apply while maintaining their ability to designate the carriageway, the highway, the verges and any adjacent footpath. That would create an anomalous and wholly confusing situation not merely for those upon whom responsibility for enforcement will fall but for the dog-owning public. For example, would an offence be committed if a dog's stools straddled the gutter and the kerb? Would dog owners, secure in the knowledge that they could not be prosecuted for failing to clear up their dog's mess in a gutter, seek to sweep such mess into such a location or even consciously train their dogs to do their business in gutters?
Despite some of the comments made by Members of the Committee today, faeces deposited in the gutter are not necessarily swept away. This summer's drought is evidence of that fact. I would hope that with those points in mind my noble friend might feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 1.
In common with Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2 also represents a departure from current practice with dog-fouling by-laws which, as I have already said today, the Bill is intended to replace. As my noble friend the Minister said, under current practice there is not, and
1298
has never been, a requirement to provide bins for the reception of faeces removed from the land. As my noble friend has so rightly identified, it begs the question as to whether the provision of such bins should be a requirement placed upon local authorities. Such a statutory requirement may result in dog faeces bins attracting the same level of opprobrium and ridicule that roadwork cones may have engendered in the public in the past. We would have ubiquitous bins sprouting up, with no apparent purpose or methodology underlying their location.
Accordingly, what should lie at the heart of our thinking with respect to this issue is a recognition that local authorities themselves are best placed to identify where in their areas bins may be most usefully and effectively sited. After all, they have such flexibility with regard to the provision of litter bins, and so it is entirely appropriate and reasonable that the same flexibility should persist with regard to the provision of dog waste bins.
Good legislation has about it the character of pragmatism and practicality. If the price that a local authority has to pay to enforce its dog-fouling powers under the Bill is the blanket provision of dog faeces bins, it is a price which many, if not all, authorities would be reluctant to pay. Financial considerations would represent one aspect of their thinking, but what is more important, the cost in terms of time of fulfilling such an obligation would be so high as to render the Bill unworkable. In the light of those comments, I hope that my noble friend may not feel the need to press the amendment.
Lord Kimball: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon for his support for these two amendments. We can summarise his feelings. He objects to what I would call the urbanisation of the countryside. I believe that all Members of the Committee were sympathetic when he stressed the importance of local people and the parish councils being consulted about any of these designations. I share his disappointment when he said that he found no cogent reason given as to why the amendment should not be accepted.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell for pointing out the unrealistic nature and the difficult practice required by the Bill. I hate to have to say so, but many of us on this side of the Committee found the reply of my noble friend the Minister on behalf of the Government a little disappointing. As he said, he gave us the brush-off. We shall have to return on Report to the whole problem, as the promoter has said, of there being a little flexibility on the whole question of the provision of bins.
I should hate anyone to think that we on this side of the Committee were not sympathetic to the important and realistic point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. There are some pretty nasty diseases, including blindness in children, associated with this problem. That is why we must proceed with care. I am most grateful to my noble friend, the Bill's promoter. Throughout our discussions he has been nothing but helpful and flexible. He has tried to meet our objections. It is because of that spirit and what he has already said

1299
about preparing to be flexible about the provision of dog shit bins, as against litter bins, that with the Committee's permission I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment and come back to the matter on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo Viscount Allenby of Megiddo moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("3") and insert ("1").
The noble Viscount said: I was not able to speak on Second Reading, but I accept the need to rationalise the law on dog fouling and, above all, to promote responsible dog ownership. The Bill makes it an offence to fail to pick up dog excrement in a designated area. The purpose of the amendment is to lower the proposed maximum fine set at level 3 (currently £1,000) to level 1 (currently £250).
The amendment has been tabled because it is felt strongly on both sides of the Committee that the fine is absurdly high for the gravity of the offence and in relation to other offences which it effectively devalues. For example, it is the same maximum fine as that for kerb crawling, causing harassment, alarm, or distress, cock fighting, failure to keep a dangerous dog under control, throwing missiles or chanting racist abuse at a football match, placing a wire or rope across a highway, throwing stones or missiles at a train or killing an animal with a crossbow or automatic weapon. It is a higher fine than that for vagrancy, breaking up a public meeting or animal offences such as failing to inspect traps or selling a pet to a child. We consider that the maximum fine should be at level 1 on a standard scale, with a maximum fine of £200.
It has been suggested that doubling the £500 maximum fine allowed under the by-law system is justified because it brings dog fouling into line with the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act for litter offences. While we may be dealing with an aspect of our environment, we are not dealing with litter but a natural function of our dogs. Littering is a flagrant and intentional abuse of the environment, while it is not so clear that the same is true of dog defecation. As W. S. Gilbert said in "The Mikado":
"Let the punishment fit the crime".
I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I briefly support the amendment, largely for the reasons that I have already given. There must be a proportionality about punishment. Here we are dealing with an absolute liability or a strict offence. That is why I bored the Committee with the Chow dog secret society in Kensington Gardens. The owners are simply not there; they are not in charge. That presumption works harshly. I hope that the Minister is able to accept the amendment which in a situation of strict liability for a first offence must surely be sufficient.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: This is a very sound amendment. There are two or three points which the Committee may wish to consider. First, anybody whose dog may have committed the offence could report
1300
someone else to avoid paying the fine. Secondly, £200 is possibly more acceptable to a lot of people's pockets than £500. Finally, there is something called a "threat". Someone may see another person's dog defecating and say, "I am going to report you". The person whose dog has defecated could turn around and say, "Right, I am going to smash up your car. I am going to break your windows". There are many aspects to be considered. This whole legislation is being rushed through far too quickly. I think this is a very good amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I hope that the Minister will treat the last contribution of the noble Lord as wholly irrelevant to this discussion.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: We do not feel that level 1 is a suitable level for the fine in this case. Indeed, we do not feel that level 1 is suitable for any new offence. It is not being proposed or thought of currently for any new offence of any description. That is because in practice it produces actual fines of a derisory level. We are talking about the maximum level, not the fine which will be levied by the courts. In those circumstances, we cannot support the amendment.
The Earl of Northesk: As the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, explained, the effect of the amendment would be to reduce the maximum penalty for the offence of dog fouling from level 3 to level 1. I indicated on Second Reading my belief that the maximum fine at level 3 is appropriate for the offence in Clause 1. Notwithstanding the eloquent arguments of Members of the Committee, I retain that belief.
It is no doubt to my discredit that I did not put this matter into proper perspective on Second Reading. But I hope now to redress that error on my part.
First and foremost, the current maximum fine under existing by-laws is set at level 2. To my mind it would be foolish to seek any diminution from that established precedent, if only because it would act as a disincentive to local authorities availing themselves of the powers which the Bill would grant them. In effect, a maximum level 1 penalty could mean that local authorities would continue to use by-laws which would negate one of the Bill's primary purposes; that of rationalising and simplifying existing procedure.
Of course I understand the anxieties of the noble Lord with regard to the consistency of levels of fines. It is important that like should be accorded the same treatment as like. However, comparisons are odious. In this context, there is a very real sense in which those who have the misfortune inadvertently to encounter a dog's mess are quite literally subjected to harassment, alarm or distress.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that there is a currency of opinion which believes that failure to clear up after a dog is worse than dropping litter, despite the arguments of the noble Viscount. However, the latter offence carries a maximum penalty at level 4 rather than level 3. Perhaps more telling is the fact that failure to have a collar or identification on one's dog when in a public place carries a maximum penalty at level 5.

1301
Nor should we lose sight of the fact that the Bill seeks to establish also a system of fixed penalty notices, currently set at £10 for the offence of fouling. In such circumstances, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that only the most persistent and recalcitrant offenders will find themselves prosecuted in court and thereby expose themselves to the maximum penalty at level 5. Of course it will be for the courts to determine the actual level of fine, which in all likelihood will be rather less than the maximum in the vast majority of cases, due heed being paid to the particular circumstances of the case.
With those points in mind, I do not perceive that the proposed regime is anything other than utterly fair. I suggest respectfully to the noble Viscount that level 3 is the appropriate level for the maximum fine. On the basis of my remarks, I hope that the noble Viscount will concur with me and withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: I thank all Members of the Committee who have supported the amendment, and in particular I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for his comment.
I thank also my noble friend for his comments. I agree with him that the legislation has been brought forward too quickly, without proper consideration. However, having said that, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, for his very full reply to my amendment. I shall study his reply carefully but I believe that it makes sense. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo Viscount Allenby of Megiddo moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("not") in line 5.
The noble Viscount said: Under Clause 1(6)(c) a person may not use the excuse that he was unaware that his dog had defecated in a designated area. That seems unacceptably draconian. While it is true that dog owners should reasonably be expected to be responsible for all the activities of their dogs, there can be few criminal offences committed completely unwittingly by a person. Such a person would commit such an offence even if he had known that his dog had defecated in a designated area and had taken steps to remove the faeces.
We have all known of occasions when our beautifully trained dogs have run off after a rabbit, or even in an urban area after a dog of the opposite sex. Having failed in its quest, it then defecates out of one's sight. Should the owner whose dog commits such an act really be liable to prosecution?
The justification for removing that excuse was made by the noble Earl on Second Reading when he attempted to define what is meant by responsible dog ownership. He said:
"The rationale is quite simple. Responsible dog owning is about having control of one's pet at all times. By implication, if one is unaware of its actions one does not have adequate control of it".—[Official Report, 19/10/95; col. 848.]
I am not certain whether that definition is applicable to dog owning in all circumstances. Many owners in rural areas lose sight of their dogs and thus, under this definition,
"would be deemed to lose adequate control of it".
Sadly, I fear that we have another instance here of the towns preaching to the countryside. The Pet Advisory Committee has suggested that the being unaware of defecation excuse would become a common defence and that prosecutions would become difficult and costly.
When we are considering legislation our purpose is not simply to ensure that the offence will result in many prosecutions, but to protect the rights of individuals. One could envisage existing Acts of Parliament which would make legislation more effective; but, thankfully, we do not legislate for that purpose alone and consequently live our lives according to rules and not terror. The amendment would remove that dangerous element from the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I was going to ask a question on subsection (5) of the clause when we came to discuss clause stand part, but I think that it arises squarely on the amendment moved so ably by the noble Viscount. As I read the Bill, it creates an offence of strict liability. As your Lordships know, most criminal offences require some mental element. But, occasionally, there are offences of strict liability where someone is held to be liable notwithstanding the fact that he knows nothing about the offence and can do nothing presently to prevent it. A typical example is selling alcoholic drinks to someone who is under age. The owner of the public house is responsible for his servants observing that rule, notwithstanding that he knows nothing of the offence and cannot really, except by general ukase, prevent it.
However, that is something very different from the Bill. Are we really justified? Is the offence such an enormity that one has to create another offence of absolute or strict liability? That is the question that I had intended to ask the noble Earl, but I suspect that he might prefer it to be answered by the Minister.
Lord Lucas: As the noble Viscount indicated, we are concerned that, if the amendment were accepted, all a dog owner would have to do is ensure that he was not around when his dog defecated. We believe that that would probably defeat the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Can the Minister say whether or not the Bill covers the following situation? Let us suppose that a dog owner allows his wife son or daughter to walk the dog and defecation takes place on land—albeit, we now know, in a gutter or a ditch—is he to be liable? Would he be liable to a level 3 fine of £1,000? Even though the owner knows nothing about it and merely allows a member of his family to walk the dog, is he to be held liable?
Lord Lucas: My understanding of the Bill—and I am open to correction by my noble friend—is that the person who is liable for the fine is the person in charge of the dog at the time. If a defecation happened in a situation where the person in charge of the dog could

1303
not possibly have been aware of it, that person would have access to the defence of reasonable excuse, though I cannot prejudge how that would go in the courts.
Lord Earl of Northesk: Perhaps I may deal first with the query from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. In the scenario that he painted, the actual owner of the dog—that is, the man who is permitting a member of his family to walk the dog—would not actually be liable. The situation is covered under Clause 1(6)(a) which states:
"For the purposes of this section—

(a) a person who habitually has a dog in his possession shall be taken to be in charge of the dog at any time unless at that time some other person is in charge of the dog".

I hope that that satisfactorily answers the question posed by the noble and learned Lord.
Notwithstanding the lucid comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby of Megiddo, when moving the amendment, I am unconvinced that this underlying principle of dog ownership should be in any way compromised or subordinated by the amendment. Viewed pragmatically, Clause 1(1)(a) provides the very wide defence of "reasonable excuse for failing" to clear up after one's dog on designated land. The purpose of Clause 1(6)(c) is simply to clarify that the person in charge of the dog in question at the time could not plead ignorance as to its whereabouts, whether or not as part of a reasonable excuse defence. That strikes me as being eminently sensible and appropriate as a mechanism for promoting responsible dog ownership.
If accepted, the amendment would undermine another of the Bill's primary purposes—that of making the rather untidy and cumbersome corpus of dog fouling by-laws very much easier to operate. An owner could simply turn his back and say that he did not know about the defecation, thereby diminishing the enforceability and effectiveness of the legislation.
I am conscious, too, that a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Soulsby and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and others, referred to strays on Second Reading. While the issue of dog registration is of course beyond the remit of the Bill, as drafted it provides local authorities with the ability to take action against owners of so-called "latch-key dogs"—that is, those who let their dogs roam the streets and foul at will. Acceptance of the amendment would render local authorities powerless against such irresponsible strands of dog ownership.
I am also conscious that part of the problem here concerns the distinction regarding the urban environment, the built environment and the countryside. That is a particularly difficult question to answer in this context. I hope that the noble Viscount will actively seek to bear with me on the matter and perhaps we may return to it on Report. I understand the noble Viscount's concerns, but I believe that it would be quite an easy span for us to bridge if we could sit down and have a chat about it.
Responsible dog owners do know what their dogs are doing, certainly in urban situations. Therefore, that aspect of the Bill will not affect them. It is aimed at irresponsible dog owners who do not care that their dogs
1304
foul public places which then have to be cleaned at public expense. Why should not such irresponsible owners be called to account for the fouling by their dogs and the offence it causes?
In conclusion, to press the amendment would be akin to suggesting that motorists who have committed the offence of speeding should have the defence of pleading that they did not see or were ignorant of the signs indicating the speed limit. Clearly such a state of affairs would be undesirable, as indeed would be the case with the Bill before us today. Therefore, I hope that the noble Viscount will be prepared to withdraw the amendment, especially in the light of my stated intention to discuss the matter further with him prior to the Report stage.
The Earl of Harrowby: Before my noble friend sits down, would he kindly explain to me what would happen if, under Clause 1 (6)(a), the person in charge of the dog were below the age of criminal responsibility?
The Earl of Northesk: My noble friend has rather caught me on the hop. Perhaps I may consult on the issue and get back to him.
Viscount Allenby of Mediggo: I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, especially the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who, if I may put it in a slightly succinct way, has opened a can of worms. Basically we have two situations before us: the first is the urban environment where I quite understand the concern about people who allow their dogs to drop faeces all over the place thus rendering it very unhygienic.
My mind then turns to a farm which is owned by a local council, which could be a designated area, where there are chickens, cows and rabbits running around yet the poor old dog has to be locked up because it is not allowed to perform its natural function. But having said that, the promoter of the Bill has made a sound defence of it, and with his offer of discussing it further—we should do that—I reserve the right to return to this matter on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
5 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I indicated that I had one question to ask on subsection (6). I raised this matter when we were discussing the amendment moved by the noble Viscount. If some of us were less than enthusiastic about the reply that we received from the Minister and from the noble Earl who is the promoter of this Bill, that is neither here nor there: we were answered. However, I wanted to raise another question as regards subsection (5) and that is the dispensing power given to the Minister. Presumably the department which is so enthusiastic about this Bill has some idea of what exceptions the Minister will make by ministerial order. I believe that on Second Reading the question of sheepdogs was raised. Presumably they would constitute

1305
an exception. One would hope that was the case at any rate. Will the noble Earl—even if he passes this matter to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—indicate what other exceptions the department has in mind? Your Lordships are entitled to know that when the Minister is asking for a wide dispensing power from an Act of Parliament which itself goes very far and very wide.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: I realise that the previous amendment was not moved but I wish to refer to a couple of points. I repeat that there are 7.5 million dogs in the country and there are 5 million dog owners. I understand that education in primary schools is leading young people to want to have even more dogs and that will promote a greater demand for puppy farms. Puppy farms have an appalling reputation, certainly as regards what happens over the Christmas and Easter periods. When stock has not been sold it is put on a slag heap. Will the Minister confirm whether or not it is intended to promote such education in primary schools?
I was positively shocked at the Minister's earlier response as regards picking up faeces in a plastic bag. I wish to know whether the Minister will also carry gloves in his pocket so that he can put his gloves on before he puts the faeces in a plastic bag. We need to understand that the faeces constitute only one part of the chain of disease. I believe another noble Lord referred to this matter. Faeces carry worms and eggs, and the eggs last a long time and are sticky. I referred to my next point on Second Reading. The eggs I am discussing stick to children's hands. We know that children touch their bicycles which may have come into contact with dog faeces. Children also touch their shoes which may have been in contact with dog faeces. In that way children may contract the disease ocular larva which causes impaired vision. I of all people know about impaired vision because I suffer from severe visual impairment. I beg all Members of the Committee to consider this matter of dog faeces with greater care. The Canine Crisis Council has proved that dog faeces affect young children to a far greater extent than adults because young children cuddle dogs far more than do adults. I referred to this matter earlier. The cuddling of dogs is being promoted in primary schools. However, we need to be more aware of the problems this may cause.
I have already spoken about the materialistic approach of puppy breeding. We need to consider the materialistic aspect as regards sponsoring bins in which dog faeces can be put. The Government cannot shake their heads and say they do not want to force councils to adopt that measure. The Committee will be aware that not only dog owners but also cat owners and goldfish owners pay council tax. However, it is the dog owners who are being addressed by this Bill. There are 5 million dog owners in this country. To deal fairly with this matter we must consider it as part of a much larger Bill. As I have said before, this matter needs to be covered in a dog registration Bill. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has said, we need to cut down on the amount of legislation we produce.
Certain European countries have regulations on the use of "poop scoops". We rely on encouraging inadequately funded local councils to clean up dog
1306
faeces. We never stop hearing about the inadequate finances of the National Health Service but why increase the burden on that service through dog transmitted diseases? Human toxocariasis may result in blindness. However, dog faeces may also transmit a disease which affects the liver. It is not just sheep whose livers are affected by certain eggs; human beings may also suffer this fate.
Tomorrow this Chamber will consider the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill. Surely we cannot believe that disease carried by domestic dogs will not be transmitted to wild mammals and vice versa. The Government have studied the live transportation of calves and sheep—let us not forget horses, donkeys and various other animals—but surely we as a nation should clean up our own mess at home before bragging about our environmental commitment and our concern for the fair treatment of animals. Dog registration has been pooh-poohed—if I may coin a pun—by those in another place as well as in this place. However, that would have been a vital plank of the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act if it had been implemented at that time. With such registration being urged by the RSPCA, the Canine Crisis Council and the Pet Advisory Committee, and with the Government boasting of their willingness to listen and to act on advice, let us see dog registration in the Queen's Speech.
Lord Lucas: I shall deal first with the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. He will be aware that we are extremely sceptical on the subject of dog registration. That is likely to remain the case.
I am concerned about what the noble Lord said about practice in primary schools. I am not aware of anything of the kind happening. I will ask my colleagues and I will write to the noble Lord if I find any evidence of that.
So far as concerns picking up faeces in a plastic bag, if the noble Lord will provide an acceptable substitute—say a pile of crumpled up £10 notes—I shall demonstrate how it is done without it touching your hand.
In response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, I am afraid that I cannot give the comfort that he asks. We are committed to consulting widely on how the power might be used.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Surely the department must have some idea of how it proposes to use the power. It cannot be asking for a wide power just for the hell of it in the hope that it will come in useful at some later stage.
Lord Lucas: No. The Government's objective is to create regulations which will solve any problems that there might be in practice as regards working dogs. That would cover sheepdogs, which the noble and learned Lord mentioned. It would also cover hunting dogs.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Designation orders]:
5.15 p.m.
Lord Palmer Lord Palmer moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 40, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 6 in the name of my noble friend Lord Allenby I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 7 in my name.
While welcoming the broad principle of this Bill, I am sure your Lordships will agree—and many have mentioned tonight the speed with which this Bill is going through—that we must be very wary of being pressured into reneging our responsibility as the revising Chamber simply because the legislative timetable is tight, however many pressure groups clamour for our inaction. This is especially the case with Bills which involve animals (a similar situation will no doubt arise tomorrow with the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill) when arguments are often emotive and passions run high. Surely the time available for the consideration of a Bill should have no effect on whether we scrutinise it properly. We should not pass Bills which we consider flawed simply because a flawed Bill is worth, to some, more than no Bill at all.
Although this Bill does not deal with dangerous dogs but rather nuisance dogs, we should be aware that the Dangerous Dogs Act passed through this House in a hurry and many people have suffered injustice as a result. I fear that this Bill, as it stands in its present form, also grants unacceptably draconian powers and will give rise to cases of injustice.
The purpose of the amendments is to place a firm duty on local authorities to consult with local people when designating land by description for the purposes of this Bill as well as ensuring that the Secretary of State shall, by regulations, prescribe the form of orders made under Clause 3(1).
At present Clause 3(2) gives local authorities wide new powers to designate land by description as well as by special reference. Under Clause 1, any land can be designated which is
"open to the air and to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access".
That is a substantial increase in remit, as opposed to the existing by-law regime, as well as making designation far easier. It is not only anomalous but potentially dangerous that these increased powers given to local authorities should be coupled with the removal of the statutory duty for these authorities to consult those who may be affected.
The honourable Member from another place who introduced this Private Member's Bill has himself said:
"there will be a need to advertise these proposals locally to enable representations to be made".
But he continued:
"However, experience with by-laws has shown that poop scoop proposals are very rarely controversial and do not normally attract objections".
That may well be the case in urban areas where there are extensive footpaths to be fouled and where residents vote with their feet. Scooping poops might prove more controversial within rural communities where pooping without scooping is not yet regarded as a heinous practice which might be stamped out. I dare to say that many people in these areas are not prepared to walk around with a pooper scooper to avoid being prosecuted.
Whether that is the case or not, local consultations will be vital and it is surely no argument to drop the duty to consult simply because consultations have not met with objections in the past. Powers have been increased here and consultations are all the more vital. They must be a duty.
Such an important defect in the Bill should not be left to the Secretary of State to correct. That is certainly the case with this Bill, as there is not even a statutory requirement that he should prescribe by regulations what procedures the local authority is to use in designating land. The first of the amendments addresses this issue directly: it makes such prescriptions by the Secretary of State a duty.
At Committee stage in the other place the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough argued that this point was:
"running with the hare—because most of these areas are unlikely to be designated".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee C, 14/6/95; col. 26.]
But, unlikely though it may seem, we could envisage cases where essentially urban-minded councillors could unleash essentially urban views of dog defecation on rural areas.
For farmers and country people generally, the concept of responsible dog ownership, as applied in the Bill, is simply not applicable. That was defined by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, at Second Reading when he said:
"Responsible dog owning is about having control of one's pet at all times. By implication, if one is unaware of its actions one does not have adequate control of it".—[Official Report, 19/10/95; col. 848.]
Quite often, the owners of dogs who exercise them in rural areas lose sight of them, and this by definition would have been deemed to lose "adequate control" of their pet. The same goes for the exercising of more than one dog at a time.
It may be argued that the question of "shall" or "may" which the amendment addresses is a matter of semantics. The Pet Advisory Committee has suggested that it is already clear that the Secretary of State must lay out detailed regulations by which designation orders will be made and the means by which they will be publicised and consulted upon. However, there is nothing on the face of the Bill as it stands which makes it a duty for the Secretary of State to provide local authorities with procedural advice in making designations either specifically or by description. Neither is there any statutory duty on the Secretary of State to include within regulations provision requiring local authorities to publicise the making and effect of any proposed designation. Without that statutory duty there is no assurance that local consultations will take place, and these will be of vital importance.
These amendments would go some way in offering people the opportunity to voice such concerns should designation be planned. Although they are simple amendments they are necessary amendments given the sweeping new powers that the Bill gives authorities to designate far wider areas with far greater ease as "no poop without scoop" areas.
I have received support from all of your Lordships on this issue. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: We have no position one way or the other on these two amendments. I can confirm that the Secretary of State intends to use the powers referred to in Amendment No. 6 to make regulations if the Bill is enacted. The Government consider it important to set out the form of designation order and procedure to give some consistency across the country.
On Amendment No. 7, I can confirm that if the Bill is enacted, the Secretary of State intends to include provision in the regulations for the local authority to publicise the making and effect of the orders referred to in the amendment. He intends that that shall be the case whether the land is to be designated specifically or by description.
The Earl of Northesk: As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, correctly identified, the Bill, as drafted, does not include any requirement for the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the form of designation orders and the procedure to be followed by local authorities in the making of such orders. Nor is there any provision that the local authority must follow the form and procedures set out in any regulations. I accept therefore that if the Secretary of State did not use that power, local authorities could establish their own forms and procedures. That would be wholly undesirable not only because it would raise inconsistencies but also because many local authorities might feel that it creates uncertainty as to what is appropriate. Therefore, they might be reluctant to use the new powers. Clearly that is antipathetic to one of the Bill's primary purposes: to simplify and rationalise the existing by-law procedure.
The Minister explained, and it is my understanding, that the Secretary of State intends to make regulations should the Bill be enacted. Nevertheless, I can see upon reflection that it may well be better to amend the Bill to ensure that such regulations are made as a matter of course. Therefore I do not seek to oppose Amendment No. 6.
Equally, the noble Lord is quite right in his insistence that there should be publicity in the case of designations of land by description. I would go further. Local people should be forewarned that the local authority intended to produce any legislation which would require people to clear up after their dogs. As the Minister again explained, and as I am sure in my own mind, should the Bill be enacted, the Government would include requirement for publicity in the regulations. Unfortunately, as drafted the amendment seeks to ensure that the regulations cover this matter but only in as much as they relate to designations of land by description. I believe that the provision should apply to all categories of land that the local authority may seek to designate. Furthermore, I am uncertain whether the amended clause would be technically deficient because of the retention of the words "in particular" after the added words. Thus I regret that I cannot support the wording
1310
of Amendment No. 7 although I hope that the noble Lord will be comforted by my indication of approval for the principle of ensuring local publicity.
Lord Palmer: I am sure that many noble Lords are delighted that the noble Earl has been able to accept Amendment No. 6. I am most grateful to him, as I am sure are many Members of the Committee. I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

Municipal Crematoria: Privatisation
5.24 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington Lord Young of Dartington rose to move To resolve, That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to revoke the Local Authorities (Capital Finance and Approved Investments) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1995 (S.I. 1995/1982), and to replace them with regulations which do not provide for the privatisation of municipal crematoria.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order in question is contained in the regulations which were laid before Parliament on 2nd August of this year during the holiday period. Those regulations offered an inducement to local authorities to sell their crematoria into private ownership.
This is the first occasion where there has been a public debate on what I consider to be an important matter of public concern. In opening the debate, perhaps I may say that a measure of support has been given to the position that I take by the Consumers' Association, the National Consumer Council, the Society for Independent Funeral Directors and the National Funeral College, of which I was the founder chairman. They have all issued press releases or have written to the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Why does this issue matter? In order to answer that question, I have to go a little into the history of the industry. In this context, it can appropriately be called that, especially during the past year. The most radical reorganisation of the funeral industry has already taken place and, unless a stop is put to that process, it looks as though it will gather pace in the years to come.
What used to be (apart from the Co-op) a series of local funeral businesses, has been invaded by big business and big money. Since August 1994 a large American company called Service Corporation International has suddenly burst on the British scene. It is big business as is shown by the fact (if one needed more evidence) that the banker for the SCI is

1311
J. P. Morgan, the legendary Wall Street banking giant. The kind of money involved was demonstrated recently when the same company, which is large in Australia, too, bought up the largest funeral undertaking in France for a reputed 422 million dollars. In Britain, amalgamations were proceeding apace before SCI arrived. The Great Southern Group and Plantsbrook were themselves two amalgamations which covered a large number of local funeral directors. The listing of local funeral directors owned already by SCI, but all keeping their own family name, fills 14 pages of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report published a few months ago on the mergers of Plantsbrook and SCI. The listing covered about 700 outlets of a large number of funeral directors, mainly in London and southern England, but represented also in other parts of the country. Altogether, the funeral directors which are owned by the SCI company already control some 15 per cent. of the funeral market in the country. SCI, in addition to that, already owns 15 crematoria in the country.
The danger, as I see it, is that SCI will take advantage of the new government regulations—about which I shall say more in a moment—in order to create a further series of local monopolies and raise prices against consumers. The poorest consumers are the ones who will suffer the most if that happens. They are the ones who find the burden of the expenditure on funerals hardest to bear at the moment. It all matters a great deal because bereaved people at the time of the death are peculiarly vulnerable to exploitation and to being guided by funeral directors and others to a course of action which may well not be in their best interest.
I can say that, fortunately, the danger was recognised by the Government in the shape of the Department of Trade and Industry, when it asked the Monopolies Commission to report on the local monopolies in the hands of SCI. The report was published in May this year. The Monopolies Commission amply confirmed the Government's view that there is a very present danger in localities where SCI's share of the market ranges from 29 per cent., as it does in Eastbourne, to 51 per cent., as it does in Battersea. The Monopolies Commission stated in its summary that:
"SCI may be expected generally to raise prices excessively, i.e. by more than would be possible in a competitive market, in the ten localities, to the detriment of consumers in those localities … SCI's failure to disclose to consumers the ownership of its branches will add significantly to the inability of consumers in the determined area to make informed decisions … Choice of funeral director will be materially reduced in the ten localities, to the detriment of consumers in those localities".
The Monopolies Commission pointed out that, since the ownership of many funeral directors by SCI is hidden by the retention of the old family names, it can quite often be the case that people who are seeking an alternative quote for a funeral go to another firm thinking it really is a competitor, without knowing that it is in fact in the ownership of the same funeral director as they went to in the first place.
In the Monopolies Commission report particular disquiet was expressed about the power the SCI would have to take advantage of vertical monopolies—it already has in some places—and would have on a larger
1312
scale when it owns both more funeral director businesses and local crematoria and can channel very many funerals carried out by its own funeral directors to its own crematoria.
The DTI accepted the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission, and on 25th May Jonathan Evans, the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs at the DTI, said of the acquisition by SCI of Great Southern and Plantsbrook:
"I accept the MMC's findings that the merger may be expected to operate against the public interest in respect of the supply of both funeral directors and cremation services".
The DTI therefore asked the Director General of Fair Trading to seek undertakings from the SCI that it would reduce its market share by divesting itself of some of its funeral directors and also that it would not operate a two-tier pricing system for its crematoria which favoured its own funeral directors. SCI was asked to give those undertakings by 25th August or be forced to comply with the DTI requirements. But the SCI, far from submitting to the DTI, has brought a judicial review case against the Secretary of State and the Monopolies Commission and is seeking to be relieved of the requirements of the DTI. In this, the SCI has shown its powerful muscle and that it will not lie down quietly.
However, at the same time as the SCI is in dispute with one government department, it is being given a mighty fillip by another government department. The Department of the Environment has made this handsome offer to every local authority with crematoria. It has said that from 1st January next year until 30th June in the following year local authorities that sell their crematoria will be able to keep 90 per cent. of the proceeds instead of the usual 50 per cent., the rest going to redemption of debt. The Department of the Environment has, from one point of view, chosen a good moment because it is also requiring local authorities to update their crematoria in order to comply with new environmental standards but has not offered even a hint of financial support from itself to local authorities.
So the paradoxical situation that the Government have got themselves into is that the DoE is persuading local authorities to sell—and that means largely selling to the SCI, which is the only large bidder likely to be in the market. But the more it succeeds with the Department of the Environment behind it, the more worried the DTI, the Monopolies Commission and the Office of Fair Trading will presumably become. Surely, at least until the outcome of the judicial review is known and it is clear that the SCI is going in future to avoid creating local monopolies, the Government should get their act together and withdraw the order in so far as it affects crematoria. The Government would not then speak with two voices. I hope that the Minister will today be able to reassure us that they will not continue to do so.
I have been speaking about local monopolies as they could affect consumers, but losing the crematoria could be bad for local authorities too. Crematoria are ordinarily profitable and the proceeds from them can be used to subsidise or cover some of the costs of cemeteries which are not profitable. But, as a result, the option can be kept open for the 30 per cent. or so of

1313
people who prefer burial to cremation. Give up crematoria to the profit-making sector and more cemeteries could become wastelands instead of useful public spaces. The Department of the Environment has been very keen on preserving and creating good, useful public spaces; in some cases grants are forthcoming for the purpose. But in this case it is waging a battle against itself.
But there is a more important issue than that. The SCI is a commercial company with a vast pre-paid funeral business in the United States and Australia and a very large and growing one in the United Kingdom as well. It is a very profitable company. As it gains more control, commercialisation will extend and all the money it makes out of funeral merchandise, as the company calls it, and the add-ons of memorial books, ashes, caskets and other forms of memorialisation all over Britain will go to augment the profits of the American shareholders.
Even more important than that is that the fundamental religious significance of funerals could be further dimmed by a sickening array of money-making devices and more and more use made of chapels on funeral directors' premises in order to speed up the through-put of crematoria.
I hope, in conclusion, that the Minister will realise that what appears a simple matter is not simple at all and that he will at least give some time for further consideration and debate before the order comes into force as it affects crematoria. I beg to move.
Moved, To resolve, That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to revoke the Local Authorities (Capital Finance and Approved Investments) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1995 (S.I. 1995/1982), and to replace them with regulations which do not provide for the privatisation of municipal crematoria.—(Lord Young of Dartington.)
5.40 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, once again, I rise to my feet in this Chamber as a total novice in a subject. I suppose that it will stop happening, but it does not seem to have stopped happening yet. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, told us, we received a large number of briefing papers, and I have been able to talk to one or two people who were very helpful. The noble Lord has done us a service in drawing this matter to our attention. In one way or another, it affects all of us.
There are three salient points to make. First, the regulations to which the noble Lord referred provided a financial incentive in the form of a set-aside holiday for the sale of various sorts of locally owned property, including crematoria. The press release issued by the Government when those orders were published made it perfectly clear that the purpose was to enable local authorities to transfer their assets in this field into the private sector. The second fact affecting local authority attitudes is the cost of bringing the conditions in crematoria up to a standard that enables them to meet new EC regulations. The anticipated cost is
1314
approximately, on average, £400,000. Thirdly, although most crematoria are currently in municipal hands there is severe reason to fear that their sale could, as the noble Lord told us, result in a most undesirable monopoly in what might be called the death business.
That monopoly would be of a peculiarly dangerous sort. It would affect not merely the ownership of crematoria but the ownership of the businesses that advise bereaved people at their most vulnerable moment regarding what sort of service they should choose, where that service can best be achieved and so on. Those of us who know anything about the American way of death know that there are reasons to fear the import of the American approach into what has been a service run purely as a service to people. It has had certain values in terms of access, reasonable prices and so on.
The only body that wrote to me expressing a view that we should not do as the noble Lord, Lord Young, suggests and reconsider the regulations was the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. I have a certain sympathy with the point of view expressed. The association does not wish the regulations to be revoked: understandably enough in the current financial circumstances in which the whole of local government operates, it welcomes the flexibility that the set-aside holiday gives. Obviously, the authorities also fear the need to spend £400,000 of capital per crematorium on improvement. It would be very difficult for them to manage such an expenditure during a period when not only revenue expenditure but capital expenditure is under very severe control.
However, I feel that the approach of the metropolitan authorities to this matter is not quite the best one. As I say, I understand their point of view very well given my own background, but the flexibility that they seek could be far better granted to local authorities by allowing them in general terms to spend more of their capital gains for the benefit of their local populations rather than putting it aside against, in some cases, almost an imaginary amount for debt. Therefore, although I have a certain sympathy with my fellow members of local authorities, it seems to me that public policy is another matter altogether. There are very good reasons to suppose that traditionally managed municipal crematoria may well serve bereaved people, who are very vulnerable, better than would a very competitive private sector anxious to sell them so-called add-ons in addition to the basic service.
I therefore have a number of questions for the Government. Do the Government still recognise, as they did in response to the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Young (I shall not repeat all the points made by the noble Lord; the House does not want to hear them twice) that there is a serious danger of a growing monopoly in the funeral business? That is not just because a large number of crematoria could be owned by single, or very few, companies, but also because those companies may—and in one case certainly will—be owners of funeral directors' companies. That question was given additional point by a fact that I did

1315
not know; namely, that the American company involved is going to judicial review in respect of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission decision.
If the Government feel that such a danger exists, how do they propose that it is to be avoided? Do the Government further recognise that there is a legitimate fear that vulnerable people will be over-burdened with expense for funerals? That is already a major worry for large numbers of people as their own lifetime nears its end or the lifetime of their parents comes to an end. Do the Government recognise a possible danger that people may be, as it were, bludgeoned, persuaded, into spending far more than they need do for what is already an extremely expensive event?
In the press release to which I referred, the Department of the Environment stated:
"Before deciding on any sale, authorities can be expected to satisfy themselves of continuing quality of service for local residents and competitive pricing. Authorities can also be expected to require that, prior to any transfer, the private owner agrees to operate within the standards set down by the Federation of British Cremation Authorities".
How does the Minister anticipate that local authorities can ensure that those things happen once they have transferred their municipal crematoria to a private owner?
My last question refers again to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young. The noble Lord suggested not so much that the order be revoked but that the Government might be able to reconsider that part of the order that refers specifically to crematoria. Is that a feasible possibility, and would the Government be willing to do that?
5.49 p.m.
Earl Grey: My Lords, first, I must declare a financial interest. I am chairman of a crematoria company. For information, it is not SCI. I am also honorary president of the Cremation Society of Great Britain.
The views that I hold are not necessarily those of my party. In view of what I just said, it will be of no surprise to the House that I have no objections to crematoria being owned or operated either on behalf of a municipal authority or by the private sector. In fact, the first crematorium in this country was operated by a private company. Over the years, in the vast majority of cases the private sector has set a high standard which has been an example to local authorities.
As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, the main concerns would be if there were monopoly ownership of crematoria in any given area; and—which is just as important—if the crematoria were owned by the same company that had a monopoly of funeral directors in the vicinity. It is a problem that could arise in the private sector. It has been widely reported and is of great interest to those in the industry.
The effect that SCI has had in this country is a source of great concern to all involved in the industry. It is not only of concern to local authorities. Certainly, there has been an effect on private companies throughout the country. Not only my company but the majority of private, individual companies, have been watching the
1316
progress of SCI extremely carefully and closely. I recognise the danger that freedom of choice and quality could be affected. It is a situation that must be monitored and I favour that course. I welcome the findings of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission mentioned by the noble lord, Lord Young, and in principle I and my professional society agree with much of what he has just said.
However, it must be borne in mind that a number of local authorities welcome private companies and are quite happy for them to be involved in their activities, not only taking over and acquiring local authority crematoria but also managing them on their behalf. That could be a way forward also.
I do not agree that what is being asked by the noble Lord, Lord Young, is the right way to go about the problem. Surely it must be the decision of the local authorities themselves. I believe that the private and public sectors can and do work together well for the benefit of the public.
Finally, the Cremation Society of Great Britain is very sensitive to the problem and is very concerned over any likely monopoly situation. That certainly is not what members of the society want. In fact it is a situation that we strongly oppose.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Young of Dartington for raising this issue. It is a problem which may seem unimportant in the general context of legislation, but it has great consequence for many people at an important part of their lives.
We have no objection to those parts of the regulations which deal with matters other than crematoria. If a local authority wishes to sell off car parks or land of which the whole, in terms of the regulation, consists of car parks and 90 per cent. of those proceeds go to the local authority, that is welcome. We have no particular objection to the idea that sales of land of any kind should be applied for local authority general purposes rather than reduction of debt. The problem arises only—this is a general problem—because the Government have been so absurd in their treatment of local authority capital expenditure and receipts that one has to resort to such rather ridiculous formulations in order to help local authorities. The correct solution would be to allow local authorities much more leniency in their financial considerations.
I can honestly agree with what my noble friend Lord Young said with regard to crematoria. There are some general principles lying behind what is happening at the moment. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will know—perhaps I may have his attention for a moment—the provision of crematoria was not sought by local authority associations. So far as I can see, it was done by the Government at a rather late stage. According to my information, in the United Kingdom as a whole there are 229 crematoria run by local authorities and 36 which are privately owned. As my noble friend in another forum has pointed out, there is no effective regulation of the service. The service has a self-regulatory code—

1317
we all know what self-regulatory codes mean—run by the Federation of British Cremation Authorities. The United States firm which my noble friend and other noble Lords mentioned is a member of that federation. In the event of the failure of self-regulation, the only recourse is for the Government to appoint inspectors to see what has happened. There is no authority for the Government to step in and say, "We will run this particular crematorium, because things have not happened in the way in which the code would have authorised."
The questions that arise have been put very succinctly and indeed eloquently by my noble friend Lord Young. Will there be a monopoly? Will there be a derogation from the general principle that there should not be monopolies in public or private services? What is the protection? If there is to be a monopoly, will there be some form of government regulation—not a self-regulatory code but some form of government regulation—to ensure that the company which may enjoy that monopoly observes proper principles? I ask that question not only because of the argument that has been advanced so far by noble Lords about the DTI, the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, the judicial review and so on, but because the company in question, as I understand it, wishes to use the crematoria that they wish to buy—some have already been bought—as a sales point for what are called add-on services.
Perhaps I may quote what is reported in the Funeral Service Journal as coming from one of the gentlemen who heads the UK operations of SCI:
"We will be promoting 'add-ons' and 'service plus' features and offering a wider choice, particularly of memorial books, cards and other forms of memorialisation. Ashes caskets is one item we feel are not as well promoted as they could be".
If that is the motivation of the company which is trying to take over a number of crematoria, and possibly all the crematoria in the light of what the government regulations put forward, I believe it to be fundamentally undesirable.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, people in such a situation are at their most vulnerable. They have lost someone whom they have loved. Perhaps I may speak for the Christian point of view for a moment, since I am a practising Christian. I believe that it is a moment when people should be allowed to rest comfortable in their grief and not be pursued by people who want to sell them all kinds of cards, ashes caskets, and so on. I am sad in a way that none of the right reverend Prelates has come forward to support my noble friend Lord Young's Motion. It is important for those of us who profess a belief in Christianity.
In summary, I believe that my noble friend Lord Young has made a very forceful point. Special regulations must be necessary if there is to be any kind of monopoly on this business. If we are to preserve a civilised society, the regulations must prohibit the types of add-ons that my quotation indicated. I believe profoundly that these services should be publicly owned; that they should be part of the Christian burial service; that they should be part of the bereavement
1318
process through which families go. I do not see how that is met by what is proposed by the Government this evening.
6 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we share most of the anxieties expressed by noble Lords this evening, particularly those in relation to the cost of dying. The noble Lord, Lord Young, will remember that the municipal crematoria came into existence because private graveyards were charging so much and the poor wanted somewhere they could be buried with dignity. Nonetheless, your Lordships will not be surprised that we oppose the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Young. Despite his moving speech, I am surprised that he too is not opposed to it.
The private sector has an excellent and longstanding record in the funeral business. Undertakers, florists, coffin makers and car hire organisations are all private and all, in my experience, provide a sensitive and efficient service. The Churches also do an excellent job. In relation to local authorities, I really appreciated the last two cremations I attended. They seemed to be much more responsive to the needs of the bereaved than was the case 20 years ago.
These days both public and private sectors, generally speaking, do a good job. I include in that comment the 27 crematoria that, so far as I am informed, are privately run. Modern local authorities are not obsessed by who owns the crematorium; they are interested in the service that it provides and in how well it meets the local needs and circumstances. The watchword these days is "partnership"; that is, partnership between local authorities and private enterprise to provide efficiently and inventively what local people want and need. That was very much what the noble Earl, Lord Grey, suggested may lie ahead of us.
The regulations opposed by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, involve the enabling of partnership. They give the local authority, as the current owner of the crematorium, much more room for manoeuvre. Each local authority may choose its partner or choose none. The local authority sets the terms of the deal; it weighs the financial consequences and the consequences for its electors. Whether to spend on updating the crematorium or on something else is a matter for the local authority. Sale, partnership, or, as I suspect many will choose, retention is for them to decide. It is clear from what has been said that both parties opposite would give local authorities that same freedom.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned SCI. He said that the only people actively interested in purchasing crematoria are SCI. I can give him some comfort that there are other people out there who have approached us on the subject. He said various other things too about SCI. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission investigated SCI and published a report in May this year. We supported that report and published our proposals to take action on it. However, we have been stayed by a legal challenge from SCI.

1319
We understand that the current position is that SCI has agreed in principle to sign an interim undertaking pending the outcome of judicial review. Any further acquisitions of crematoria or funeral directors by SCI will be subject to review by the Office of Fair Trading and referred to the MMC where necessary. I understand that the Office of Fair Trading asked the noble Lord, Lord Young, to alert them to any cases which cause him anxiety in the future.
I cannot say much more on the subject of SCI, given the pending proceedings, except that it is clear that we take our role of safeguarding the public interest seriously and responsibly. Perhaps I can give some further comfort to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, as to the circumstances in which crematoria and their customers find themselves.
On average, cremation accounts for around 15 per cent. of the cost of a funeral and it appears that on average private crematoria charge around 16 per cent. more than municipal ones. That is in part explained by higher levels of investment in the private crematoria. We are concerned that local monopolies should not emerge and will support the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in that endeavour. The regulators are fully alert to the potential dangers of vertical ownership links between funeral directors and crematoria and that is one of the principal reasons for the investigation of SCI.
Before transferring any crematorium to the private sector, we hope that a local authority will satisfy itself of the continuing quality of the service and value for money. In particular, we expect them to satisfy themselves that there is sufficient competition from other crematoria and burial grounds nearby. In England 25 per cent. of crematoria have an alternative within five miles and 75 per cent. have an alternative within 15 miles. It is understood that the last transfer by a council to the private sector, in 1993, included safeguards including a bar on discriminatory charging in favour of specific funeral directors. Local authorities should exercise their judgment carefully and not sell when in doubt.
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report brings me, in a roundabout way, back to where I started; back to my surprise that the noble Lord, Lord Young, should wish to pursue his Motion. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report goes into great detail about the market, or lack of it, in funeral services. It explains that the main defect is not a lack of choice, which is considerable, but a lack of information to enable customers to choose; a lack of advice available to customers at a time when few people feel like shopping around. That surely is a case for the Consumers Association, and when I think of the Consumers Association, I think of the noble Lord, Lord Young.
I am surprised that someone so intimately associated with such a great movement for individual empowerment and choice, should wish to restrict choice in a way in which the Motion seeks to do. I am even more surprised when I think of the noble Lord's advocacy of the Natural Death Centre and of his championship of "choice to the last". I hope that he will not surprise me again by pressing the Motion to a vote.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I apologise for my voice, which is threatening to give out. That may not be due so much to the cold, as to the distress caused by the subject we are discussing and possibly the further distress caused by the Minister's reply to this debate.
Before I strain my voice further on that last count, I thank all those who have taken part in the discussion. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, because she reminded us that we are faced with something that the Minister did not face up to; that is, what has become known as the, "American way of death". If in 10 or 15 years' time the American way of death has taken a hold in this country, as I fear it will from the way things are going, then those who go into the detail of the history of what is happening in this area may well be as distressed as I am by the Minister's speech.
Because the Department of the Environment is behaving in this way and is offering a bribe to local authorities to transfer their crematoria to private ownership, the SCI, as shown by its various newsletters and by the pronouncements from its directors, is cockahoop. It means to take full advantage of the window of opportunity that the Government have provided between next January and the time 18 months after that when the concession they have offered will be withdrawn. We hope that other things will also have happened, at least towards the end of that 18 month period, which might lead to a change of direction on the part of government policy.
I was not quite sure whether the noble Earl, Lord Grey, whose intervention I welcomed, was for what I was saying or against it. It seemed that he was both. I am happy that he should be prepared, at least in part, to support what I was saying and support the findings of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
Earl Grey: My Lords, I said that I agreed with many of the noble Lord's points but that I would not support him if he went through the Division Lobby. I think that what he has suggested is not the correct way of tackling this problem.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I am grateful for that clarification. I shall certainly be very sorry if the noble Earl is not able, after I have spoken, to follow me into the Division Lobby.
I particularly welcome the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. Many of the points he made struck me most favourably; above all, what he said about the bereaved and how they are in a state and should not be pestered by salesmen of the kind SCI employs, and has employed, to such good effect in this country and in the United States, Australia and France.
I turn to the Minister's speech. I could not follow the connection between his opening remarks, which gave me some cause for rejoicing, and what he said after that. He pointed out that the municipal crematoria came into existence partly because poor people and others were being so done down by private industry, but he did not seem to complete the circle and accept that if the changes the Department of the Environment is promoting take effect on a large scale poor people and others could again be subject to the mercies of private

1321
enterprise and without any control being attached to what it does. The Minister said that the SCI has given interim undertakings before the outcome of the judicial review is known. I understand that the interim undertakings are only to assure the Government and perhaps the court that there will be no change in ownership of the funeral directors that have been listed by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the period before the outcome of the judicial review is known. If those are all the undertakings that have been given, then those are slight things indeed. We shall have to await the outcome of the judicial review.
The Minister said that he hoped that local authorities would satisfy themselves that they were doing right when they sold their crematoria to private companies—the SCI or perhaps others. We all hope that. Fortunately, there is more to it than that. It was not quite stated by the Minister, as it might have been, that the Office of Fair Trading is under a duty to keep a very close eye on the sales of crematoria by local authorities. If it feels that a monopoly situation is being created, it has the good cause and even a duty to intervene. That means that the Office of Fair Trading should look at every acquisition of a local authority crematorium that occurs, if only it can get good information in advance about it. This means that any local authority that goes so far as to consider selling to SCI will know that its decision may be called into question by the Office of Fair Trading and that it may have to retreat. The more that is known by local authorities, perhaps the fewer of them will be prepared to sell. Therefore, we do have some protection in the Office of Fair Trading and the powers that have been given to it.
In conclusion, we are at a very important point in the history of cremation and burial and, wider than that, in the way in which we treat the dead. If the message does not go directly out of this House to local authorities to be very wary and cautious about selling an important public asset to a private business, I only hope that that will happen in other ways and that perhaps one day the Minister might join those who I think have a better sense of what is at stake here and be prepared also to warn local authorities of the dire step they may be taking. They should not sell out, under the influence of a bribe from the Government, on an important public asset which touches people at the most difficult time of their lives. This subject should be treated with the greatest respect and dignity.
Unfortunately, I do not think that there is a case, despite the possibility that I may have persuaded the noble Earl, Lord Grey, to follow me, for pressing this Motion to a vote. I am only glad that there has been such support for the Motion. I shall certainly not cease my labours to see right done, as I think it should be. I hope that there will be others here who might join me, if not in this House then outside it. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Royal Naval College, Greenwich
6.18 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee rose to ask Her Majesty's Government on what basis they have decided to sell the Royal Naval College at Greenwich on the open market, and whether they will reconsider their decision.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, "We are instructed to seek offers and expressions of interest". That is familiar estate agents' language. We are accustomed to agents' hyperbole—references to "unique opportunities" are too often devalued. But in the case of the Royal Naval College at Greenwich the description is entirely accurate.
If there were a designation of buildings as Grade I triple star, these buildings would qualify, both on historical and on architectural grounds. This is where King Henry VIII was born; and Queen Elizabeth I. This is where Drake was knighted. This is where Charles II began his great palace, never completed "for lack of funding". These are the great buildings masterplanned by Sir Christopher Wren; colonnaded, domed, symmetrical, magnificent; the subject of a famous painting by Canaletto, a painting which is being used in a brochure to help market—or in plainer language, flog off—the college. For once the agents do not overplay their product:
"An outstanding group of baroque buildings adjoining the River Thames…offering potential for a range of appropriate uses…extending in all to about 18.75 acres".
The Royal Naval College, advertised in Country Life?
That is how the public sees the sale of the Royal Naval College. I am well aware that the "sale" is a 150-year lease and that, of course, its listed status affords protection; indeed, that the Secretary of State for Defence has said that Tesco need not apply. But the expressions of public outrage have been because the public sees this as a privatisation too far.
I have sought this debate in the hope that the Government will use the opportunity to give some explicit assurances and reassurances. I was glad to receive on Friday a letter from the Secretary of State for Defence who wrote that,
"the Government's policy is to stimulate a wide ranging debate".
That is welcome—but through estate agents whose marketing material talks of determining the extent of market interest?
That these are defence buildings is almost an accident of history. They are primarily part of our national heritage, and I am glad that there is a Minister from that department listening to the debate, even though he may not be replying tonight. I hope that his presence is to give him the opportunity of coming in later and may be redirecting matters. Protecting our heritage should be the first consideration, and not merely protecting but enhancing.
The Royal Parks Review Group, under the chairmanship of Dame Jennifer Jenkins, recommended in March:

1323
"The Government should announce its commitment to the public opening of the direct route through the Royal Naval College and the National Maritime Museum into the park as a Millennium project and provide the necessary funds for architectural and planning studies and associated works".
The Secretary of State has written that he would love to see Greenwich more open to the public and the reopening of the Great Axis from the approach on the Thames, through the college and across the park. According to the agents' brochure, access to the Painted Hall and the chapel is to be maintained (they are open for two hours a day) and "it is hoped" that the Grand Axis will be opened up. To quote again:
"Any enhanced public access should be at nil cost to the public purse".
That is a long way from requiring enhanced access.
Can the Minister assure your Lordships that decisions as to the future of Greenwich will be heritage-led? Can he assure us that, whatever offers are made, decisions will be based on a strategy for the widest public access to and enjoyment of the college as part of the whole complex and park, after full public debate? Indeed, can he tell your Lordships the process of how decisions will be made? Can he assure the nation that the Government see Greenwich, not as a cost to be cut, but as a national asset to be enjoyed?
More specifically, will he explain whether the Secretary of State has to accept the best financial offer? understand that he holds it as a trustee for a charity, the ultimate beneficiary of which is a school. How does that accord with what must be conflicting interests as the custodian of a major piece of public heritage? The brochure indicates primary legislation—an Armed Forces Bill to be introduced next month. Can the Minister tell us what that Bill is to do? One might hope that it might be to provide for tunnelling the major road, the A.206, which divides the college from the park, so that indeed the two areas could be enjoyed as one, but somehow I doubt it. Can the Minister say whether the Bill is to enable a charitable asset to be sold and to provide for the proceeds?
What is needed to deal with the nuclear reactor on the site? The reference in the brochure to "addressing its removal" seems almost disingenuous. Can the Minister say how difficult an operation that is, and is it in fact feasible? I believe that most tenants would not view with complete equanimity the prospect of a nuclear reactor in the cellar, however small.
Will the Government rule out the possibility of the college being occupied by a foreign company or institution? I hope that this will not be taken as xenophobia. It is not, but the recent unhappy experience of the need to negotiate access for VJ Day to the war memorials at County Hall, which is now in foreign hands, gives particular pause for thought, when the college is in a sense a memorial to our naval history.
Will the Government look at the future of the site in its context, not just as on the meridian, which of course it is, but as part of the Thames Gateway, the gateway to the capital? The Navy is not moving out until 1997. Though I accept there is much to be planned and the buildings are costly to maintain, will the Government accept that the public will not tolerate a hasty decision?
1324
Of course, the public understands that buildings change their use from time to time. But what they abhor is the prospect of a private use. What they want is vision and courage.
Above all, will the Government accept that the suspicion that their actions have created is not mere hysteria? From this building we look across the river to County Hall—to be used as what: an hotel or an aquarium? Upstream from here is Battersea power station, festering, stripped of its roof and of its dignity. Downstream is Greenwich.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the noble Baroness for introducing this Question today, and perhaps I may say with how much charm and eloquence she has presented the problem now confronting the Government. There is nothing new about this: most ministries of defence or ministries of war are in general run by Army men who often lack sensitivity. Perhaps I may recall again a favourite quotation of that great admiral, Jackie Fisher, that the role of the British Army should be that of a projectile to be fired by the British Navy.
I cannot believe that the First Lord of the Admiralty would have sanctioned such behaviour. My first question to my noble friend is this: does this initiative by the MoD have the approval of the First Lord; and, if not, why not? Does it have the approval of the President of the Board of Trade, based upon the original statutes of the Council of Trade? Who made this decision?
The second question is this: who handled it? If I may use an old naval word, it is something of a "cock-up". That is a naval word and there is nothing derogatory about it at all. For me, returning from abroad, to have someone ring me up as though they had read that old-fashioned naval book Make a Signal!, to be told, "Admiralty to flog off Greenwich to the highest bidder by Knight Frank & Rutley (or whatever they are called) who are hereby appointed" I thought was a joke. I thought that maybe there was a 1st April which had appeared in the twilight of our year. But, no; it was serious.
The criticism that is being launched at the Government is very serious indeed. It has the potential of being a major banana skin for my noble friends. First, there is Greenwich; and, secondly, today I read in the press that with great glee the idea is to sell off the Treasury and maybe rehouse it. Thirdly, we shall probably have the sale and lease-back of your Lordships' House, because I am sure that we shall be much more reliable and trustworthy tenants than those of another place!
I do not believe that the Government intended to make such a disastrous presentational mistake. I believe that they wanted to open up the debate on the lines of, "What do we do about Greenwich if the MoD does not want it any more?". Three cheers! The MoD does not want it any more! The Government themselves should have led this debate and discussion. Perhaps they should have asked themselves, "What can we do for history?" rather than ask, "What can history do for us?"

1325
Greenwich is a place of great note. Those of us who have travelled up and down the Thames, who have walked through Brunel's foot tunnel and lived and re-lived today and ancient days, realise that it has a potential to do something or for something to be done with it. I suggest that, as it is, it has a negative value and no value at all. The Government have recognised that. They do not want the cost around their neck, and they want to off-load it onto somebody who will meet the cost.
That is the wrong attitude because the value that Greenwich has is not a tangible, monetary value that may go up or down today or tomorrow like the value of buildings when interest rates go up or down and property markets collapse. It has a form of celestial value which one cannot value. Any respectable agent would say, "We can place no value on this building". It is its value to the nation; not the particular piece that it is intended should be sold and which, if converted into offices, would produce 530,000 square feet of office space, which is exactly the same size, I am told, as the main tower at Canary Wharf, and sufficient to house 3,000 people and cause another collapse of the property market in offices.
It is not the alternative use which should be considered, but perhaps the re-establishment of the college's historical use. After all, we are a great maritime nation—but perhaps I should say that we were a great maritime nation. As your Lordships will recall, 100 years ago 80 per cent. of the world's ships were built in the United Kingdom. At the start of the First World War the figure was 60 per cent., and at the start of the Second World War it was 40 per cent. Just to show that it is not only this side of the House that has a monopoly on buying and selling things very badly, I remind your Lordships that as soon as the party opposite decided to nationalise the shipbuilding industry, the percentage of the world's ships constructed by the United Kingdom fell to 0.7 per cent. Over time we have seen our merchant fleet disappear.
We have very little to remind our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren of our maritime past other than word of mouth. Much of it took place before the invention of the camera, and is not recorded on film. It is recorded only in old vessels and charts and in some amazing artefacts that are not properly displayed. We have no national centre where shipbuilding can be looked at, reviewed and considered. We do not have any maritime heritage centres. However, Greenwich is, and should always be, a maritime centre, recording our maritime past and earning money from it in whatever way the government of the day may decide. There is no doubt at all of the considerable interest that exists in our maritime past.
Like me, some of your Lordships were privileged the other day to visit the hydrographer at West India Docks, where he has his ships. He is probably the greatest map maker in the world and is now based down in Taunton with a large number of ancient charts of great value which he is beginning to replicate and to market. It is reasonable to suggest that we should look at all our maritime activities and decide how many of them can
1326
be concentrated at Greenwich and the amount of income that they could generate from those who would visit them. I am not suggesting that the hydrographer should be moved from the pleasant environment of Taunton; but perhaps instead of building a grand new building in Bristol at considerable expense, the MoD should have considered relocating some of its people in London or moving many of its support services from Bath.
It is the Government who should be leading this debate. They should be leading the inquiry and not passing the matter back to estate agents or various other private sector "animals". Governments should remember that anybody in public or political life is useless at buying anything and equally useless at selling anything, getting both the price and timing wrong, usually with cataclysmic results.
I intervene not only to promote Greenwich or to say how much I love the place. I have had many discussions there in the past about the number of items that the college would like to display. We have discussed linking the college with the Royal Docks and with the docks in Docklands so that coastal vessels can be displayed. At the same time, being a Scot I realise that there is some conflict of interest because we might like to have a world maritime museum in Glasgow. After all, while the British claim to have built all the ships, it was really the Scots who did it. At the start of the First World War 50 per cent. of all the ships afloat were Scottish. We Scots were good engineers. We were good at making things. However, I do not think that we were particularly good at telling ships in which direction to go. That was often left to those such as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin. I look forward greatly to his speech, and hope that we shall have some fire and brimstone.
I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in tabling this Unstarred Question. I regret that the Government have taken an initiative which was good in principle but have mucked it up. My noble friend the Minister now has a chance to say, "I am sorry if our communication was so bad. It was our intention to open up the debate. We do not want Greenwich to pass into foreign hands in any way. It is up to the British to decide what they should do with their heritage and to present it in the best way that they can".
6.34 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I echo the two previous speakers in being astonished at what might apparently happen to Greenwich. It seems extraordinary that the party which prides itself on its patriotism—that is true not least of the Secretary of State for Defence—should suggest selling off such a symbol of our national pride. Sometimes it has appeared that to the party opposite "patriotism" means attacking foreigners rather than doing something more positive to develop pride in our own traditions and history.
We live in a time when there is a widespread sense of insecurity and lack of purpose in this country. As we know, we are said to have lost an empire and not found anything to replace it. It seems to me that one of the things that any government should be doing is trying to develop a sense of national identity and purpose and

1327
restoring some sense of pride to the people of this country. Greenwich is essentially a symbol of our past pride and history. It is a symbol of the things that we have achieved in the past and could achieve in the future.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said so eloquently, Greenwich was for 500 years the site of a royal palace. We should be justly proud of the Observatory. The whole world bases its time on the Greenwich Meridian and Greenwich Mean Time. The naval college is a proud example of our great naval history. The park and surroundings could be splendid.
Greenwich is an area of economic disadvantage. It is suffering from traffic blight. The opening up of the naval college presents us with an opportunity to develop the site in a most imaginative way. Unlike the French, we have not gone in for grands projets. It is perhaps time that we had something to mark the millennium and be a grand projet for this country. We could have a vista to rival that at Versailles. We should be thinking in imaginative terms about somewhere like Greenwich which could present us with enormous opportunities.
As I understand it, the nuclear reactor gives us an opportunity to pause and to have a serious discussion about the site. I gather that it will take at least two years to remove the nuclear reactor—that is, if it can be done in so short a time. Surely that is a time during which a public debate about the site should be launched. We have truly become a nation of shopkeepers if we are not just selling off the family silver, but also offering to lease Britannia's shield and spear.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Lewin: My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for bringing this subject to our attention and for providing us with this opportunity for a debate. I say that not least because it gives me the opportunity to put forward a constructive proposal. I regret that there will not be any fire and brimstone. I have enormously enjoyed the three speeches that we have heard so far. They have warmed the cockles of my maritime heart.
First, I must declare an interest. I did my first course at the Royal Naval College more than 50 years ago. I returned a number of times to improve my naval education. For the last four years of my active career as First Sea Lord and Chief of the Defence Staff, I lived in a house which was built originally for the Lieutenant Governor of the Pensioners Hospital. Nelson visited it often—not when I was there—and sat for one of his many portraits there. After that, I became a trustee of the National Maritime Museum, which I have been for 14 years, eight as chairman. It was a post that I relinquished with some regret four weeks ago. There is no more fascinating hobby for a superannuated admiral than that. Incidentally, I am Lord Lewin of Greenwich. Therefore, your Lordships will understand that I have a passionate concern for the future of those magnificent buildings which, to me, breathe maritime history.
I should like to bring your Lordships up to date with the present situation. I apologise to those who already know this. The Secretary of State for Defence, wearing
1328
his mantle as First Lord of the Admiralty, is the sole trustee and holds the buildings in trust for the Crown and for the benefit of Greenwich Hospital. Greenwich Hospital's interest is in maintaining its status quo—a fair rent from a good tenant and with no responsibility for the buildings. That leaves the hospital to concentrate on its charitable responsibilities, which relate to the Royal Hospital School at Holbrook and some sheltered housing for naval patients.
The Department of National Heritage has responsibility for the external maintenance and the historic interiors. For 300 years the buildings have been the responsibility of a government department. For the past 70 years it has been a charge on the department with responsibility for historic buildings. In 1924, it was the Ancient Monuments Department of the Office of Works, then the Ministry of Works, the Department of the Environment, and then, when it was formed three or four years ago, the Department of National Heritage.
Currently the MoD's responsibility is for the rent payable to Greenwich Hospital (£400,000 a year), internal maintenance, and the day-to-day management of the site. I must confess to sadness that 300 years of naval association with Greenwich is coming to an end. I support entirely the co-location of the staff training of all three services. That should have happened 20 or 30 years ago.
There has been much speculation and national unease over the future use of these most important buildings—the finest assembly of architecture we possess, as John Betjeman said. One thing is certain. They must in the future continue to be seen as an inspiration and a source of our national pride. It should be a place that local people can feel is theirs and which they are proud to share with the nation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned the excellent report of Dame Jennifer Jenkins, which proposed transforming that part of Greenwich into a magnificent vista from the Thames to Blackheath, incorporating the fine gathering of buildings—not just the Royal Naval College but the buildings of the National Maritime Museum which incorporate the Queen's house and the old Royal Observatory. Both of those buildings are older than any part of the Royal Naval College. It is obviously most important that in considering a future for the Royal Naval College it is treated as one part of a coherent whole—a whole for which the Department of National Heritage is currently processing an application for world heritage status. The future of the Royal Naval College cannot be considered in isolation.
Let me now come to a concept for the future. Following the great national debate, and the MoD's proposals, a concept has emerged from discussions among all those authorities which have responsibility for our heritage. I would mention particularly the support of the National Heritage Memorial Fund and the National Maritime Museum. It is a concept that, while ensuring the long-term preservation of the buildings, would permit, and indeed encourage, the development of appropriate and sympathetic uses.

1329
The proposal is that a preservation trust should be formed which would assume a 150-year lease from Greenwich Hospital, taking over from the MoD. The trust, which might perhaps be called the Royal Greenwich Trust, would be constituted as a charity—possibly an exempt charity—with an obligation to present its accounts to Parliament. The trust would be administered by a board of, say, seven commissioners appointed by the Queen. They would be people with an established reputation in the care of our heritage. Having heard his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, should consider himself on the short list. The idea of commissioners would follow the precedent set by King William who, on the death of Queen Mary in 1694—it was William and Mary who granted the charter for the foundation of the hospital—appointed commissioners to supervise the building and commissioning of the Naval Pensioners' Hospital. He appointed 200 commissioners. That was a fund-raising ploy. The quorum was seven. Among the seven were Christopher Wren, John Evelyn, Vanburgh, and Flamsteed, the Astronomer Royal of the time.
The preservation trust's responsibilities would be managed, and its commercial activities conducted, by a subsidiary company whose board, in addition to some commissioners, would include people, bringing experience of business, property, finance, tourism and public relations. The commissioners would of course look out for the heritage.
The trust's objectives would be five-fold: conservation of the buildings and sympathetic management of the grounds; encouragement of full public access and the interpretation to visitors of the historic significance of this important site; co-operation with other authorities, particularly the local authority, in the promotion of Greenwich as a world heritage site of international status; re-establishment of the ceremonial use of Greenwich as a centre for the reception and entertainment of visiting heads of state, and use by the Government and the European Community for important meetings and entertainment.
For centuries, Greenwich was the point of entry for visiting Royalty. When Princess Caroline of Brunswick arrived at Greenwich to marry the Prince of Wales, the Prince of Wales did not bother to go to meet her. The naval pensioners turned out in their hundreds to give her a warm welcome and she was heard to remark to her companion:
"Are all Englishmen lacking an arm or a leg?"
Finally, and the most important objective, the trust would be responsible for generating a satisfactory level of income from the letting of the buildings and other activities consistent with sympathetic use and within planning constraints.
The buildings have, as the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, said, great potential for many and varied uses. The 500,000 square feet of space ranges from the magnificent Painted Hall to 300 rather substandard cabins—bedrooms to your Lordships. There are a number of lecture theatres, three fully equipped
1330
libraries, four splendid residences—one was built for Charles II—two other houses and seven flats. They could provide a significant rental income.
Greenwich University has expressed a firm interest in making use of all the buildings. It could make good use of a large part of the academic accommodation, but I would suggest that, with education as its prime purpose, Greenwich University would not be the right authority to take full responsibility for this important heritage site with its historic buildings and their maritime association, nor to promote them as a tourist attraction and part of the world heritage site.
The National Maritime Museum would of course be prepared to take responsibility for the Painted Hall which for over 100 years was the nearest the nation had to a National Maritime Museum—that was before the National Maritime Museum was formed. The museum would welcome the opportunity to expand its galleries and display more of its immense and wealthy collection. It could store its extensive archive in the basements and establish a maritime research centre. Other museums and galleries could find space to display collections that are currently in store.
The Maritime Trust, which looks after the Cutty Sark, has expressed an interest in one of the buildings in the corner of the grounds as a visitor centre for its tourist attraction. There are 40 City livery companies which do not have halls of their own. The buildings could provide them with office space and the use of the Painted Hall for their ceremonial occasions. The extensive cellars at Greenwich would provide them with ample storage space for their wines.
The possibilities are manifold. They tempt the imagination, as they obviously tempted the imagination of the noble Lord. I have touched on only a few. He thought of many more. How would all that be financed? The trust—a charity—would be in a position to apply to the National Heritage Lottery Fund for a grant to cover the initial establishment costs. I suggest that there could be few heritage projects more deserving of lottery funds than the preservation of those historic buildings and their presentation as a vibrant cultural centre, a place to remind the nation of our great maritime heritage.
Once established, there is confident expectation that the trust could generate sufficient income from sub-letting space and from its commercial activities to cover running costs at the very least.
Since lottery funds cannot be used to substitute for an existing government commitment, the key to this is that the Department of National Heritage should continue its present responsibility for external maintenance. Currently that is running at about £2 million per year while a major refurbishment programme is in progress. But once that is completed—and it should be completed in about 1997—the year-by-year running costs are likely to fall to about £500,000. However, since the Ministry of Defence would be relieved ultimately of all its responsibilities for rent, internal maintenance and management, the burden on the Exchequer would be significantly reduced.
I end with another quotation from the historian Arthur Bryant who said of Greenwich:

1331
"There is no place in England so rich in History and Architecture".
We must ensure that it is preserved properly as part of our national treasure. I commend this proposal for the support of your Lordships and I commend it to the Minister and his colleagues for their sympathetic consideration.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I followed the noble and gallant Lord's exposition of his plan with the greatest attention. Clearly what he has said is of considerable importance for the future of Greenwich. I shall return to it in a few moments with some possible refinements.
When the Government flogged off County Hall I thought to myself, "My God, they'll be flogging off Greenwich next", but I did not really believe it. We have come to that. It is a natural progression. If the Government are prepared to take this step, it is necessary to look ahead further to see what it is to be next.
A great saving could be made by converting the buildings in which we sit to more spectacular and tourist, floodlit use. We do not need quite as much space as we have and smaller accommodation would be possible. The Monarchy is expensive; Buckingham Palace is a fine property. I say those things partly out of gloom and partly flippantly but, above all, to ask the Government to consider how they have got themselves into the position of dreaming of leasing the Royal Navy College at Greenwich for 150 years. Even practically, they must have noticed that the Dreadnought Hospital and the Nurses' Home which form part of the campus there have been on the market for some years and no progress has been made.
This proposal is a prime example of the sale-room state. It is a new kind of state not known hitherto to Europe. It sets as its first priority, long before looking after its people and especially its more unfortunate people, the realisation of all physical property that it has, to turn it into money.
Versailles has been mentioned. Can we imagine the French selling Versailles or selling a 150 year lease on it? Obviously not. That is not merely a fancy-that fact. It teaches us something about the difference between the two countries, and I hope the Government will give themselves time to meditate on that, given the extraordinary closeness of our origins as democracies in the world.
Many noble Lords will have visited the splendid palace which houses the French Senate. If noble Lords have looked out of the windows to the south, they will have seen the dome and the monumental appearance of the National Observatory of France at the end of a grand avenue. They will have been aware also that the French meridian is only a few miles away from the British meridian. The fact that the world now uses the meridian of Greenwich, and calculates all its measurements from that, is due to the fact that we happened to beat France in a war. I submit that even that fact in itself should make us pay a bit more attention to maintaining the
1332
historical integrity and the public-ownership integrity of Greenwich, because we are at risk of selling off the world's meridian as well as everything else.
I believe—and no doubt the Minister will comment on this—that the proposed sale is illegal. The Act of 1869 which lays down the regime for the ownership of the Royal Hospital of Greenwich, as it then was, states quite explicitly that the Royal Hospital may not be sold or leased to any party except the Royal Navy, institutions of the merchant marine or other institutions having a clear connection with our interests as a maritime nation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that she wondered what would be in the Queen's Speech and that there may be something about this matter in that Speech. Is my surmise correct that the Queen's Speech will seek to correct the illegality of the Government's present action in putting Greenwich on the market? Will it be an act of retrospective legalisation of government action? If so, I believe that both Houses will have plenty to say about that.
The little reactor called Jason has been mentioned. It has been explained in the other place that Jason is not just a mechanical object standing alone, but is the centre of quite a large network of training activities which belong to a large system throughout the country for training. I wonder what thought the Government have given to this matter. I have seen mention of the figure of £20 million for the de-commissioning of that reactor. On the other hand, should we read all this as an element of hope; that the Government cannot be serious in their leasing plan if they expect anybody to sit on top of Jason while it decays without being removed, or even to sit on top of it while it is removed, because such an activity would obviously put a stop to anything else in that block for a year or two?
What should have happened is this. When it was found that the Staff College did not need the whole of Greenwich, it would have been better to bring what was at Camberley to Greenwich and sell Camberley. Camberley is very nice, well thought out, neat, and works, but it is not a great national site. The Government made a mistake in their decision to take matters that way round. It would have been better and probably not too difficult to bring Camberley to Greenwich rather than to take Greenwich to Camberley.
Lastly, I listened with the greatest interest to the noble and gallant Lord about the National Maritime Museum plan. By now, it is very much wider than that. It has become elaborated. I think that that makes it of greater interest than it was before. The buildings at Greenwich are not especially suitable for any sort of museum. They consist of two vast and wonderful spaces—the chapel and the hall—in neither of which could one possibly put exhibits without ruining them. As well as that, it consists of a very large number of small rooms with one door each. That is typical of the kind of accommodation in which you cannot have a museum, because people would be going in and out of the same door all the time.
I should like to add to the list of deserving institutions mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord as being possible co-tenants with the National Museum under the

1333
umbrella of his committee of trustees. I have in mind the World Maritime University, which is now at Malmö in Sweden for no very good reason. Its teaching is in English. Its students, who come principally from the third world, have to come to London all the time to obtain instruction in English on the world-wide realities of the maritime world. The university is under the umbrella of the World Maritime Organisation, which has been situated in London since its birth.
It seems to me that Greenwich is well suited for this university; indeed, it has been functioning as a military university for many years. If we could, over time, gradually bring that institution from Sweden into Britain, I believe that there would be a great deal to be said for it. I do not know whether there will be room for that, a museum presence, the hydrographer and all the others that have been mentioned, but one thing stands out very clearly. With all those possible institutions to fit in to that majestic and marvellous campus, the role of private enterprise seems pretty small. I hope that the Government will heave a sigh of relief on 15th November (I believe that they were right to give a very short period for bids) and be able to say: "Well, we didn't get anything worth considering, so let us resume our proper duty as a government and settle its use ourselves".
7.1 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling the Question. I should like to express my thanks to her. I had the privilege of speaking to a Mess Dinner not so very long ago in the Painted Hall. Therefore, I have a particular interest in ensuring the future of what many noble Lords have quite rightly said is one of our great national—and, indeed, international—treasures.
Perhaps I may say to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin—and I do so without impertinence—that I found his speech to be most impressive. If I may say so, I very much hope that he will put his proposal in writing to myself and to my honourable and right honourable friends because, if the Government do not take it seriously, we shall certainly take it very seriously indeed.
I also agree with the noble and gallant Lord that there should be a Joint Service Command and Staff College. After all, there are five institutions which do not necessarily do the same thing but different things in different locations, and which could all be combined into one.
I understand the Government's problem that the Royal Naval College has to be subsumed into a larger entity. Nevertheless, I find it odd that the Government in correspondence—and I hope that I may refer to correspondence between Ministers and my honourable friend Mr. Raynsford, who is the constituency Member of Parliament for Greenwich—seem to waver a little about what the consequences of the move might be. For example, in the noble Earl's letter to my honourable friend, he says that there will be the "Expression of Interest" campaign, the object of which is,
1334
"to seek out imaginative, sympathetic and appropriate uses for Greenwich"
The noble Earl goes on to say:
"When assessing any bids received for the college buildings we will ensure that the potential bidders produce a financially sound business plan, a viable maintenance and management strategy for the historic buildings".
Let us take those two points. First, a "viable business plan". I am not sure what sort of viable business plan there could be for the buildings at Greenwich. Moreover, to be absolutely honest, I am not sure that the Ministers in the Ministry of Defence could recognise a viable business plan if they saw it walking down the street in Piccadilly in the middle of the day. Equally, I am not sure that a,
"viable maintenance and management strategy for the historic buildings",
would last more than 30 seconds. We are talking about centuries; we are not talking about 30 seconds, or two minutes.
No doubt the noble Earl will excuse me for quoting from the letter, but it is on the record. In it he continues:
"If no suitable non Government schemes for Greenwich emerge from the present marketing campaign, other potential defence uses, such as the Defence School of Languages, may be appropriate".
There has been a long-standing argument ever since the defence cost studies about whether Camberley is a suitable location for the Joint Service Command and Staff College or whether it should properly be in Greenwich. All the costings that the Government have produced to date say that Camberley comes out a mile ahead of Greenwich. However, there was an article in the Independent on the 16th October this year, which stated that detailed studies into the cost of refurbishing the existing Army Staff College had disclosed that tens of millions of pounds will be needed to carry out the work and that the cost is substantially more than predicted in the initial studies, raising fears that savings might well not be achieved until into the next century. The article then quoted an official from the MoD, who said that there was a lot of teeth sucking going on about the scale of the costs involved in the refurbishment of Camberley. The conclusion would be that if everything else is equal, as my noble friend Lord Kennet said, and if costs are equal, then surely the JSCSC should be located in Greenwich rather than Camberley.
In the letter to my honourable friend the noble Earl went on to refer to legislation. A number of speakers have raised the matter during the course of tonight's debate. He said that,
"if the occupation of the site by non government bodies is constrained by Section 7 of the Greenwich Hospitals Act of 1869"—
the 1869 Act provides that Greenwich Hospital should be devoted to charitable purposes for service use—
"legislation can be used to clarify this and the Armed Forces Bill might be an appropriate vehicle."
I believe that that answers the question put by my noble friend Lord Kennet. The noble Earl goes on to stress the question of,
"protecting the charitable interests of Greenwich Hospital and the integrity of the site itself".
I believe that the noble Earl was quite right to lay stress on that point.

1335
I do not wish to prolong the debate. I believe that many speakers have put most of the points that I wished to make to the noble Earl. I shall simply ask the Minister two questions: first, will the Government give us an assurance that, if it turns out that the cost of siting the JSCSC in Camberley is equivalent—not more, not less—to the cost of siting it in Greenwich, Greenwich would be the preferred option and that the latter would be used by the defence establishment for the kind of purposes for which Greenwich has served over the centuries?
Secondly, will the Minister give the House an undertaking and the assurance that when the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, produces a plan (which I understand has been discussed with many and various people and which has a great deal of merit) it will be considered in front of any private application for the leasing of Greenwich, whatever buildings may be there? After all, all speakers this evening have said that we regard this as a part of the national heritage. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, sitting on the Front Bench and, I hope, nodding his head. Well, if he is not nodding his head, he is trying to do so. I very much hope that the noble Earl will be able to give us an assurance that this is the fundamental principle behind what the Government intend; otherwise, when the Armed Forces Bill comes before us in the next Session, I am afraid that there will be much opposition to it.
7.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, this has been a most stimulating debate on an issue which arouses deep feelings. It has been no surprise to me that noble Lords who have spoken have done so with considerable passion, as well as an obvious desire to ensure that these wonderful buildings at Greenwich are respected and cared for. Her Majesty's Government share that passion, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this important issue tonight.
It is right and proper that proposals which affect the future of substantial national institutions should be the subject of widespread and informed debate before decisions are taken. That is the strength of the democratic traditions we enjoy. The buildings which comprise the Royal Naval College at Greenwich are very much a case in point. Indeed, there are few sites and few buildings in this country which match the architectural and heritage importance of Greenwich. It is a glorious national treasure. It is, therefore, essential that we seek the widest possible spectrum of views. The Government are committed to this. We shall not take a decision quickly or without the most careful reflection.
The contribution which your Lordships have made tonight is therefore both welcome and timely. It has also provided, if I may say so, some interesting and constructive ideas. The same, I am afraid, cannot be said of some of the recent media commentary and it is a matter of considerable regret that there has been misinterpretation and misinformation about the Government's intentions over Greenwich. I therefore welcome the opportunity to explain the Government's
1336
plans. These are straightforward: to find a suitable, sympathetic and enduring use for this magnificent group of buildings which will protect them, enhance them and offer greater access to them for members of the public. The prospect is an exciting one.
Let me set the scene. The Royal Palace at Greenwich was constructed around 1500 on the site of the present Royal Naval College. King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I were born there, and it was one of the most frequently visited royal palaces of the time. An undercroft from the Tudor Palace still exists and is incorporated within the cellars of the current buildings. Its maritime traditions were established with the knighting there of Sir Francis Drake in 1581, and the Seamen's Hospital was constructed after the grant of a Royal Charter by King William and Queen Mary in 1694. It was in the subsequent years that the four main buildings were erected, to Sir Christopher Wren's overall master plan, with the whole complex substantially completed by 1750. The Seamen's Hospital, which in many respects served the same function as the Royal Hospital at Chelsea, eventually closed through lack of demand in 1869. Four years later the Royal Naval College moved from Portsmouth and has occupied the buildings continuously since then, paying rent under a lease from the Greenwich Hospital Crown charity. Since 1873, the historic buildings have served a variety of occupants, not least the Joint Services Defence College.
I mention this impressive history to show not just the grand lineage of the site but to demonstrate that change is nothing new for what has become known as the Royal Naval College. What we are witnessing now is the drawing to a close of a chapter in the history of the buildings, and, I very much hope, the dawn of another, equally glorious, chapter in their life. This offers a challenge, and a tremendous opportunity.
The question has been asked why the Navy's use of the Royal Naval College is to cease. As noble Lords will know, the period since the end of the cold war has seen us having to adjust our training and command systems to fit the changing spectrum of military operations. One consequence of this is a growing need to adopt a more joint approach to defence activities, with the services and their command structures operating interdependently and in many cases in a fully integrated way.
As part of our commitment to this, the Government decided last year on a new Joint Services Command and Staff College as the best means of training our future military officers. This joint training regime, which we intend will start in 1997, will replace the three single service staff colleges and the Joint Services Defence College which, like the RNSC, is located at Greenwich. I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for the expression of support which they gave to that policy. As noble Lords will recall, we carried out an exhaustive review of possible locations for the college. Greenwich was considered fully.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that Greenwich should have been chosen in preference to Camberley. We do not believe that Greenwich offers a cost-effective

1337
site for the college. Indeed, it is precisely the architectural glories of Greenwich, with its four Grade I listed buildings and its status as a scheduled ancient monument, which make the site at once so special but so bound with restrictions. The construction of new buildings and any significant conversions necessary would be ruled out on planning, aesthetic and cultural grounds.
The new college will have over 600 students, whereas the Royal Naval Staff College and the Joint Services Defence College—the current Greenwich occupants—total only 172 students. Fitting the much larger college into the Greenwich buildings would involve a costly works programme. Our appraisal of the staff college options, on which we consulted publicly, demonstrated conclusively that Greenwich was considerably more expensive than Camberley. But more importantly, the extensive building works would have involved ripping out much of the current internal fabric of these magnificent buildings, and that is something that the Government were not prepared to contemplate. The continued presence of the military would have precluded greater access to the public.
The Royal Naval College buildings will therefore fall vacant during the next few years. It is therefore necessary to consider their future. The Government are committed to finding the best possible use for the site, a use worthy of its heritage status, and a use which will allow greater public access. In the background the possibility exists of another defence use should an alternative scheme not be found. But my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence, in his capacity as sole trustee of the Greenwich Hospital Crown charity, thought it right that the Government should also explore other potential uses for the college.
Both the University of Greenwich and the National Maritime Museum had already shown themselves keen to occupy buildings on the site. However, if we are to find the best uses for Greenwich, we ought to cast the net wide. The Government do not have a monopoly of good ideas. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, has mentioned, it has, for instance, been suggested that those City Livery Companies who have no halls to dine in might use the Painted Hall for the purpose. I very much hope that other proposals from prestigious and historical associations will come forward.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for giving way. However, in listening to the limitations it has occurred to me to ask whether the Government have thought of approaching the International Maritime Organisation which is, after all, the only United Nations agency that we have in this country and is situated just over Lambeth Bridge on the Thames. It would be a prestigious body to occupy the building as it carries out good work and to some extent would fit in with the past traditions of the area.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. That is certainly a suggestion that I shall take away with me and pursue. To achieve the overall aim which I have outlined the Defence Secretary and the Heritage Secretary jointly
1338
invited "expressions of interest" to give possible occupants the chance to suggest an appropriate use for these superb buildings. In doing so, my right honourable friend is working closely with the Department of National Heritage and has consulted widely with English Heritage, the Government Office for London, Greenwich Hospital and the London Borough of Greenwich.
As I have intimated, a key element in the Government's plans for Greenwich is to see the buildings and estate more open to the public. If the new use is not defence related the restrictions arising from considerations of national security will ease, and that would offer an obvious advantage. We therefore intend to look favourably on proposals from bodies which are able to use the buildings in a sympathetic way and allow the British people to enjoy their history and appreciate the splendour of the site. This exercise is not about seeking the highest bidder. It is about finding the right occupant.
I turn now to some wider and equally important aspects of the issue. There has been considerable discussion of the prospect of nominating Maritime Greenwich as a world heritage site. We shall shortly be seeking views on the proposal and, subject to the outcome, we hope to make a formal submission to UNESCO by July next year. I can say, however, that we would very much like to see the achievement of Dame Jennifer Jenkins' vision of re-opening the Great Axis from the approach on the Thames, right through the college and across Greenwich Park to Wolfe's statue and Blackheath beyond. If those ideas develop the prospect is an exciting one—one which will return us nearer to the glorious architecture and symmetry created by Wren, Vanbrugh and Hawksmoor and so famously depicted by Canaletto.
If that is to be possible we shall, of course, need to safeguard the future of the site. This will be achieved in two ways: first, through the planning system controlling the use and alterations that can be allowed to a Grade I listed building and scheduled ancient monument; secondly, we can supplement the strict planning controls by special convenants in any lease agreement which the Defence Secretary can enforce as sole trustee.
Having touched on the question of the Defence Secretary's trusteeship, perhaps I should say a little more about his dual responsibilities. He is sole trustee, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen, of Greenwich Hospital, which is a Crown charity. He is required to see that the rental income to Greenwich Hospital is protected for the continuity of its charitable works. He is technically also the tenant of the site for as long as the Navy remains, but it is his role as trustee which requires him to ensure that a suitable use and occupant for the buildings is found.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked whether the Secretary of State has the authority to grant a lease to a non-government body in view of the terms of the Greenwich Hospital Act 1869. The noble Lord will wish to know that the legal position is currently being clarified. However, to avoid any doubt we hope to use

1339
the 1996 Armed Forces Bill to introduce an amending clause. Needless to say, the Secretary of State will not grant a lease until the legal position is clear.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, would it not have been better if the Government had refrained from putting the buildings on the market until they knew whether or not they were proposing an illegal course of action?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. In fact, it would have been irresponsible of the Government not to proceed as they have, because we are running out of time in view of the programme relating to Camberley. It is essential that, if it can be achieved, there should be a seamless transition at Greenwich between one tenant and another. That is why the Government thought it right to proceed as they did. There is no question of the Government having acted illegally in what they have done to date.
I turn now to the handling of the decision on the future of Greenwich. My noble friend Lord Selsdon asked who made the decision. I hope that he will gather from what I have said that no decision on the future of Greenwich has been made. The period for submitting expressions of interest ends on 15th November. We shall then consider any proposals received against rigorous criteria. We shall be taking account of the views expressed as to appropriate future use, including those of your Lordships. We shall not be rushed into a decision, and I do not expect a final choice to be made before next year. Then, if a suitable non-defence use is judged most appropriate, we would be prepared to grant a lease, with all the appropriate safeguards, to those whose proposals merit it. I emphasise—and this is a point that has been often misrepresented so far—that the freehold is not for sale. The buildings will remain in Crown ownership and rent from them will continue to accrue exclusively to the Greenwich Hospital charity just as it has under the occupancy of the Royal Naval College.
Perhaps I may touch specifically on the suggestions made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin. He suggested that an umbrella preservation trust should be established to oversee the future management of the buildings. He was kind enough to mention that to me before this evening's debate. As I understand it, that might involve the appointment of commissioners of substantial public standing to administer the trust, with suitable experience of heritage and of the traditions of Greenwich. The trust would then ensure that the unique character and characteristics of the buildings are protected and developed in the sympathetic and imaginative way that many noble Lords have commended tonight. There would, of course, be many
1340
details to address, not least with the Greenwich Hospital charity, for whose exclusive benefit the site is held. I am happy to assure your Lordships that I shall take that idea away for careful study along with all other interesting and viable proposals that emerge after 15th November.
A number of noble Lords have referred to the Navy's training reactor known as JASON, which is located in the King William building. Let me briefly explain the position. There have been several ill-judged articles in the press which have given a false picture of the reactor's size, power and safety record. The reactor, of very low power, was established at Greenwich over 30 years ago to educate personnel in the theory and operation of nuclear propulsion systems. The routine output of the reactor is capable of running one small light bulb. It has an exemplary safety record. If the MoD vacates Greenwich, JASON will be removed in concert with all of the statutory and regulatory authorities. No non-defence occupier would use the building before the work is finished.
As I said at the outset, this debate has been welcome and timely. I have been immensely heartened to listen to the ideas of noble Lords. I take as a key objective the need, expressed with eloquence and passion by noble Lords this evening, to sustain the conservation of the site for public enjoyment well into the next millennium. The stature and heritage of the buildings demand that the ideas for their future match their grand design. The exciting proposals being developed in the wider context of Greenwich call for a bold and sympathetic solution. It is clear to me that the country expects the Government to honour their obligation to find the most appropriate, viable and enduring use for the site. I take this opportunity of saying that that is precisely what the Government intend to do.

Accommodation Level Crossings Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; the Commons amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty eight minutes past seven o'clock.