Lords Sitting of 8 April 1998

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

Royal Assent
Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act, Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, Criminal Procedure (Intermediate Diets) (Scotland) Act, Tyne Tunnels Act.

Burma: Human Rights
Baroness Coxasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take further measures in response to continuing reports of violations of human rights against, and widespread suffering among, the Karen, the Karenni and other ethnic minorities in Burma.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Government are appalled by the plight of Burma's ethnic minorities. We are introducing a resolution on Burma at the UN Commission on Human Rights later this month, which will highlight this important issue. We took immediate action to condemn the recent attacks on Karen refugees in camps in Thailand and called on the Thai authorities to ensure adequate protection for refugees. The root problem remains the repressive military regime in Burma. We are using our EU presidency to secure renewal of EU punitive measures against the regime.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that robust reply, which I am sure will give comfort to many of those suffering at the hands of the brutal SPDC regime. Is she aware that only last week, while I was visiting the Karen and the Karenni people, I found evidence of yet further attacks on those living in camps on the Thai border since those mentioned in the excellent debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on 25th March? Those people are living in constant terror of renewed attacks, destruction of homes, loss of life and enforced repatriation. Will the Government request the Thai Government specifically to provide adequate protection for people living in those camps so that they will not suffer further death and destruction of their homes, to help with the reconstruction of homes before the onset of the rainy season, and to ensure that they are not subjected to enforced repatriation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in our appreciation of the work that the noble Baroness
748
does in relation to the minority groups whose interests she so assiduously and courageously pursues. She asked what the British Government's actions have been over these matters. The British ambassador in Bangkok has received assurances from the commander-in-chief of the Royal Thai Army and the head of the national security council that there will be no forced repatriation of refugees. Of course we will continue to monitor that closely. I am sure that noble Lords will also be interested to learn that Ministers visiting Bangkok have re-emphasised our concerns. Notably, my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn recently raised that issue with the Thai Interior Minister and the Deputy Foreign Minister, and received assurances from them about ensuring that the camps containing refugees are moved further away from the border. The British Ambassador has visited the camps. We remain in close contact with the Thai authorities, the UN High Commission on Human Rights, local NGOs, and others, about the refugee situation which, I can assure the noble Baroness, we shall continue to monitor.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I strongly support the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and I welcome the Minister's comments. Perhaps I may remind her that during the debate on 25th March she told the House that it would be only natural for the plight of the Karen and the continued violations of human rights in Burma to be raised at the ASEM meeting taking place in London last week. Will she tell the House what obstacles were placed in the way of her Majesty's Government to prevent those questions being raised at that meeting? What further action is being taken by Her Majesty's Government to ensure that those who are responsible for those atrocities are brought before an international court charged with abuses of human rights?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I said in the debate to which the noble Lord referred, there was no fixed agenda for the political dialogue section of the ASEM 2 meeting. Leaders and Foreign Ministers decided the issues which were to be discussed at the time of the meeting. I can assure the noble Lord that Burma was discussed. The Foreign Secretary encouraged ASEAN members to bring pressure to bear on the Burmese to improve the political and human rights situation. We shall continue so to do.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we have a particular duty to the Karen because they fought by our side with Force 136 during the war? Following that, I wished also to say what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has said much better, about the need to pursue ASEAN a bit more. But we are also members of the Security Council. Why cannot we ensure that the UN representatives can see and report as much as my noble friend and the noble Lord have been able to do? There seems to be a curious lack of public speaking by the UN about this. Lastly, since we are committed, I believe, to the destruction of landmines—they proliferate on both sides of the border

749
of Thailand and Burma—could not we at least start by doing that? That would give us access and be a practical thing to do. I am tired of nothing practical being done.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I acknowledged, when we discussed this matter in the debate a few weeks ago in which the noble Baroness took part, that we have particular responsibilities because of the historical relationship. For that reason, we have been pursuing those issues as part of the actions under the EU presidency. The noble Baroness suggested positive measures that we could take. The UK contribution to humanitarian assistance for the refugees on the Thai border, through the Burma Border Consortium, has been increased substantially in the past year to £267,000. We continue to press for access for UN observers in all places where there are human rights abuses or alleged human rights abuses. I can assure the noble Baroness that we will so continue to do.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is difficult to see how human rights can be restored to Burma until the present military regime has been phased out and there is a properly elected government under the prime ministership of Aung San Suu Kyi?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that the present military regime, which has recently changed its name, but, alas, not its nature, must be replaced and that there should be restoration of a democratically elected government in Burma. The United Kingdom Government maintain close contact with all pro-democracy groups, including Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy colleagues. Members of our embassy at Rangoon meet Aung San Suu Kyi at least once a month and other members of the National League for Democracy at least twice a month. The British Ambassador last called upon Aung San Suu Kyi on 15th March and he will, of course, maintain contact with her.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the Thai Deputy Foreign Minister was in Burma yesterday. Is it known whether any progress was made at the talks?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have no information about what took place yesterday. However, I assure the noble Lord that when I saw the Thai Deputy Foreign Minister I raised these matters with him. He gave me assurances similar to those received by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn about helping the refugees and concerns about moving them away from the border to safer areas within Thailand.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the Minister recognise the duration as well as the extent of the burden of caring for refugees which has fallen upon Thailand? It must be 20 years since her predecessor, Lord Geronwy Roberts, agreed from that Dispatch Box to grant £500,000 in aid to the Thai Government to alleviate the difficulties in
750
camps along the border with Pol Pot's Kampuchea. Can she look seriously at giving financial aid to that country while it is suffering an economic depression?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, UK aid is being given to help the ethnic minority and refugee communities. The United Kingdom Government have ensured that last year's aid was increased. Since 1992, the previous administration and the current administration have provided £630,000 in humanitarian aid for Burmese refugees in neighbouring countries. The important point is that aid is going to the neighbouring countries, including Thailand.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, what are the Government's contacts with Premier Oil in Burma?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, when we discussed the matter on 25th March, I was able to tell the House that my honourable friend Mr. Fatchett raised the issue with the chief executive of that company when he met him on 17th December.

Scottish Rural Schools
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstoneasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on the closure of rural schools in Scotland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister for Education has recently set out our view that no rural schools should be closed on financial grounds alone and that there must be a credible educational justification for closure. We have invited authorities to apply a test of proportionate advantage to any proposed closure of a rural primary school, demonstrating when the educational and financial gains outweigh any negative effects on the community,
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that interesting and quite helpful Answer. I am aware of the statement made by the Minister for Education on 21st March. Can the noble Lord confirm that there is a presumption against the closure of rural schools in Scotland? Can he say whether, when considerations other than financial ones prevail and a rural school under threat is kept open, financial resources must be made available by the local authority, which must make savings elsewhere, or whether the Government will make available additional resources?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the additional cost of provision in rural areas is recognised by the annual grant settlement for local authorities. It is for the local authorities to strike a balance in how the money available to them should be spent. That is their responsibility and their duty. The policy in Scotland is

751
that when the closure of a primary school means the transfer to a school more than five miles away the closure is referred to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, if and when schools must be closed, what is the Government's policy with regard to redundant schools? Our local school in the Scottish Borders was closed in 1964 and is still empty and unused.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am well aware that in many cases local schools after closure have been turned into major resources for the local community, providing, for instance, community facilities or small workshops and opportunities for local enterprise.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I agree with him that local authorities have a difficult task in balancing the financial and educational aspects of falling school rolls? Does he agree that it is essential that local authorities are allowed to get on with the job of removing from the system the huge overhang of empty school places? Does he further agree that we should indicate to the Liberal Democrat Party, which believes in devolution, that these matters ought to be left to local authorities?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his observation. Not only do I believe that the Liberal Democrat Party believes in devolution: it believes also in a strong and effective system of local government and local decision-making. I take the point which the noble Lord makes about the overhang of excess capacity. There are indeed quite proper savings which can be made and we are encouraging local authorities, in the appropriate circumstances, where the balance of argument is clearly in favour of closure and reorganisation, to adopt such policies.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, following the answer which the Minister gave to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is he aware that there are in fact many primary schools in Scotland—my own local primary school is, I am afraid, an example—which were closed many years ago and have not been put to any of the good uses which the Minister suggests?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I suggest that the noble Lord perhaps has conversations with local representatives to see whether a proper and appropriate use can be found for such buildings.

WEU and the Russian Duma
2.50 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbredeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they believe that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union should open a dialogue with the Duma of the Russian Federation with a view to engaging in a permanent relationship.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as an independent body, the Parliamentary Assembly of the
752
Western European Union takes such decisions autonomously. However, the Government would welcome initiatives by the assembly to improve its relationship with the Russian Duma.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is she aware that that question is currently before the political committee of the WEU so that the parliament of the WEU will be considering it actively in the immediate future? It would be helpful for WEU delegates to have guidance on the issue from the British Government. It would be helpful also to know the factors which the Government are taking into account in reaching that level of guidance.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware that the matter is being discussed, but decisions on how the assembly strengthens its links with the Duma, including more regular dialogue, are for the assembly. The assembly already has links with the Duma. Assembly members organised a joint seminar on European security with the Duma in Moscow in November 1996 and Duma parliamentarians attended a plenary session of the assembly in Paris in December 1997.
There are exchanges between the WEU and with Foreign Minister Primakov in trying to build that relationship. Of course Her Majesty's Government also have parliamentary exchanges which we hope indicate the general tenor of the relationship which we should wish to pursue.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, in view of what my noble friend said in relation to guidance for the parliamentary delegates to the Western European Union, perhaps I might ask whether the practice of Foreign Office briefing for the WEU and, indeed, the Council of Europe delegation still continues under the present Government as it did under the previous government, whereby, when the agenda was available for the plenary session, a Foreign Office briefing was given to the delegation which represented the British Parliament at both those organisations.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as far as I am aware, those relationships and arrangements have not changed.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord. Lord Ewing, are the Government following up the Birmingham Declaration of 1997 which was agreed under the British presidency at which the Permanent Council of the WEU was tasked to take forward relations with Russia and the Ukraine?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, yes, as the noble Baroness will expect. the Government are following up both bilaterally and through our presidency the undertakings made.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that it would be desirable if there were greater clarity about the purpose and position of the

753
WEU in the light of the changing situation regarding European security? Would it not be highly desirable to achieve that clarity before the appointment of the next secretary general?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that we are reaching a clearer understanding of the WEU functions. Those in your Lordships' House who have been taking an interest in the progress of the Amsterdam Bill, on which we have currently reached the Committee stage, and the Amsterdam Treaty will be aware that that treaty retains the principles which were established about the WEU in the Maastricht Treaty. It confirms also that the WEU will be the channel through which the EU can call on an operational military capability in support of its own non-military crisis management activity.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that, given the difficult circumstances of its birth and the continued threat under which it lives, the Duma will have need of all the contacts, discussions and clarifications it can have with all western parliamentary international assemblies, not only the WEU but also the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the North Atlantic Assembly? The further we go in that dangerous business of expanding NATO, the more it will need those contacts.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I am sure my noble friend would expect, Her Majesty's Government would not agree with his description of the expansion of NATO as dangerous or difficult. But he is right that we are in the business of building confidence. That was the reason behind the founding Act which your Lordships have discussed on previous occasions. All opportunities we have to build confidence not only between the Duma and the WEU but between the Duma and other countries and between the Duma and NATO are worthwhile undertakings which Her Majesty's Government pursue.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me in principle that dialogue between parliamentarians is generally good and should always be encouraged? Does she agree with me also that a core aspect of the Government's foreign policy is to support co-operation among European countries in order to enhance the political stability of our Continent as well as improving prosperity for all?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, yes, I can agree that it is important to raise confidence both at a political and a parliamentary level. The political links are strong. We can go back to the Queen's visit in 1994 and also the Prime Minister's visit in October last year. The Prime Minister and President Yeltsin talk regularly on the telephone. The Foreign Secretary visited Moscow last July; the Defence Secretary visited in November; and my right honourable friend Mrs. Beckett visited Moscow in April.
754
In addition, there are parliamentary links, as your Lordships will know. There are exchanges which include the visit of the then chairman of the Upper House, Vladimir Shumeiko, in May 1995. There have been many other instances of parliamentary visits which I could cite. A most useful suggestion was that put forward by my noble friend Lady Smith that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should hold a seminar on UK-Russian links in February of this year. That was attended by 30 UK parliamentarians and was generally thought to be a great success.

ERM
2.57 p.m.
Lord Barnettasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to join the exchange rate mechanism.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have no intention of rejoining the exchange rate mechanism.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I think I thank my noble friend for that Answer, which was not unexpected. I take it that my noble friend has seen the statement, with which I am sure he would agree, made by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade yesterday. She said that a major reason for the driving-up of the pound is not necessarily interest rates but rather not being a member of EMU. Therefore, in the circumstances, does the Minister not think it would be helpful to announce, once the pound is stable—I hope not before too long—that we have it in mind to join the ERM at least before the end of this Parliament if we have it in mind to join EMU at the start of the next?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether I accept my noble friend's summary of the speech yesterday of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade. But whatever she said, I agree with her. I believe that my noble friend is making a distinction, which I also do not accept, between rejoining EMU and rejoining the exchange rate mechanism. What we have said about rejoining EMU—which is the more important issue—is that we need a considerable period of sustained stability and convergence. That does not necessarily imply that we have to join the ERM in advance.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, will the Minister urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to make any hasty decision or any irrevocable commitment against joining the ERM? Do the Government not recognise that at the right time, when the pound is perhaps somewhat lower than it is at present, a decision to join at 15 per cent. below the then current rate might exercise a useful downward pressure on the value of the pound? Further, do the Government accept that, if they are to join a monetary union, there must be a link between the pound and the euro for at least two years?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of Exchequer has no

755
need of urging from me not to make hasty decisions. As to the issue of the precondition of the exchange rate mechanism before joining EMU, I hope that the noble Lord will agree that the important issues are price stability and the reduction of fiscal deficits. The exchange rate should be seen as the outcome of other economic policies. Under those circumstances, the exercise of sensible judgment by those concerned will include looking to that stability rather than to the formality of rejoining the exchange rate mechanism.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that before any permanent decision is taken there will be a proper referendum which will enable the whole country to give their opinion?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Question is about the exchange rate mechanism. I do not believe that we are committed to a referendum before that time. I believe that the noble Lord is referring to economic and monetary union. We have already made it clear that, before such a step is taken, the Cabinet and the Labour Party will make a recommendation to the people of this country through a referendum.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with the reported remark by the Governor of the Bank of England that the markets' current fears about the strength of the euro will to quite a considerable extent be allayed by the eventual announcement of the presidency of the European Central Bank and its getting down to work?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords; I am sure that the decision which will be taken on 2nd and 3rd May of this year will overcome some of the speculative fears which have been in evidence of a weak euro. That will help with the result which my noble friend anticipates.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the phrase, "at the right time", is very well worn and much used? Therefore, can he tell the House precisely what is meant by it and whether the circumstances "at the right time" are foreseen to be sustainable continually?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have spelt out what they mean by, "at the right time", on a number of occasions. Indeed, I have no hesitation in repeating it: we are looking for a period of sustained stability and convergence. Clearly that cannot be achieved overnight. However, at the same time, and as the noble Viscount will recognise, we see this as a matter upon which the people of this country should be consulted.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is it not the case that before we can join a single currency we have to be in membership of the ERM for at least two years? Alternatively, is that a condition which will be fudged in exactly the same way as was the convergence
756
criteria recently, which has caused the markets to view the euro as a potentially weak currency and which has led inevitably to an increase in the value of sterling?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is the noble Lord who uses the word "fudge", not me, about the recommendations of the Commission and of the European Monetary Institute. I prefer to think that when, for example, they recognised that the debt ratios of Italy and Finland were above those which were laid down in the Maastricht criteria, they were exercising sensible judgment.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is there not a danger that the Government's indecision over EMU will mean that the European presidency will end on a negative note? Therefore, would it not set the seal on that presidency if the Government felt able, before it ends, to make it clear that they seek to recommend British membership of EMU through a referendum before the next general election?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government are not being indecisive over EMU. Unlike the previous government, this Government have stated that they are in favour of membership of EMU in principle. Indeed, they have stated that there are no constitutional objections to our joining EMU if the economic circumstances are right, and have set out the terms and timescale over which such a decision might be taken.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—
Noble Lords: This side!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I am doing the best that I can, but I believe that it is the turn of the other side and then it will be our turn.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, as the exchange rate mechanism referred to in the Maastricht Treaty will disappear like a puff of smoke on 1st January 1999,
what possible relevance can it have to the question of
whether we adopt the euro?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reminder of the difference between what one might call ERM1, which was set up under Maastricht, and ERM2, which, as he rightly says, takes over on 1st January of next year. In place of either of those formulations, I should prefer to rely upon the evidence of the Bank of England, quoted in the report of the European Monetary Institute, which states that what we are looking for is a period of de facto sustained exchange rate stability. That is what lies behind the exchange rate mechanism formulae.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—
Noble Lords: Order‡
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry that there has been difficulty between noble Lords. However, as a result, the time allotted for Questions has now run out.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, between the two debates scheduled for today, my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the National Blood Authority. I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion to the Standing Orders indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification.

Social Security Bill
Lord Haskel: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham on the Order Paper. I should like to say a few words concerning the difference between this order of procedure and that used for the Committee stage of the Bill.
Noble Lords will recall that the order in Committee was necessarily complex. We arranged it so that clauses dealing with the same subjects could be considered together. However, we believe that such re-ordering is not essential for the Report stage. We hope that sensible grouping of amendments will enable the House to debate a wide variety of subjects covered by the Bill in a logical order. Our proposed order of consideration, therefore, is to deal with amendments as they occur in clauses taken in numerical order. The only changes will be in the schedules. They will be taken alongside the clauses to which they refer.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 7,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 8 to 12,

Schedules 2 and 3,

Clauses 13 and 14,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 15 and 16,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 17 to 80,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 81 to 83,

Schedules 7 and 8,

Clause 84.—(Lord Haskel.)

Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may just say that the Government are to be congratulated on sometimes learning from the Opposition.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee Report
3.8 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move that the Fourth Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be agreed to.
758
Moved, That the Fourth Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 93).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
The Committee has met and been attended by the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
1. Filming and Broadcasting in the House
The Committee agreed to co-operate with a proposal from BBC News and Current Affairs to produce a documentary on the work of the House. Subject to the satisfactory conclusion of negotiations on guidelines, the BBC will commence filming in the general areas of the House shortly after the Easter recess.
2. Message Handling
The Committee endorsed proposals to implement the message handling project. Lords may now be provided with pagers, voicemail facilities and a fully integrated message handling system will be in place by the end of the year.
3. Access to the Terrace
The Committee agreed to allow Lords staff to use the Terrace of the House during recesses and after 3 p.m. on non-sitting Fridays. This arrangement will be reviewed in the Autumn.
4. MEPs' access to the Peers' Guest Room
The Committee agreed to extend for the remainder of the Parliament the arrangement, first granted in 1991, whereby MEPs may use the Guest Room.
5. Works of Art Collection Fund
The Committee were informed that, following Treasury approval, the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee had agreed to increase the annual grant from the Works Services Vote to the Works of Art Collection Fund from £15.000 to £28,000 with effect from the financial year 1998–99.
6. Salaries of the Chairman and the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees
The Committee approved revised salaries for the Chairman and the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees with effect from 1st April 1998.
7. Staff of the House
The Committee agreed to make permanent the post of Senior Information Officer.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to make reference to a few items in the report. The first is item No. 1, headed "Filming and Broadcasting in the House". It is a particularly odd coincidence that this should arise in the week when the new schedules of the BBC come into operation—as regards this House, I believe they will come into operation after the Recess—which impinge upon the reporting of "Today in Parliament" and "Yesterday in Parliament". A large section of the public will be denied the reports that they have received in the past. There will be a halving of the audience for our proceedings and the proceedings of the House of Commons.
That will be the case in spite of objections and recommendations made by the House of Commons and, I believe, by this House that the arrangements we have had hitherto should continue because they have proved effective and popular. I believe that the new arrangements, which will not suit many people, are not only a slap in the face for Parliament itself, which will not be as well reported and whose views have been ignored, but also a slap in the face for those staff who over a long period of time have made "Today in

759
Parliament" and "Yesterday in Parliament" interesting and informative for the million or so people who have listened every day.
I believe that the BBC is treating Parliament, perhaps not with contempt but with near contempt. The proposal for a BBC documentary is not per se objectionable to me. If it were properly done I would welcome it, as I think would all Members of the House. But we want it properly done. We want the programme to show the real and essential role of the House in the work of Parliament and government, and the effort which is put in by all of your Lordships—virtually free of charge, if I may say so—with great dedication.
I make that point because, like other noble Lords, I have a long memory. I remember the awful programme made by Channel 4—a parody of the work of this House which is well respected throughout the country. The programme sought to mock the institution and its Members. I expect a better programme from the BBC than from Channel 4, but I hope that the Chairman of Committees will ensure that the programme reveals the real work of the House of Lords and its value to the community it serves.
My second question concerns paragraph 4, which is entitled,
"MEPs' access to the Peers' Guest Room".
The paragraph concerns a proposal to extend the arrangement first granted in 1991. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I am not suggesting that we should end the arrangement. It has existed for a fairly long time. However, I point out that those facilities are not available to Members of the House of Commons who, I feel, would occasionally like to use the facilities in the Guest Room. What reciprocal arrangements exist for this House when Parliament sits in plenary Session, or perhaps in other places in the European Union? That is a fair question to ask. I hope that I shall be given an answer. After all, the European Union has spent £670 million—of which £100 million is British taxpayers' money—to build a huge new complex in Brussels. It may well be that we could expect some reciprocal arrangements there. That £670 million perhaps puts into proper perspective the amount of money that is spent on these parliamentary buildings to maintain in proper order the great heritage of this British nation. I hope that my noble friend will be able to answer those two questions.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I wish to refer to the same item as my noble friend Lord Stoddart. Under the heading "Filming and Broadcasting in the House" I observe that the whole matter is subject,
"to the satisfactory conclusion of negotiations on guidelines".
I and, I suspect, other noble Lords would like to be informed of the result of the negotiations on guidelines, and to be informed fully as to the guidelines. I hope I shall be informed that proposals will not be implemented until the House as a whole has had the opportunity to consider these matters.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate but something that my noble friend
760
Lord Stoddart mentioned prompts me to rise. I believe he suggested that the facilities that we extend to Members of the European Parliament to access our Guest Room should also be extended to Members of the other place. We should bear in mind that those Members of your Lordships' House who were previously Members of the other place have access to the Strangers' Bar in the other place. That is not the case as regards those of us who are not former Members of the other place. I hope that the Chairman of Committees will consider carefully further extensions as regards access to our Guest Room for other parliamentarians.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I shall respond first to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, as regards access for MEPs. I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, a definitive reply on the question of whether there are reciprocal arrangements. However, I shall certainly inquire into the matter and let him know.
The noble Lords, Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord Bruce of Donington, asked about the filming. Your Lordships' committees which dealt with this matter—that is to say, the Administration and Works Sub-Committee and the Offices Committee—were conscious of the problems which arose over the Channel 4 documentary, "Cutting Edge", and the regrettable way in which that programme dealt with your Lordships' House. I believe that it caused considerable offence in all parts of your Lordships' House at the time. Being conscious of what happened then, your Lordships' committees were anxious to avoid any repetition.
As regards the invitation to BBC News and Current Affairs to undertake the documentary, we have nothing to do with the choice in that regard as that is a matter for the BBC; it is not, of course, commissioned by your Lordships' House. However, the BBC certainly appears to your Lordships' committees to have approached the matter in a responsible and serious way and with the intention of properly covering your Lordships' House. That is easy to say, but we need to make certain of it.
It is for that reason that your Lordships' committees decided that a series of guidelines should be agreed between any broadcasting organisation—the BBC in this case—and your Lordships' committees to ensure that the programme is carried out properly. Those guidelines are very strict. A supervisory group has been set up consisting of the Chief Whips of your Lordships' House—Government, Opposition and Liberal Democrat—and a representative of the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers. I too sit on that group. We are assisted by the Clerk of the Parliaments, by Black Rod, by your Lordships' Senior Information Officer, Mrs. Mary Morgan, and by David Batt, the Clerk to the two committees I have mentioned. It is the view of your Lordships' committees that, if any broadcasting organisation will not sign up to the strict guidelines laid down, facilities should not be granted.
There is no way in which we could stop a broadcasting organisation from doing any programme it chose to do, of course. However, if it wishes to have

761
suitable facilities to enable it to do the work better and properly, it must be on the basis of signing up to strict guidelines. The supervisory group which I have mentioned will make certain of that.
The broadcasting producer and his or her assistants will be escorted around the House of Lords part of the Palace of Westminster by Mr. David Batt. They will be accompanied by an officer of the House at all times. Mrs. Mary Morgan will herself take a close interest in the matter. I hope that that provides your Lordships with some reassurance. All who have been involved in these considerations believe that what is proposed is absolutely necessary to make sure that this time we are not let down.
On the question of access for MEPs, which revives a privilege granted by your Lordships previously, I shall bear in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, said about Members of another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, mentioned the question of comparative costs as between the new European parliamentary building and the House of Lords. That point is not referred to in the report and so, strictly speaking, I suppose I should not reply to it. However, since the matter has been raised and this may be the only opportunity for some time to refer to it, I sense that your Lordships would wish to give me a moment's indulgence to reply to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord was referring, of course, to the residence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I sympathise very much with what he said. I hold no brief for the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, nor indeed for any other Minister, nor, for that matter, for any Member of the Front Benches in your Lordships' House or for the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, of whose flock I am one, at least for the time being while serving your Lordships. However, I am bound to say that I believe that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has come in for a good deal of unfair and at times grotesque criticism from various quarters. In fact, I get the impression from a good many of the reports which I have read or heard that it was he who made the decisions about the refurbishment. Your Lordships well know that that is not the case. The decisions were made by the committees of your Lordships' House and were recommended to your Lordships on 30th July last year. As a member of those committees—in fact I chair the two that I have mentioned—I have begun to resent the fact that the credit has gone, not to the committees, but to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
The refurbishment has been splendidly done; I inspected it on behalf of your Lordships on Monday last. A criticism was raised that it was all being done in one go, and it was said in some reports that it was the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack who required that. That is not so. As a matter of fact, he was willing to have it done in stages. I must confess to your Lordships that it was I who recommended to your Lordships' committees—a recommendation subsequently endorsed by your Lordships—that the
762
work should be done all together, in one go. If the work had been done in two stages, it would have meant two lots of upheavals. It would have meant bringing in equipment on two occasions and taking it out on two occasions. It would have meant bringing in the workforce on two occasions and taking them out again. Your Lordships will not he surprised to know that I made the recommendation on the basis of expert advice from the Parliamentary Directorate of Works. It is obvious that doing it in one go costs less.
With regard to costs, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, perhaps I may say the following, which I wish your Lordships to be the first to hear. Although I cannot give a final figure, the overall cost of the refurbishment will be below the original estimate recommended to your Lordships on 30th July last year.
Perhaps I may make a final point with regard to the paintings. I do not know why the media have taken so long to get round to the question of paintings and other works of art in the residence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I felt privileged, with his approval, to make the announcement about the paintings to your Lordships on 30th July last year. Why it has taken the media almost half a year to latch on to that I simply do not know. When I was a broadcasting journalist at the BBC between 1957 and 1964 we took pride in getting our news out fast—commensurate with accuracy. It is not as it was in my day—
I believe that that is all I have to say. I feel much better now. To put it another way, as the late Mr. Gillie Potter said when I was debating with him in the University of London Union in 1954 and misguidedly interrupted his speech rather vigorously, "Well, that's better out than in". I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I apologise to the House for returning to this point, but may I take it from what the noble Lord said that the House will have an opportunity of approving the guidelines on the filming and broadcasting proposals outlined in paragraph 1? Can the House as a whole be given the particulars before the guidelines are approved?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, that is not the recommendation from your Lordships' Offices Committee. It has specially set up the group, the members of which I mentioned, to supervise the guidelines. The guidelines have to be negotiated. If the group fails to reach agreement with the BBC, there are other good, serious and responsible contenders who would wish to step into any shoes left vacant. I invite your Lordships to agree that these matters require some negotiation. I take the noble Lord's point. But it would be rather awkward to conduct negotiations of that kind across the Floor of the House. Knowing who is involved, I hope that your Lordships will feel confident that the matter will be dealt with in the way your Lordships would wish.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Millennium Dome
3.30 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovilrose to call attention to the proposed Millennium Dome; its cost, its position, its contents and its accessibility; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to start with the reflection—I do not think that it will make any of your Lordships uncomfortable—that much of the business of Government is deeply dull and extremely boring. That fact is a source of considerable discomfort to many of those who take part in it. I say that because they are very conscious of the appetite which prevails today for unceasing entertainment and amusement. That leads them to become very worried lest they themselves might be taken to be perhaps not quite as interesting as they would like to consider themselves to be.
There were some members of the past Administration who saw the coming millennium as something of an opportunity for a celebration. So keen were they to pick up this opportunity that they failed to spend any time considering the meaning of the millennium and coming to some conclusion. They seemed to treat it as a kind of super new year's day which called for a rather magnified version of the celebrations which normally take place on that day. They took little notice of the fact that that day is also an anniversary: the 2000th anniversary—whether or not it is accurate does not matter—of the birth of the Son of God, something of deep significance to Christians.
As a celebration of this particular day, they seized upon a filthy old site which they would clear up and cover with an edifice which would be a statement. I pause to express my interest in the way in which buildings now are permitted to make statements. All sorts of inanimate objects join us in making statements. If I may put it this way, with customary delicacy, not all of those statements are deeply interesting. But this building, which was to make a statement, was intended to reflect, to call attention to, the sometimes unrecognised capabilities which are so often dormant in our great nation. There was also the hope that in the wake of the statement there would also be just a tiny reminder of their own distinction.
A certain confusion about the significance of the date has covered the issue since. When the Labour Party was in Opposition, it trod very warily indeed. I thought that it was commendably discreet and very careful where it put its feet. It was obviously fearful that this celebration might bring new lustre to a government which it considered to be rather tired, and might go some way to obscuring its own startling and obvious merits.
In May 1997 a change took place. In Government, the mood gradually began to change. What the new Government had seen as sauce for a tired old Tory goose suddenly became a very welcome sauce for Labour's bright, new, sparkling gander. So the Government decided to go ahead. Again, they ran up against that difficulty to which I have already referred: that the date had another meaning besides just being a rather super new year's day. It was undeniably and rather
764
embarrassingly something of a Christian occasion. But governments are sometimes very careful; and they were very correct here. They feared that the celebration of a Christian occasion might be embarrassing to non-Christians. So they took a step in the right direction, but determined not to make anyone else feel uncomfortable. They promised what they called a spiritual experience. I really am anxiously looking forward to hearing from the Minister something of what he has in mind when he thinks or talks of a spiritual experience. If that spiritual experience is to be accompanied by having your socks blown off, then I think the noble Lord will be listened to with even more rapt attention than he usually is in your Lordships' House.
We are now three-quarters of the way to having a dome which is to be the centre-piece of the celebration. I think that it would be foolish to allow any implied criticism that I may have of the Government to flow over onto a building which promises to be a very remarkable one indeed. I think that it is permissible to pause and regret that the huge sum of money concerned has not been applied to some more permanent and lasting memorial. There are, after all, many other causes of which your Lordships are constantly reminded which could profit enormously by the application of such a volume of resources.
Massive resources have been devoted just to this one site. I think it is permissible to pause and express a word of regret along the lines that I have described. But it would be a waste of your Lordships' time to indulge in any prolonged lamentation. Omar Khayyám's "moving finger" has written and moved on, but the difficulty is that on this occasion it had some guidance from the present Government, with the result that much of what has been written is not easy to read. There are also some notable gaps and I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to clear them up this afternoon. It is rather unfair to remind noble Lords opposite of what they said, but perhaps I may pick one remark. In the course of asking a Question, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, with the delicacy that we all expect of him, mentioned at the end of last year the, "smell of an impending muddle". If I may put it this way, the same aroma is attacking my sense of smell at this moment. The smell of an impending muddle is with us all.
This debate gives the Government an opportunity to answer certain questions. Perhaps I may list them for the attention of the noble Lord. First, who, having the necessary experience and muscle, has full executive charge of the project? Secondly, will this huge sum which has been extracted from the people's pockets be enough? Alternatively, are we to learn in the event that because of what will doubtless be described as "tight budgeting" some vital items which were considered at one time to be necessary have been left out?
My third question is this: have the hoped for sponsors—who appear hitherto to have been rather shy—yet appeared? Is the site now clean and safe? May we have the Government's guarantee that no unpleasant substances will subsequently ooze from underneath it? Just as a matter of interest, I should be fascinated to know where and how the spoil extracted from the site

765
has been deposited? Is it entirely safe? It is just a little point. I wonder whether anyone has paid the landfill tax on that. Or have the ever vigilant Customs closed their eyes for once?
I have a further question of importance. Is this whole scheme going to be ready on time, including the Jubilee line on which so much depends? My next question is: is the building wholly proof against wind, fire and water? Is it soundproof against noises coming from outside? Perhaps the Minister will be able to comfort us too that the atmosphere of the dome gives rise to no problems or anxieties. Maybe the Minister should join us in giving a thought to the inhabitants of Greenwich who, I should have thought, face the prospect of total congestion. It is not an easy place to move around in ordinarily and with the invasion it will be very uncomfortable.
On the question of the contents, of which so little is known, we have seen pictures of a strange, unsexed human being gazing—rather surprisingly in the circumstances—at a child. But beyond that we have little knowledge of the contents.
I conclude with this question: has there ever before in human history been a building erected at such expense with so short a lifespan and with little or no knowledge as to who or what will be contained, accommodated, protected or sheltered within it? My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Montague of Oxford: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, on achieving the debate this afternoon and on the wit with which he made his points, some of which I shall address.
In this country we are very good at exhibitions. We are equally good at cynicism. I wish first to draw the attention of the House to what Queen Victoria wrote in her diary following the 1851 Exhibition:
"I never remember anything before that everyone was so pleased with, as is the case with this exhibition".
That followed the visits of 6 million people. The cynics of that time had ridiculed the idea. Again to quote, this time from the record of Asa Briggs, it was:
"an industrial exhibition in the heart of fashionable Belgravia to enable foreigners to rob us of our honour".
Public indifference was prophesied and financial failure.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, referred to political considerations. There were political considerations then. A political diarist wrote at that same time:
"To Disraeli, with both eyes fixed on parliamentary problems and prospects, it was a godsend to the Government—diverting public attention from their blunders".
In 1951 the Festival of Britain was to suffer similar birth pains and triumph. It was recommended by a committee in 1946 and immediately accepted by the Government. In 1947, Sir Stafford Cripps, President of the Board of Trade answered that it had been reluctantly decided to abandon the holding of an exhibition since it would involve largescale demands on labour and materials and would impede the progress of reconstruction. That did not enjoy a welcome from the
766
public. So in 1947, the Lord President of the Council, Herbert Morrison, announced to the House of Commons that there would be a festival and an exhibition. It would run for six months. This time 8.5 million people came to it. It was a great success. The then director-general of that exhibition was asked whether he could explain the triumph. He replied:
"The essence of a successful exhibition is that it should be unlike any that has gone before".
An exhibition should be synonymous with experiment, a once-in-a-century event.
That brings us to the exhibition we are to have in the year 2000. What a unique event it will be. I know, because I held the position on the Millennium Commission now held by the right honourable Michael Heseltine. I represented the opposition and I have been a party to all the decisions. Just imagine this building which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, rightly referred to as memorable. It will be equal in size to 13 Albert Halls or two Wembley Stadiums and as tall as Nelson's Column. It will be a truly remarkable building which I am sure throughout the year 2000 and thereafter will be a talking point throughout the world.
Why Greenwich? We considered many sites but were overtaken by the compulsion to bring back to society the use of 300 acres of land which was both derelict and contaminated. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that I am in turn sure that it is now properly decontaminated and that nothing will ooze from underneath. We will all be able to visit the site in great comfort.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said that there is some doubt about the content. It seems to me that the media are in some doubt; but the authorities are not. Great detail has been given as to the 13 zones into which the exhibition area will be divided. Time does not make it possible to go into detail on the zones, but all is decided and if the noble Lord and others care to study what is proposed they will be greatly impressed. There will be 13 zones combining to educate us all; to make us all think and to marvel. Let us remember that knowledge is power.
Is it a waste of money? The actual cost to lottery funds will be less than £400 million. That sounds a lot of money, but in the context of the millennium one must remember that around £4 billion is being spent. There will be great projects throughout the land. I shall not detail them all now; they are well known to those who live in various regions and can identify with the individual major projects, each of which will cost around £100 million. A question was asked in regard to the sponsorship money. It is forecast to be £150 million. Half of that has already been committed, so there is relief from that area.
In summary, how would I describe the forthcoming exhibition in contemporary terms? It is like the "Titanic" of 1998—not that of 1912 where everybody drowned, but the film that won 11 Oscars. I forecast at least 11 Oscars for this great exhibition.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing this subject in his usual inimitable, forthright and marvellous way. It was a tremendous speech, full of wit and other good things.
During the whole period of the conception and construction of the Millennium Dome there has been a constant stream of rumour, tittle-tattle and speculation. One of the reasons for that has been the unnecessarily secretive way in which the Government handled the project, even since 28th February. That was a better day, but it has all gone quiet since then. As a result of that, the media have had a field day.
That has had one result. Everyone has heard of the dome; news of it has even reached the far corners of the world. I understand that several of the delegates to the recent Europe-Asia conference asked to be taken round. Whether one loves it or hates it, the dome is a fact, and a very expensive one, as my noble friend so eloquently said.
The weather has so far been kind to the dome. I understand that 25 per cent. of the covering is now in place and none so far has blown away.
We have an established Church in this country. As my noble friend said, it will be the 2,000th anniversary of the birth of Christ. Yet the Christian involvement in the dome seems inadequate and somehow apologetic. The Lambeth Group and other committees should be using their collective imaginations to bring about a satisfactory resolution.
Public access to the experience is the key to the success of the whole enormous project. We are assured that London Underground has solved its Jubilee Line problems; that the extension will be up and running completely by spring 1999. That does not give much time. Let us hope that there is no more slippage because the deadline cannot be changed. Can the Minister say what will happen if the Jubilee Line is not ready or has teething troubles? Have the Government prepared any viable contingency plans to get 35,000 people—more of less—per day to Greenwich, or 70,000 if we are talking about pre-booked double sessions?
We have always known that the motor car will not be welcome at the dome; there is nowhere to put it. Yet millions of Britons use and prefer to use their cars for family outings such as a visit to the dome. There has therefore been much discussion as to where to put car parks. Quite rightly, every effort is being made to find suitable car park sites near railway and Underground stations. There is also the plan to use two large sites for car parking near the Thames—one north and one south of the river, east of the dome—and to use water buses on a shuttle service to the dome. That would complete a certain balance in the means of access to the dome. Many people will do anything to avoid going into London when they do not need to.
Incredibly, the "park and sail" scheme has now been shelved due to the lack of a bidder for the franchise for the shuttle to and from the car parks and the dome. I find that surprising and wonder whether conditions attached to the tender for the service make it uneconomic or whether there is some other reason. I call
768
upon the Government to put their weight behind finding a solution to that problem because it is extremely important.
I hope it will not be forgotten that large numbers of people, particularly foreign tourists in central London during the summer, will want to visit the dome on the spur of the moment. They will not want to book weeks or months ahead, and it is important that they are properly looked after.
I shall not keep your Lordships much longer. I should like to say that a great deal of public money has been spent on this project and a great deal more will be spent, whether it comes from the lottery or elsewhere. We must hope therefore that the millennium experience will be a success. We on these Benches want an assurance from the Government that it will not be exploited for political purposes. I ask therefore whether it is not now the time for the direction of the whole enterprise to be handed over to a non-political figure.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for initiating this debate. It is fair to say that on these Benches there have been a number of serious misgivings about the whole project; about its cost, its content and, on my part at least, the extraordinary hyperbole of language which has been used by Ministers in an attempt to persuade the country of the dome's importance. However, I firmly believe that it is now time to concentrate on how we can make the dome a success. If it is a success, it will bring considerable benefits.
Of those benefits, the least tangible but among the most significant will be on the mood of the country and the perception of the UK internationally. The dome is to be possibly the largest single millennium project in the world. It will have the capacity to excite and inspire people who attend. Anyone who visited the Expo in Seville will know how powerful such a spectacular exposition of information and ideas can be. It also has the capacity to send a signal to the world that the UK is not just a backward-looking heritage theme park but is self-confident and welcoming of new developments in science, technology and leisure.
As to the more tangible benefits which the dome will bring, my noble friend Lord Thurso will speak about tourism later. But I wish to concentrate on its potential for regenerating one of the most important derelict sites in London and also one of the most economically depressed areas of the capital. A decade ago, when I went to work for the property company Rosehaugh, it had just submitted proposals for redeveloping what was then called the Greenwich Peninsula. It was one of a number of consortia which had done so and it was doing so against the backdrop of huge activity by Greenwich Borough Council. But despite all that effort and the huge amount of interest in the area, until the dome, nothing of real substance was happening. Compared to this stagnation, the regeneration impact of the dome is really tremendous. In itself it will generate 7,000 jobs and the other plans for housing on the peninsula will create further short-term building jobs and leave a legacy of a

769
permanent and, it is to be hoped, well planned and executed new residential community with its attendant economic activity.
The longer term regenerative potential of the dome depends crucially, however, on its use after the year 2000. If, as I believe it can, a sensible use can be found for it, it should surely remain where it is and continue to provide jobs and economic activity for the Greenwich area. As for the longer term use, there will no doubt be many ideas coming forward over the next couple of years. But my own preferred option would be for a major convention centre to be housed within the dome. London lacks this facility. It has relatively few sites where such a facility could be provided and the dome clearly has the capacity to handle the largest conference gatherings on a world scale.
For those involved in running the dome, the next 18 months will be frenetically busy. For that reason, I do not support the idea that every aspect of their work should be subject to over-regular and over-detailed scrutiny by Parliament. The reputation of all those involved in the project hangs on its success and I am sure that this is providing a very significant motivating force for all those involved. However, looking again at the regenerative side of the issue, there are a number of questions which I believe it is appropriate to raise with the Minister at this stage and I hope that he will forgive me if I do so.
First, will the Government, in the context of the Section 106 agreement signed with Greenwich council on the development of local labour and training schemes, consider how young people, particularly those involved in the New Deal, might be given the maximum opportunity to become involved in the project? Secondly, will the Government agree in principle with the concept of the dome remaining in situ for the rest of its natural life? Such an assurance would make it more likely that sensible ideas came forward for its longer term use. Thirdly, are the Government giving active consideration to how the neighbouring Woolwich Arsenal site might be opened up, not just to those visiting the dome and in the short-term, but in the longer term how the development of that huge, underdeveloped site, with its historic buildings, might, with the Greenwich Peninsula and the dome, begin to fulfil its economic potential?
I repeat that I am keen to see the dome succeed during the millennium year but I am equally keen to ensure that it has an on-going significant economic impact and, while necessarily concentrating on the short-term, I would urge the Government to give serious thought now to the dome's longer term economic potential.
4.3 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for introducing this debate, which is particularly appropriate perhaps during this Holy Week before Easter. Like everyone else, Christians are divided in their opinions about the Greenwich Dome. If the Churches had been given the task of organising the nation's millennium celebrations,
770
which is not such a ridiculous idea when one thinks about the reason for it, we would have organised it differently, almost certainly without the assistance of a dome.
As far as the present project is concerned, many people feel that the enormous sums of money might have been far better spent in other ways, while others believe it would have been better to have sited the dome, if we had to have one, somewhere else. As a representative of the far east of England, I have some sympathy with that. It is irritating constantly to be fed with the impression that what happens in London is typical of what is happening everywhere else, which it is not; or else that what happens in London matters more, which it does not.
The Churches will of course be organising celebrations of the millennium nationwide, and linking with worldwide celebrations. But whatever our personal views, once the Government decided to go ahead with the dome, many have followed the lead of the Archbishop of Canterbury in working to ensure that the spiritual dimension of life in general, and the Christian faith in particular, was not only properly represented but became a real focal point of this project. Neither he nor any of us believes that the dome is the most important part of this country's millennium celebrations, but we are convinced that, because of the symbolic importance it has assumed, it is vital to get it right.
Whether or not that will happen remains to be seen. We are encouraged by the fact that the New Millennium Experience Company appears concerned to ensure proper liaison with the Churches through the Lambeth Group. We are grateful for assurances that space will be provided in the dome for people to pray, should they wish to do so, and that proper provision will be made for Christians and those of other faiths.
Very much more is needed of course. When a millennium is referred to in literature through the ages, it is almost always described as a "Christian" Millennium—the "First Christian Millennium" or the "Second Christian Millennium". It is a pity that the adjective has been dropped, because there is only one reason for the celebration of 2,000 years, as has been mentioned, and that is that it commemorates the birth of Christ. That is not triumphalism. It is a simple fact. Anything which marginalises the Christian faith in these celebrations is escaping plain reality.
We hope and expect that the Spirit Zone in particular will display something of the history of Christianity in this country. We hope that that history will be carefully and accurately presented, and will avoid repeating the kind of historical tosh journalists love to trot out; for example, that the Church of England was founded by Henry VIII because he wished to divorce his wife. I trust that Church historians will be consulted so that we avoid ecclesiastical versions of 1066 And All That.
We hope and expect that the Spirit Zone will clearly recognise the central contribution of our faith to our nation's culture and institutions, and will also encompass something of the diverse expressions of belief and spirituality in this land today. But we would not wish matters of faith to be restricted to the Spirit

771
Zone. The Christian Church, and most other faith communities, hold that faith touches on every aspect of life. We therefore hope that it will be recognised implicity and explicitly in every zone of the dome.
For example, in the Rest Zone the pattern of the seven-day week, which includes a day of rest each week, and of Holy Days or holidays has been substantially formed by the Jewish and Christian traditions. Sadly, this tradition, which is so important to the health of the community, has been seriously undermined by the relaxation of the Sunday trading laws. The millennium could just give politicians a chance to repent if they have the courage to do so.
In the Work Zone, Christianity and other faith communities have a great deal to say. The same applies in the Local Zone and, very importantly, in the Global Zone. We hope and expect that prominence will be given to Jubilee 2000 and the campaign to release third world countries from their crippling burdens of debt. This campaign, which was initiated by the Pope a long time ago, is uniting all Churches behind it.
Any lack of enthusiasm for the dome from these Benches should not be interpreted as a lack of enthusiasm for the millennium. On the contrary, Christians have the most reason to celebrate 2,000 years of history. We shall celebrate with joy, with thanksgiving for the past, with hope for the future and with some laughter as we continue to read dire predictions that the Church is in terminal decline. The same thing has been said for 2,000 years.
We look forward to visiting the dome, if it does not cost too much. We look forward to a visit which will be fun, where we will learn and where we will reflect. We look forward to a visit which will recall our Christian foundations and which will remind us that as human beings we are creatures of the spirit as well as of the body and the mind.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I start from the defining point of this debate and ask your Lordships to bear in mind, regardless of who is the Chief Executive of whom my noble friend was inquiring, that the sole shareholder in this company is Her Majesty's Government which cannot, therefore, shelter behind the executive board. This debate is not advice addressed to a commercial company by its potential customers; it is counsel offered to a national government by a House of Parliament.
The second point has already been made. The number 2000 is not a random number; it is a point of measurement. The point at which the measurement started was, and is, recognised universally to be the birth of Jesus Christ. Inescapably, therefore, what we will be celebrating when the number 2000 comes up on the calendar will be the birth and life of Christ; and by naming the dome for the millennium we have committed ourselves publicly—and internationally—to doing so. If, as I hope and expect, we also celebrate what we have achieved in the 2,000 years since then, either it will be in the light of that life and recognising how that life has shaped what has followed, or it will be (and will be seen
772
by others to be) a tatty and rather pathetic attempt by the Brits to hitch their domestic pretensions to something infinitely bigger which they do not quite understand.
The question of the identity of Jesus Christ therefore becomes very important. To some He is merely a hugely influential religious philosopher. That is a popular position because it absolves those who adopt it from further inquiry, let alone further thought, on the subject. They are not, therefore, faced with the conundrum that the claims He made were, and remain, so intellectually complete that they could not be made by a fool: and so staggering that they could only be made by a madman—unless they are true—and the more one learns about Him, the more completely sane He turns out to be.
Therefore it may be that there are some involved in planning this "experience" who only see Christ as an enormously influential, but otherwise ordinary man. They must, I think, be asked first to look at the huge influence He has had, through His followers, on the sweep of history—tragic where they have mistaken Him, as in the Spanish Inquisition, in the burning of our own martyrs and in the obscenities which the current talks are intended to bring to an end in Northern Ireland—and triumphant, when correctly understood, whether by St. Augustine, Mother Theresa or our own William Wilberforce. Then we must ask them to consider who is the Christ we are talking about, as recognised by all the saints and martyrs, a great army of reformers and myriads of common people down the ages, because this, inescapably, is what we are going to celebrate and what their plans, therefore, must reflect.
It will save time if they look at the very first few verses in St. John's Gospel, in which they will read,
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by Him: and without Him was not any thing made that was made".
Only a few verses further on they will find this Word, this creative utterance of God through whom the whole universe and all within it was created, identified as Jesus Christ:
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us".
I hope that they go on to read it all, but it is in the light of that knowledge that the whole civilisation of the Western world has developed. The noble Lord has already said that knowledge is power. That knowledge is power and the noble Lord, Lord Montague of Oxford, might take note. When subsets of that civilisation have attempted to stifle that knowledge, as in the Jacobin state in revolutionary France and the communist state of mid-20th century Russia, it has sprung up behind them when they fell, as flowers spring up after drought.
The recognition of Christ as Creator really does mean that recognition of Him cannot be tucked away in a single corner, or zone, however effectively it may there be demonstrated, as the right reverend Prelate has said. His claims, which we, inescapably, shall be celebrating, are not merely sectoral, they are not merely national, they are not even merely global—they are universal. in the strictest meaning of that word. It will not be enough, therefore, even to have recognition in one part of the dome, even if that part is the centre. There must be an

773
overarching theme that embraces the whole. It need not be aggressive—His appeal never has been aggressive—so it need not offend those of other faiths. They live in His universe and should be welcome in the dome, but it must be universal. That must be an essential part of the planners' brief.
But, of course, that is not the whole of Christ's claim which we shall, inescapably, be celebrating. As they will discover, when they read on in that Book, He claimed—and to the satisfaction of millions (not all of them fools or suckers)—that He had turned physical death from a blank terminus to the glorious, triumphant and joyful beginning we shall celebrate next Sunday, for every single human being that cares to accept it.
But—and this also they must recognise—the road to that victory with Him cannot be plotted on profitable balance sheets, material goods, wealth or self-advancement. If those are our prime objectives, we are going the other way. His way puts material wealth and power at the bottom of the list and not at the top. By all means let us celebrate material success, but we can only celebrate it, in this context, neither as the master nor as the objective, but as the servant of mankind.
If the overarching recognition of Christ is to be a symbol, such as the Cross, His universal presence should be recognised by an exaltation, not of conquest and profit, but of service. The zone which caters for things spiritual must recognise the Christ who acted out what it meant to be Lord and master by taking off his coat and washing His followers' feet, and who acted out kingship by accepting an agonising and humiliating death for the sake of the human race. Beyond that, as a faint reprise of that theme, there really should be space in every sector to show how ordinary people, not geniuses, not generals, but ordinary people, can and do spend great parts of their lives in working for the good of their neighbours and of mankind.
If it does not contain both general and particular recognitions of the person of Christ in some such ways as these, it will not be Rule Britannia or even Cool Britannia, but Fool Britannia exhibiting itself in the dome.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, for promoting and providing this debate which gives us an opportunity to express our views about the Millennium Dome and perhaps to say something about the wider issues, the thought and discussion of which prompted the previous speaker.
I was one of those who initially felt that the Government might have made a mistake. I was one of the majority who, like the weekend press, is constantly carping. But once a decision had been taken I felt—rather like the noble Lord, Lord Newby—that it was incumbent on me not just to find out as much as I could about the venture but, more importantly, to do whatever I could to make it a success. I want that success, not just for us as citizens of the United Kingdom, but in
774
order to send a message in the widest possible sense and, yes, even to make a statement, that the rest of the world can share.
I am one of those who believes that the spirit moves in a whole variety of different ways. Indeed, even buildings make statements. To me that is what the Statue of Liberty does. It is not just for the citizens of the United States, but for the world. That is what the statue of Christ does for me in Rio de Janeiro. That is what the Holocaust exhibition in Jerusalem does for me and for many people.
Like it or not, the dome will make a statement. I should like that statement to be important in material and, even more so, in spiritual terms. I visited Greenwich with Members of the other place, many fearful of their constituents' feelings and views about the dome, because there is a good deal of criticism. I urge those noble Lords who have not yet visited the site to do so as soon as possible. If they do they will receive many of the answers to the questions that have been posed, as my noble friend Lord Montague pointed out. Many of us were greatly impressed by what we saw and by the plans that we had an opportunity to examine. There is a good deal of work still to be done; and there are more questions to be answered. But the dome will provide significant benefits in material terms for the inhabitants of Greenwich. There will be business development, new jobs, homes, public transport infrastructure, a cleaner environment than ever before, tourism, education and training, culture, and a host of other related events.
I trust that the dome will provide a legacy. To deliver that within the timescale will not be easy. We should do everything in our power to ensure that it is delivered on time and that it is a success. We have a fine heritage and culture but we also have downsides. At present we have a cultural problem in the form of an unwillingness to take risks and a lack of entrepreneurial spirit. I believe that that is linked to our failings in education, teaching skills and training. I refer here to all of the Churches. I am a member of the Anglican Church. In all our different ways we are endeavouring to put this right. We must not be diverted. Scepticism and cynicism must be confronted. I view today's debate in a positive sense as part of that process. I hope that it will assist us to meet the tight timetable and demonstrate to the world our refound confidence and innovative spirit.
I return to my major theme: spirit in the widest possible sense. I join the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich in his appeal. Although the dome may not be the centre of all the events for the Church of England, certainly it should be the centre of events for many people in this country who are not of our faith. It is very important that we and the rest of the world are seen to be celebrating the birth of Christ and beyond that the spirit of God regardless of faith.
Fashions and customs of the world go by but fundamental virtues are eternal. I hope and pray that from within the dome is radiated something to be shared with the rest of the world irrespective of faith: honesty, purity, selflessness, love, gratitude and, for all of us, humility.
4.24 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I welcome this debate on the millennium and am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton for giving us this marvellous opportunity to call attention to an issue which, although discussed at great length, still seems to be a little unreal. The construction is real enough. It is quite breathtaking in its impact on the neighbourhood. Certainly, one cannot miss it if one travels to London City Airport. I choose the word "breathtaking" carefully. The sheer size of it and its massive intrusion on the landscape take my breath away. No matter what is said about the dome in this debate, it is here to stay and, even if we wished to, we could not stop it now.
I simply make two points in this debate. The first is the risk of creating a rift between those in the population who appear to be regarded as part of the dome's natural audience and those who are likely to feel excluded. My second point relates to the hope, already expressed during the course of this debate, that the dome will reflect in a significant way the reason for the celebration of the millennium; namely, the birth of Jesus Christ.
The Government came to office with a wish list of how it wanted to be a government of all the people. Social and any other form of exclusion would not have any place in the Government's agenda. However, there is a significant feeling—I do not put it any higher than that, although many do—that unless one is of a certain political persuasion, of a certain age group or subscribes to certain lifestyles, one is almost a non-person. Cool Britannia, Powerhouse, children as ambassadors for the day and advertising for ambassadors in our major embassies are all new ideas; but all of them exclude a huge body of people.
When the plans for the interior of the dome were announced, the inference, rightly or wrongly, was that unless one was under 40 and had lively and inquisitive kids, one would not be interested in, nor catered for by, the millennium extravaganza in Greenwich. I sincerely hope that that is not correct. Let us not forget that the dome is being financed by lottery money. Punters on the lottery are a very wide group. It is being financed by taxes and by shareholders' money through those companies which are donating funds to the dome.
The Millennium Dome should be universal in its appeal, and I look to the Minister to tell me that it will be. It may be that the dome has not yet been marketed properly to the potential audience. Conferences have been held up and down the country; but have the attendees been handpicked? I was not aware of such conferences until I read the Government's response to the Second Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee of another place in Session 1997–1998 (Cm 3886).
I turn to my second point. It is appropriate to recall, as has already been said several times, that we would not be celebrating anything were it not for the fact that for the past almost 2,000 years everything has been dated from the birth of Jesus Christ. The monk Dionysius was the first to calculate the years from the birth of Christ. He was urged to do so by the Byzantine emperors who realised that their destiny was in the
776
hands of God, as kings and rulers have realised ever since, right through to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. We would have no reason to celebrate and build a massive dome unless Jesus Christ had been born, died and risen again almost 2,000 years ago.
When we look at the edifice that has been chosen as the single most costly and gigantic expression of specific celebration of the millennium there is comfort in the fact that the shape of the building is a dome. The dome has been a symbol of the heavens since time immemorial. The Romans placed domes over their mausoleums to remind the populace where the dead had gone. That was adapted by the Christian Church. We have a marvellous, permanent dome—it is likely to be a good deal more permanent than the one at Greenwich—at St. Paul's Cathedral, just a short distance from here, which acts as a constant reminder of the national faith in Divine Providence as revealed to us through Jesus Christ.
No society has ever survived without firm roots in the supernatural. Of course, this applies to all religions. Here, I venture on to difficult ground. There are many hidden bumps and hollows where I can trip. I respect religions other than Christianity and recognise common ground with them, but the culture of this country has been Christian-based for some 1,500 years. We must ensure that that message is loud and clear in everything that we do to celebrate the millennium. The millennium brochure states that the dome will contain a zone entitled the "Spirit Level". I am sorry; I believe it should be the "Spirit Zone"—that was a Freudian slip. I quote the following:
"The formative influence of Christianity in the history of the western world will be recognised as will the presence of other religious beliefs".
The reason for celebrating the millennium is Christianity, not other religious beliefs. By all means have a section which deals with religious beliefs in this country but Christianity should be given special recognition.
The noble Lord the Minister and I have had exchanges on this quite frequently since the idea of the dome was first mooted. I respect his views as a member of the Humanist Society, and he has no objection to my saying that. He respects my views as a professing and practising Christian. What I want, desperately, to achieve is an agreement from him that because of the reason for celebrating the Millennium—to reiterate, a celebration would not exist were it not for Jesus Christ—Christianity should be the single most important focus of the dome. I very much like the suggestion made by the right reverend Prelate that each of the 13 zones should have a Christian input.
In this most sacred week of the Christian year we should be making the strongest possible case for incorporating a huge cross at the entrance to the dome

777
so that everyone who enters is aware of the real reason for celebration. The suggestion that the Spirit Level—is it the spiritual level, spirit level or Spirit Zone?
Lord McIntosh: Actually, my Lords, it says, "Spirit Level", but the noble Baroness is right in saying that it ought to be Spirit Zone.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, the Spirit Zone will depict our spiritual heritage, and that is fine. But it is not enough. An exhibition within the dome can be visited or not visited on a "pick-and-mix" basis and most visitors might not even visit it. But every visitor has to go through the entrance, and it is there that I would want to see the symbol of our Christian heritage. The millennium offers us a new opportunity to return to our religious background, and I hope that the dome can be an outward and visible symbol of that.
In party political terms, this side instigated the dome and now that side is entrusted with the task of seeing it to completion. The arguments of whether we should or should not have a dome are irrelevant and time-wasting; but we have a superb opportunity to influence the manner in which the dome is used to continue the Christian tradition of this country.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, with the usual vanity of old age, I still picture myself as someone who throughout his life has welcomed the new, tried without success to get institutions to reform themselves and enjoyed putting drawing pins on the seats of the pompous and the mighty. And when the National Lottery was set up I spoke in the House in favour of giving a tranche of money to celebrate the millennium. But when I am asked to praise the dome, I do find myself in great difficulty. So I expect that I am yet another old curmudgeon incapable of empathising with the generation now in power.
I do not agree with those who say that the money would be better spent on the National Health Service or better education—those two insatiable suppliants, like the poor, are always with us. But I do think it is fitting that our country should make a statement about the future: indeed a permanent monument to itself. In France, every president, like the Roman emperors, commemorates himself. There is the Centre Pompidou, which was designed by the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, or La Défense for M. Giscard D'Estaing, or M. Mitterrand's third Opera House at the Bastille. Germany is rebuilding the old centre of Berlin to celebrate reunification. What have we got? We hoped to be singing an oratorio but instead we have a gig.
We got more than that over 40 years ago. The Festival of Britain had its gimmicks, like the Skylon that symbolised nothing, and there were other temporary landmarks which were later destroyed. But the festival had a real theme. It was centred upon the Festival Hall and the promise of galleries, theatres and concert halls to come and which now fill the South Bank. During the war there emerged a passion for reading and enjoying the arts, and Keynes's creation of what became the Arts
778
Council was the bureaucratic expression of this desire to respect and encourage the arts: indeed, modern art. That was coupled with hostility to the old guards' philistinism and a determination to get rid of anachronisms like the Lord Chamberlain's censorship of the theatre.
The festival was a lot of fun, but it also had a purpose and a message; and so indeed 100 years previously had the Great Exhibition. The theme of the Great Exhibition in 1851 was domestic peace, British trade and British products and technology. Paxton's Crystal Palace in Hyde Park was so admired that it was re-erected in south London. Can the Minister tell us: will it be possible to re-erect Lord Rogers' dome and, if so, where might it be? Surely, considering the expense of designing and erecting it, it would be deplorable if in the year 2001 it was demolished and sold for scrap.
Will the Minister today be able to lift a corner of the veil to reveal some of the mysteries that the public will see inside the dome? I ask because every revelation so far makes one fear that the contents are going to be an extension of Disneyland. The visitor, it is said, is going to move from what is called "an experience" on to the next "experience". I do hope that the Minister will be able to dispel the impression one gets from the media of infinite triviality. For instance, we have been told that there will be a Christian dimension within the dome; but what form is it going to take—a tabernacle for each branch of the Christian faith—or will it be, as I rather hope from what the right reverend Prelate said, an historical survey of 2,000 years of worship and doctrinal development?
That having been said, I feel it is only in our cathedrals and our churches that the great expression of Christian welcome and thanksgiving for the millennium should take place. It does not seem to me good enough for the Government to repeat that the dome is to be a symbol of "New Britain", "Cool Britannia" and all the other slogans which have now become clichés. My mind goes back to the time of that other great cliché, when Britain was to be transformed by the white hot technological revolution. It is too much like the "I'm Backing Britain" campaign in 1968. The other day Mr. Francis Wheen reminded us that the most memorable suggestions among the 100 cranky suggestions for helping your country were then that children should agree to forgo milk at school and adults should drink British mead. What does the Prime Minister expect the Panel 2000 to come up with? The comparable committee which was formed 30 years ago to boost Britain came up with zilch.
I hate being a wowser. I hate the role of "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells". I sympathise with the Prime Minister's desire for informality, for openness and to override class and ethnic distinctions. But the case that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, deployed against the dome doing anything to give effect to these desires and to illuminate the future was certainly devastating. Yet I hope that he and I are going to be, despite the omens, surprised and delighted when the day dawns.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, upon my way here this afternoon I stopped at the John Simon Hair Salon at the other end of the Palace of Westminster. That. incidentally, is a facility available to all Members of this House, whether hereditary or life peers, in answer to a point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I asked the young lady who was cutting my hair whether she had ever been to Greenwich to see the Millennium Dome being built. She said that she had. I asked her what she thought about it. She said, "Wow, amazing!". Like the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, I recently visited the dome with my wife. My feelings, too, were in the "Wow, amazing!" category.
Those inverted spider legs pointing towards the sky have the potential of being part of a remarkable building. The newly opened visitor centre was impressive. In the visitor centre we were told of the range of things that there would be available to look at and discuss in the Millennium Dome. For example, "Where in our solar system would human beings be likely to be living by the end of the next century?". What would be the role for oil, now seen as a great environmental pollutant? What would be the role for oil in transport in the next century?". Those are intriguing subjects.
It is clear, too—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, on this—that the building of the dome is a great spur for the rehabilitation of Greenwich itself. I have long thought that with the Naval College, the Maritime Museum, the Painted Hall and the observatory, Greenwich has the potential to be the London rival to Versailles, which so far it never has been. Of course, transport by railway, tube and river has to be developed. That will come as the dome takes shape.
But I agree with the worry expressed by my noble friend Lord Peyton and the noble Lord, Lord Annan, about the temporary nature of the structure; it is ephemeral, and unlike what was done in 1851 when, after the Crystal Palace Great Exhibition, the great museums in South Kensington were built, or the exhibition in 1951 which gave birth to the buildings on the South Bank, the dome will make no permanent contribution to the advance of Britain.
I agree, too, that the Government seem to be dangerously absorbed in the quick message—the ephemeral, the strapline, the 10-second soundbite and the "Cool Britannia" message rather than in the content. I have no wish to be a killjoy. I think of the £100 billion party there will be around the world during the year 2000, but what at the end of the day will be available? The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is looking at me—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would care to move to another microphone.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, is that better?
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I will shout. I am very sorry if my precious words have gone
780
missing. I was saying that I have no wish to be a killjoy, but I fear that at the end of the year 2000 about £100 billion will have been spent around the world and there will be little to show for it except for a hangover.
In that context, I was struck—again this goes back to something said by the noble Lord, Lord Annan—by the piece of paper I received about Panel 2000 from the FCO just the other day. What are the emphases behind Panel 2000?
"To produce a strategy for the public presentation of Britain worldwide … to review, and where necessary. modernise the instruments … for projecting Britain overseas; to engage Government Departments … in promoting the same messages: to modernise the style and means of the FCO's public communication".
That is all fine as public relations, but where is the beef? Where is the real content? I hope that from now on the Government will concentrate less on the spin and more on the ongoing substance of what can be done with the millennium lottery money to ensure positive progress in Britain.
When I was Minister for the Arts when the millennium concept was started, I was keen on the idea that it should concentrate on our island's story. I thought that our precious waterways could be done up and our canals restored to provide cheap transport. Riverside warehouses could be repaired so that they could be used as video sites. New housing could be built on the brownland near our harbours. At the same time the appropriate sports could be developed: fishing, sailing, canoeing and so forth.
The idea was not favoured by the Millennium Commission, and, of course, as my noble friend Lord Peyton said, the finger of time has now moved on. Perhaps I may put a second thought. I hope the Minister will not mind if I take a further minute as I was more or less silenced for a minute or two.
My second thought is that the millennium lottery money should continue but that it should be used to develop programmes for Food for All in the 21st century, because it is surely extraordinary to think that, as we approach the new millennium, 750 million people go hungry in a world where food is plentiful. Surely there could be no greater challenge for the millennium than the transformation of agriculture in a way which stresses conservation as well as productivity. We should design "better" plants and animals, develop alternatives to inorganic fertilisers, improve soil and water management and enhance earning opportunities for the poor in the least developed countries.
If we in the rich countries do not do that, the numbers of poor and hungry will grow to perhaps another 2.5 billion in 25 years' time. If we play a creative part, we will have done something remarkable. We should remember Christopher Wren's son's words about St. Paul's Cathedral:
"Si monumentum requiris, circumspice".
The Prime Minister or Mr. Mandelson will never use those words about the dome, however much fun it is. But it would be a different story if Britain were able to help solve the interconnected problems of poverty, hunger and environmental degradation. The Government could then use those words.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I do not know what happened to the last speaker. I wear a deaf aid and I had a loud noise in my ear. We are debating the Millennium Dome at Greenwich. It reflects time. We have had the Christian religion for 2000 years. I would not like to argue about whether Christ was a man or divine. We are talking about religion in an historical context. I wonder how many people there are who have been persecuted by those of the Christian faith? If we are to be honest, a very great many. That is a matter of belief and faith. We should be honest. We do not want the dome being used as a method of propagating a certain religion. If we examine that religion and its effect on our civilisation we find that it is not good. After all, martyrs were burnt at the stake; for instance, Joan of Arc. People were crucified by religion. One of them, our so-called originator, was crucified by those of another religion.
We cannot continue to talk about the contributions which the Church has made. Some of the finest contributions made in our civilised world have been made not by Christians but by those who were condemned by Christians. That is amazing. It is ironic that the scientific discovery—the median line—which firmly established the fact that the world was round and was opposed by the Catholic Church was made in Greenwich.
I wish to turn to the history of the dome. The decision to build it was confirmed in June last year, but it had already been taken by the previous government. I do not know why those people who are critical of the present Government do not direct their forces at the previous government. This Government have continued the policy of the previous government and we did not bother about it.
The point that is being missed relates to the moral theme; the reason why the dome is being built, who is paying for it and what we are doing about it. I expected to hear the Church castigate the Government for the introduction on a huge scale of one of the most pernicious and evil practices in our world. I am talking about gambling. The money for the dome—£400 million, £500 million or probably £1 billion before it is finished—will come out of the lottery. Whose money goes into the lottery? It is not the fat cats who go down to the shop on the corner to buy a ticket. No, they are not the people who buy tickets. Those who buy tickets are the deprived people in our society who really believe that it will get them out of their dire straits and allow them to enjoy the kind of life enjoyed by the so-called richer people.
That is the real moral issue that we face. It is the most obscene thing I have heard, because we are spending millions of pounds on a building of this kind when at the same time the income of poorer people is being cut. I do not care whether those incomes are being cut because this government accepted the spending policies of the previous government. The proposal is obscene, evil and it should be stopped. The sooner we realise that this so-called civilised society about which we like to boast, and about which we would like to boast in the
782
new millennium, has some very immoral trends which do not give a damn, the better. I believe that the dome personifies the ultimate materialism—materialism gone mad—started by the first Prime Minister of the previous government and now, I am afraid, being made almost permanent by some members of this Government.
4.53 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil for initiating this debate in his own particular way. I beg leave to doubt whether life was dull in his Ministry. The word "dome" derives from the Latin domus: a house, a home, a stately building and also a cathedral church. Like my noble friend Lord Peyton, I think it not unreasonable to expect some reference to our Christian tradition in the great new experience that awaits us in the dome. I suppose we should be relieved that, according to Mr. Mandelson:
"One of the three sectors of the outer ring—the doughnut, as I call it—is about our bodies, our minds and our souls and there will be opportunities for all faiths and none to find their sense of spirituality reflected in the experience".
I hope that we shall not find this being expressed solely by rock groups, led perhaps by Mr. Prescott's water-pouring friend, or by a Heaven disco, or by some suitably multicultural raggas.
So far, the structure has put money in the pockets of German and American contractors. We have not heard about what it has done for major British contractors, but I hope that we will. I hope that it will be used to demonstrate British innovation and success.
I warmly welcomed the Millennium Commission's choice in February 1996 of Greenwich as the site for a Millennium Exhibition based on the theme of time. The borough of Greenwich has been campaigning for this since 1962 and the hoped for outcome is to be 7,000 new jobs, where there has been the worst economic decay in London, and 10,000 new homes. Derelict and contaminated land will be reclaimed, the water front will be developed, part of Greenwich will have World Heritage status and, not least, there will be for the first time good transport links.
All that is excellent, but there remains a question. What is the value of the dome? At least the Government have moved from accepting the extraordinary decision of their predecessors that the dome would operate for only a year—that is, until the year 2000—to keeping their options open and deciding in the year 2000 on its future use.
What is the point of the dome, which covers, incidentally, 50 of the 100 acres of the millennium site? Mr. Mandelson told the Culture, Media and Sports Committee in December 1997 that when the new government came in:
"We were concerned about the apparent absence of any idea of what would go in the Dome, the contents of it. The thing was being constructed, but it was very much a blank sheet".
That, I suppose, should not surprise us since, as my noble friend Lord Peyton said, the bland optimism of its beginnings must be remembered. I suppose that giving birth to the dome was as much as could be managed.

783
Now Mr. Mandelson tells the Committee that he was saying to himself:
"Crikey, this is going to be absolutely dramatic. It is going to be fantastic. [There will be] multimedia technology—an element of live performance—10 different zones of interactive attraction which will really engage people, involve them, stimulate them".
He goes on:
"When you move on to art and sport, and everything else that is new, you will be going through a vast, huge in scale, interactive attraction which comes under the working title 'Play at Surfboard, the new 21st century sport"'.
Incidentally, the working title for the interactive exhibit is,
"Qualify for 20 jobs you never knew existed".
Presumably, the interactive experience will include climbing in and out of the giant hermaphrodite's kidneys.
I hope that there will be plenty of examples of brilliant British information technology, artificial intelligence and so on, but I confess to a nasty suspicion that, although the theme is supposed to be time—the actual title is "Time to Make a Difference"—and one might have expected some of our not unremarkable historic achievements as a nation to be part of the Millennium Experience, we shall find that the clock starts only with Cool Britannia 1997. The dome will not be Byron's,
"ambitious airy hall, the dome of thought, the palace of the soul",
but a modern structure apparently composed of a drum and a doughnut: a display area for the Spice Girls, no doubt, or for even cooler successors in the pop world, with perhaps a tunnel of love for BSkyB. The trouble with cool events is that they pass their sell-by date a good deal faster than the more durable events of a national history.
Of course there has to be a major historical attraction at the centre of the new development, but I confess that I share the reservation of the committee about the premise that there will be 7 million visitors a year. The entrance price is said to be "not cheap" and there will be no parking except for coaches. As families tend to travel by car, where will those from outside London park before they transfer, we hope, to the Jubilee Line? I do not know whether the committee has yet seen, on a confidential basis, the contingency plan or the details of the all-important private sponsorship. We are told that those sponsors exist, but not how much they are prepared to give.
I do wonder how the essential action by the British Tourist Board, British Airways and the other organisations which will need to publicise the tourist attractions of the dome can be achieved in time for the millennium date. However, in fairness, I must say that I have been told that they can happily wait until October, surprising as that seems.
Not least, there is an alarming plethora of committees, ministries, focus groups, action groups and so on all involved. Incidentally, I wish the commission very well. We need it to succeed. I suppose that Mr. Mandelson is in the driving seat. Has he a road map; or perhaps I should say a stopwatch which works? Greenwich had a clear vision. Mr. Mandelson's vision seems to me to
784
be typical of the now familiar incoherence of the spin doctors in which the word "about" crops up with painful regularity.
I can only hope that Mr. Mandelson will heed the words of Richard von Weizsacker who said:
"Those who close their eyes to the past become blind to the present".
Returning to Cool Britannia, the most probable formative influence on the contents of this £0.5 billion dome, did I tell your Lordships that the word "cool" also means a tub of butter—281bs to be precise?
5 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton for his introduction, in his own inimitable way, of this debate. I am concerned in this debate by the idea that a recognition if not a memorial of an event such as the arrival of the second millennium should be of such an ephemeral nature, however large it may be. Indeed, it is an enormous and impressive engineering structure. After all, the arrival of the millennium is an event of enormous significance not just in the Christian sense—and here I accept that the date is symbolic rather than accurate—but it is also an event of enormous importance in the secular sense.
It is to be an example of our achievements and inventions, of the progress of society and of our influence in the world at large. Those are indeed of immense importance and we can be truly proud of them. Why then do we deliberately raise a temporary structure which has a shelf life of only 25 years? Something like an exaggerated Bedouin tent, however close it may be to the meridian, is surely an unacceptable eyesore and irrelevant to the great symbolic event we are to celebrate. If one does accept that symbolism, surely the dome is not only inappropriate, but it is also grossly impertinent.
On the other hand, it could be regarded as an excellent example and perhaps a reflection of the impermanence of our society. But perhaps that is something that we should not wish to celebrate too much.
But that is on the negative side. It is right that we should celebrate the great inventiveness of our nation and perhaps it is a little ironic that we should be making such a fuss over a replacement for the hoover. However, we have developed the most advanced legal and social system which has been the model for new nations throughout the world for the past 200 years, while, incidentally, Europe in general has been struggling with a top-heavy Napoleonic system which it is now struggling to perpetuate.
Our efforts have been helped and guided by our Christian faith, a faith which is not entirely reflected for all of us by the Anglican Church. However, accepting that we are in a constant state of change, it is not surprising that Mother Church itself is having difficulties with the speed of change which is perhaps reflected in the sizzling speed of advance in the information technology field.

785
There we have our two most important bases—our contribution to civilisation and our Christian faith for the present society. Indeed, those may be the two most important factors. It does not seem to me that they require the dome.
Previous civilisations have built for the future. They built their pyramids, cathedrals and temples. In 25 years, we shall have nothing to show. It is easy to criticise from the comfort of these Benches, but I believe that we could have done better. However, as I have no proposal to put before your Lordships that in the time available would match the celebration which I envisage, I shall cease my carping and pray that that odious example of tat will be more than a funfair and will be a satisfactory lift to the souls of the great British public and our guests from overseas.
5.3 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, it is not every day that I find myself in broad agreement with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston. But his description of this whole Millennium Dome project is most aptly summed up in one word that he used: that is, "obscene". It is morally and totally wrong. It is not of lasting endurance.
We are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for raising this matter and giving everybody an opportunity to air their views and perhaps give some cause to rethink before more millions and millions of pounds are wasted, leaving no lasting legacy through the next 100 years of the next millennium, let alone the next thousand years. It is entirely right that we should have this opportunity.
Reference has been made to the fact that the date of 1st January 2000 is indeed commonly regarded as the 2,000th anniversary of the birth of the Son of God. I reflect also that many of our greatest churches, if they do not exactly date from the beginning of the last millennium, at least date before it and some shortly after—Westminster, Durham, Ely and Salisbury. I mention only the large churches. I believe that I am right—and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich will correct me if I am wrong—to say that in Grantchester, or very close to it, is the oldest church still in use, which dates from about the Norman conquest.
If this country cannot afford £750 million today, and it will undoubtedly be substantially more when the thing is finished, would it not be correct to ensure that those churches, which reflect the birth of our Lord, should be put in such perfect order as the day on which they were built so that they will see this country through for another 1,000 years? Charity begins at home. It does not begin on a waste site in the south-east corner of London.
We are told that the roof of this edifice is likely to last only 25 years. Can anyone envisage that in 25 years time, another government will say, "We must put the roof back on this thing"?
The noble Lord, Lord Luke, expressed the wish that a political influence on and involvement in this exercise should be removed. I express the hope that there will be great political influence in this matter because I do not
786
believe that the majority of people in this country want to see such vast sums of money squandered on something of such short-lived duration. For that reason I say that if, as I find it highly likely, the Labour Party is still in office in the year 2000, an awful lot of political brownie points will be lost to it if the project goes ahead. Although I speak from these Benches, it must not be thought that I am particularly inclined towards the Labour Party. If I were inclined with feelings anywhere, it would be towards the party with which I had the honour to sit for many years in your Lordships' House. But I believe that many bad marks will be gained by the political party in office if this project goes ahead.
Have we thought of the transport? That matter has been raised by other noble Lords. I thought that we wanted to try to reduce the number of cars being used in this country. But what are we to have? Millions of pounds will be spent on a car park, instead of an environmentally-friendly and substantially improved public transport system to the site, if it goes ahead. Again, I believe that that is not in keeping with the present thoughts which seem to emerge from the Government at present.
The Festival of Britain left us a legacy; namely, to promote the arts. The Government of this country donate the same amount of money to assist the arts as is given to the state opera in Hamburg. Indeed, that amount covers the whole of the arts spectrum in Great Britain, and it seems to me that that is the wrong direction and the wrong train of thought. I hope that we shall cut our losses and that this project will be reconsidered.
5.10 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I very much hope that the dome will end up by being as fascinating as the speech that my noble friend Lord Peyton made when opening the debate. Indeed, I thank him warmly for doing so. The dome is certainly one method of celebrating the anniversary that we have been discussing. This is not a party political matter, as both the previous government and this Government have supported it.
The first part of my noble friend's Motion relates to cost. Perhaps I may mention that there are many arguments which state that the money would be better spent in feeding the hungry, housing the homeless and educating the illiterate. I very much hope that this Government will do both. I look forward to the Government increasing their aid programme as they have promised. I also look forward to hearing the Answer to a Question tomorrow morning as regards their progress in that respect. I am glad that we are going to construct a marker which will clearly identify—and be remembered as a marker—the person whose anniversary we will celebrate; namely, the Lord Jesus Christ who is perhaps the only person alive today who was alive 2,000 years ago.
I hope that the Minister will be able to help me as regards the question of the length of life of the dome. I thought it could have a length of life of 50 years, but reference was made by the noble Viscount,

787
Lord Mountgarret, to the term of 25 years. My noble friend Lord Peyton referred to a short life span and, indeed, one noble Lord mentioned that the dome would be demolished by the year 2001. When he replies, perhaps the Minister can tell the House how long the dome will last.
I turn now to the question of "accessibility", which also forms part of the Motion. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an update on the state of the Jubilee line and its present timetable. To travel to the dome on that line will be both practical and dull, while travelling by the water bus will be exciting, interesting and sometimes extremely dodgy bearing in mind the winds that we had last weekend. Indeed, I think that I would perhaps prefer to travel by the Jubilee line.
The main point of issue is, of course, the content of the dome. I hope that it will look back over the past 2,000 years and cover the country's progress and failures. I certainly take into account what the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, said about the failures of people who call themselves Christians and have done many appalling things. However, nothing will disparage the person of Jesus Christ whose anniversary we will be celebrating. I also hope that we can look forward to what the future holds and that the dome will enable people, especially the young, not just to see events but also to experience them. I am not looking for a Disney-type of programme, but one which is educational. Indeed, several noble Lords have mentioned the expansion of knowledge through the dome. I trust that it will be thoroughly purposeful as well as interesting.
I should like to make one specific suggestion to the Minister; namely, that I hope the Government will include in the dome a portrayal of their anticipated progress for the UK over the next 20 years leading up to, for example, "Welfare 2020", as set out in the welfare Green Paper. Visitors will then be able to monitor the progress that the Government are making as regards their proposals for the next 20 years.
I am told that there are very good relationships between, on the one hand, the New Millennium Experience Company and the Government and, on the other hand, other interested parties, such as the Churches. I am very grateful and appreciative of that fact. I hope that those discussions will continue amicably and fruitfully. Of course, this will not be the main Churches' celebration; indeed, there will be many others involved. However, it is good that the Churches are involved in the dome.
We are fast approaching Easter and I have been reading about the contrast between what some people call the "vacuous dome" and the "empty tomb" of Christ. The empty tomb is a symbol of faith in divine power. I trust that the dome will not be vacuous but that it will be thoroughly inspiring.
5.15 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Peyton has an established reputation as a scourge of governments, both Conservative and Labour. Today he was, as usual, at his most effective;
788
indeed, he is a sort of one-man Select Committee. In listening to his robust opening speech—and very witty it was, too—I was reminded of the character who slew the Jabberwock:
"One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing hack".
I hope that that is not what will happen to the dome or the Millennium Experience. But, listening to some of the apocalyptic suggestions that have been made today, I must admit that I wonder.
The debate has ranged very largely over the spiritual, which is obviously extremely important. Indeed, I agree with what has been said. However, for the few minutes at my disposal, I should like to deal with the practical. I shall begin with the contents of the dome. This seems to be entirely in the hands of the Minister without Portfolio, so admirably represented in this House by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who is the Minister for many portfolios. Indeed, there are so many of them that I am afraid I have lost count. But no doubt the noble Lord will be able to remind me of them at a later stage.
While we await the great announcement regarding the contents of the dome, I sometimes feel like some sort of spectator at a conjuring show as I wonder whether the Minister will produce several rabbits out of a hat or whether he has some card tricks up his sleeve. I hope that we shall hear something about when the great contents of this important experience will be announced.
I have one suggestion for the Minister. Only last week the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who spoke earlier, was searching for a location for the statue of Raleigh, which seems to be a very vexed question. Perhaps one location for the statue would be inside the dome because it is situated in Greenwich which is a great maritime location and, indeed, Raleigh was an important explorer. However, I suspect that that suggestion will find its own level, as yet another non-event.
My other practical point relates to transportation, which was mentioned earlier by my noble friend Lord Luke and more recently by my noble friend Lord Brentford. There seem to be serious problems with the Jubilee line, which has always been considerably under-capitalised. It has also had technical difficulties. Therefore, I hope that we shall hear some good news in that respect and that we shall be told that it will be completed well in time. I say that because, without the line, there will be serious congestion. The alternative of course is to travel by way of the river. I find river transportation to be a most exciting and attractive possibility. The river buses were started some years ago but they came to an end. That was partly because, again, they were under-capitalised and partly because the service was rather infrequent. Will the Government be able to guarantee that there will be a sufficient volume of river buses travelling up and down this important water highway, as that will make a great difference? It is an effective and ecologically sound system of transportation.

789
Those are merely a couple of suggestions. The Millennium Experience will undoubtedly take place. There is no way that it can be stopped although one or two noble Lords have suggested that. We want to ensure that it is a success, not a failure, and that it is something of which the nation can be proud.
5.20 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, for the opportunity to debate this important matter, not least because there has been so much inaccurate speculation on the subject of the Millennium Experience both in the press and elsewhere, and this debate gives us an opportunity to lance that boil and to hear from the Minister some of the facts that pertain to the dome.
It seems to me that the Millennium Experience, or one's views on it, are certainly not a party matter. As I have listened to the debate in your Lordships' House I have detected a division across all parties as between those who are for it and those who are against it. One could say that there are "domosceptics" and "domophiles". I believe that your Lordships' House has demonstrated a clear "domosceptic" tendency this afternoon. There does not appear to be too many in the "domophile" camp. I hope that over a period of time we may be able to change that. On my Benches I know that there is quite a strong "domosceptic" tendency. I count myself fully, clearly and absolutely in the "domophile" camp. I make that declaration most happily. I was, and am, in favour of the concept. I am in favour of the site; I like the project and I like what it is intended to achieve. Therefore I am "outed".
However, I have serious concerns regarding the execution of the project on which I wish to ask the Minister some questions. I recognise that he may not be able to answer all of them today. If time does not permit him to do so, I hope that he will write to me. Before I mention those concerns, I wish to touch on the spiritual side of the matter which has been mentioned this afternoon. I had not intended to talk about it at all as I had not anticipated that the debate would go in that direction. However, a number of noble Lords have made valid points in that regard. I am a practising Christian and a member of the Church of Scotland. I believe that we ought to distinguish between a secular celebration about a point in time, on the one hand, and the 2,000th birthday of Christ, on the other. I believe it is perfectly appropriate to hold a more secular celebration in the dome and, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, so rightly pointed out, to let the Churches celebrate the 2,000th birthday of our Lord Jesus.
We must take into account that we are a multi-ethnic, multi-faith society. It is important that no one should be excluded from the Millennium Experience. As regards the experience, there are two excellent precedents, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out. I recently attended an exhibition illustrating the restoration of the Albert Memorial and I discovered some interesting facts. I discovered that the Great Exhibition cost
790
£12,000 to mount. It would be interesting to know the equivalent sum in today's money. That exhibition made a profit which enabled the commissioners to buy land near the exhibition which became known as "Albertopolis" and houses the Victoria and Albert Museum and many other buildings. Somehow "Mandelsonville" does not have the same ring to it. Of course, the Festival of Britain also attracted many visitors.
I shall now discuss the concerns that I have. First, on the question of finance, the total budget for the project is £758 million, of which £399 million is to be provided by lottery grant and £359 million by sponsorship, commercial deals, merchandise and so on. I have had small responsibility for a number of projects and I have managed to run over budget on one or two of them. On a far bigger scale we have seen what has happened with some public projects, for example the British Library, the Channel Tunnel and a few others that have run way over budget. How much of the budget for this project has been spent? Is that portion adjudged to be within the budget? What is the size of the contingency which the budget contains? How much, if any, of it has been spent? Does the Millennium Experience Company confidently expect to achieve its budget goal? Is it still on target?
Further, we assume that the £399 million of lottery grant is safe. However, the other £359 million may be less reliable. I understand that the sponsorship comprises chunks of £12 million. That is a great deal of money and a high target for any sponsor to have to produce. How many sponsors have been signed up, and does the Minister feel that is progressing well? Can the Minister tell us the breakdown of the sponsorship money within each of the zones? In other words, how much of the money will be spent on infrastructure and how much on what one might describe as "what the customer sees", as clearly the sponsors will not be able to commence their projects until they know how much money they have to spend?
My second general area of concern has already been mentioned by a number of noble Lords; namely, access to the site, and in particular transport. I warmly commend the decision—I believe everyone on these Benches commends that decision—that it should be essentially a car-free site. In the middle of our capital where there is so much public transport it is appropriate that that should be the preferred method for transporting people to the site. However, as has been pointed out, that will depend very much on the successful completion of the extension to the Jubilee Line. I believe that is due to be completed in spring next year. Can the Minister give us some assurance on that point?
Not long ago the All-Party Tourism Group was given a briefing by one of the operators, who told us that the 35,000 people who are estimated to attend each session is roughly equivalent to the same number of people who travel by tube each day to Harrods. That puts the whole thing into perspective somewhat; it is not such a difficult target after all. However, I would like some reassurance on that point. A great number of visitors will travel to the site from outside the capital. They may even travel down from Thurso, as I have done today. What

791
arrangements are being made to put in place through-ticketing facilities? Is it possible to provide a through-ticket to take me from Thurso by plane and by tube to the millennium site?
My third area of concern is one that I also view as an area of great opportunity; namely, tourism. Clearly there are huge opportunities for the Millennium Experience to boost tourism in the country. The BTA estimates that about £500 million will flow into the country directly as a result of this project. However, London First has predicted a 20,000-bed shortage in London. What thought has been given to the pressure that will be put on beds? Is the BTA taking any action in that regard? Clearly many domestic visitors will choose to visit the Millennium Experience rather than visit some other leisure or tourist activity in the United Kingdom. There is therefore a danger that much tourist spending within the United Kingdom will take place in London when that money might have been spent elsewhere. That is a challenge for the English Tourist Board. It would be interesting to know what the English Tourist Board plans to do in that regard.
In his excellent contribution, my noble friend Lord Newby mentioned many of the benefits to Greenwich and the area, one of which I should like to touch on. I refer to the possibility of the dome being retained at its present site and used as a conference centre for London. I very much hope that it will be retained at its present site. As a hotelier practising in London, I know that a proper conference centre in London is very much missing. The site, though not perfect, would afford a very good opportunity for such a centre. It would be a most useful contribution to the capital.
The only other danger that I can foresee is that we have now reached the point when it is time to let the operators operate and the managers manage. If one is to believe the press—not something I do very often—there seems to be a danger that the Minister without Portfolio is moving the goalposts on a fairly regular basis. I hope the reports are untrue. If they are not, I urge the Minister to resist, since I believe that we have now reached the point when the operators should operate.
I come back to where I started. I am firmly "domophile". I wish it the greatest possible success; I am sure that it will be a success. I look forward to hearing from the Minister the facts that will back that up.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I too join with other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil for making this debate possible and for opening it in his inimitable fashion.
The debate has shown that the Millennium Dome arouses decidedly mixed feelings. I confess that I am what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, called a "domosceptic". Everyone agrees that we should mark our entry into the third Christian Millennium with important and memorable events. But doubts are bound to arise when we move from the general to the particular, and many have surfaced in the past two
792
hours. Even those of your Lordships who have wholeheartedly supported the project believe that it can be improved and have made many valuable suggestions to that end.
Many of the doubts stem from a basic disquiet about the conception and position of the dome itself. I know I am not supposed to say anything against the dome, because it was thought up by the previous government. Still, we cannot avoid the topic altogether since most of the practical problems which your Lordships have raised refer back to the original decision.
To start with, is there not something ironic about a structure to mark the dawn of a millennium which is programmed to last for 25 years at most? It is ironic, but natural, I think, because the dome has no purpose beyond itself. The great public buildings of the past, whether religious or secular—our cathedrals and parish churches, our great civic buildings—were built for use. They had a function; they were set in centres of population. The noble Lord, Lord Montague of Oxford, reminded us that the 1851 exhibition was held in the heart of fashionable Mayfair. But the dome has no function, no use, nor have the Government any plans for it beyond the year 2000. It is a magnificent empty shell covering 20 acres, the ultimate expression of an architect's ego, aggressively situated in its own remote and isolated space.
My noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, pointed to the local benefits which Greenwich will receive as a result of the dome, and I welcome that, but we are discussing the dome, not the area of Greenwich. As my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth said, what is the point of the dome? The dome was commissioned first; then they had to think about how it was to be paid for, how people were to get to it and, above all, what they were going to put into it. That was all the wrong way round. It is a triumph of fantasy over reality; yet we are meant to be a practical people.
It is the practical aspects of the project which we have been discussing today. Naturally enough, your Lordships have expressed concern about the cost, none more passionately than the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston. The dome is expected to cost £758 million, a colossal sum, which is bound to overrun—it always does. Of this, £399 million will come from the National Lottery, distributed by the Millennium Commission. Almost half of the national budget of the Millennium Commission will go to this single project. Was this the right message to send to the regions? Does it not reinforce the impression that a London-based Parliament will always think first and foremost of London, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich said, and, what is more, of a politically correct London, as my noble friend Lady O'Cathain said?
Stephen Bayley, the former creative director of the so-called experience, said that he could have created a stunning exhibition and building for £100 million. What is the Minister's response to that? I look forward with much interest to hearing it.
Sponsors are supposed to provide an extra £150 million. The figure of £75 million has been mentioned as already committed, but the last figure

793
I had was £58 million. What is the actual figure to date and what realistic hopes are there of obtaining the rest? What further inducements will the Government have to offer to obtain the rest? In fact, £194 million is expected to come from ticket sales and what is called merchandising and licensing, although this estimate wholly depends on the number of visitors. Naturally, we are worried about the costs. Having just been involved in the passage through this House of the National Lottery Bill, as the Minister well knows, I fear that more and more National Lottery money will be diverted to this experience from the other very good deserving causes.
My noble friend Lord Luke dealt ably and eloquently with the problem of access, which is the key to visitor numbers. I completely share the excitement of the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, about river transport and its possibilities. I wish to ask just one question: when will the Jubilee Line be finished? The date for completion is always being pushed back. It was once expected to open this spring; then it was pushed back to September. The new opening date is now spring 1999. Have we any guarantee at all that this section of the line will be operational by the time the experience is meant to start? The Channel Tunnel is not exactly a comforting precedent. How much will this line, with its enormous capacities, be used after 2000? That is another point on which I would be interested to have the Minister's reply.
These problems are reinforced by doubts about the content and what will go into the 20 acres. Many of your Lordships have pointed to the absence of an adequate Christian content. Indeed, I believe that that has been generally regretted. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, made a telling attack on the cultural nullity of the project, its ephemeral character. My noble friend Lady Park asked whether Peter Mandelson has a road map. No, but he has recently visited Disneyworld. I do not know to what extent the contents of the glossy brochure Millennium: Time to make a difference—which I recommend that all noble Lords should read if they have not done so already—reflect his experiences there. Written in ad-man's babble, it tells us excitedly about the great experiences the estimated 12 million visitors can expect in the 13 exhibition zones. In the mind zone they will be able to,
"Discover the creative power inherent in us all".
In the body zone they will,
"learn how to get the best from"
the human machine. They can open up their minds to life-long learning, travel around the British Isles and try out their skills, including their talking skills. No doubt exhausted by these invigorating activities, they will then be able to relax in a,
"restful landscape of smooth pebble shapes",
before ascending, refreshed, to something called the spirit level to reflect on,
"the values that underpin our society".
Are you not all longing to go?
I recommend this vainglorious, empty production to anyone who has not yet seen it. I have rarely felt so depressed or ashamed when I read it—its poverty of
794
language; and the thinness of its inspiration; what my noble friend Lord Elton called its "tattiness". My noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry, asked, "Where's the beef?" The noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, called it obscene for its vast cost and the impermanence of its designs. Give me Disneyworld any day. At least it tries to connect the present to the past, and to peer into the scientific future. Here there is no sense of the past, no sense of the triumphs and tragedies of the last millennium to inspire and warn us as we enter the next. And no sense really of the future: at Greenwich, the home of time, time is dissolved into the politically correct present.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, mentioned France. How much more confident in their culture and judgments are the French. I have been looking through their plans for the millennium. I shall not go into them, but the basic equivalent of the dome will house three major international exhibitions devoted to contemporary art, a portrayal of the major intellectual movements and events in French history, and a collection of masterpieces from all over the world, with equivalent supporting tableaux.
Surely we have more to be proud of in the past, more to offer the future than pebble shapes in restful gardens and Godless spirit levels. My noble friend Lord Peyton reminded us that this is a Christian occasion. But the absence of any adequate recognition of this fact is only the most blatant of the many omissions in the project. Whatever else it exists to do, the dome has certainly not set out to praise our famous men or women.
In the change of governments—I am sorry to interject a political note, but I think it is appropriate—the dome has become the symbol of the emptiness of new Labour. We have a teflon Prime Minister and his monument will be a teflon dome—a magnificent shell built for him by the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, full of hot air supplied by Peter Mandelson. What could have been a memorable event has become a branch of showbiz, a toy of admen and spin-doctors: structure without purpose, form without content, hype without substance—a grandiloquent statement with nothing to say; a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing.
I urge the Government to take serious note of the suggestions that have been made in the debate and avoid the coming mess.
5.40 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for introducing the debate. I am not as depressed as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, about the tone of the debate, despite the last speech. I never feel that scripted abuse goes down terribly well in this House. The noble Viscount made a distinction between "domosceptics" and "domophiles". I counted five unregenerate "domosceptics": my noble friend Lord Sefton, the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, above all. There are some who perhaps might be called reformed "domosceptics" like the noble Baroness, Lady

795
O'Cathain; and I thought to some extent, because he was judicious in this, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. But the majority of the 19 speakers, with proper and responsible reservations, were on the whole in the camp of the "domophiles" and I am grateful for that.
It is important that we should have these debates in Parliament and it is important that they take place, as this one does now, just over a year since the first announcement was made. It will be recalled that the last Conservative administration had the support of my colleagues in Opposition, who recognised the significance of the year 2000 and the opportunity it provides to make a great public statement about the Britain in which we live (and what is wrong with statements being in physical form as well as human form? I did not understand that point) and the world we are going to live in as the new millennium dawns.
In January last year the project did not have planning permission and work had not begun to clear the site of 150 years' worth of polluting chemicals. The operating company had a small board and an energetic chief executive but little else—no staff, no money, no offices and no business plan. It was very different from what we see today. The site at Greenwich is clear, and I can assure noble Lords who are concerned that it has been approved by the Environmental Agency as clear of pollution. The dome is growing before our eyes. The roof is now being unfurled. A large proportion of the content has been announced to the public and designers are continuing to work on the fine detail; and under the excellent management of the board and chief executive—I shall name the chairman of the board for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, Bob Ayling of British Airways, and the chief executive, Jenny Page—the project is on time and within budget.
When this Government decided in June of last year to back the experience, we made five clear commitments. The first was that the experience would cost no more to the taxpayer than the sum already committed to prepare the site. The second was that the contents would entertain and inspire. The third was that the experience would be a truly national event. The fourth was that it would provide a lasting legacy. The fifth was that the management structure of the company would be strengthened by the best creative and business talents available. That is a challenging task and I wish to report now to the House on each of those five commitments.
On cost, the project is developing well within the budget we have set it. In addition to the £399 million lottery grant, the company, in partnership with government, is working with a large number of major corporate sponsors. Seventy-five million pounds (not £58 million) of sponsorship has now been committed and the company is well on its way to reaching its £150 million target. British Telecom, Manpower, Tesco and Sky have made substantial commitments, each making contributions of at least £12 million to the project. The amount of £12 million is not a minimum sum for participation in sponsorship. The British Airports Authority, British Airways and the Corporation of the City of London are also committed to the project and the company is in serious discussions with another
796
40 companies for smaller amounts. On all those matters, we are on target for the lottery grant and for sponsorship; and that will appear when the new Millennium Experience Company publishes its corporate plan in due course. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Park, of the 22 major contractors for the site, 21 of them are UK-based.
On the contents, of course there will be different views. Everyone in advance of seeing the content plans is entitled to fear, with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that there could be infinite triviality. But seven of the main exhibits were presented to sponsors and the press at the Festival Hall on 24th February. I saw them some time before that. I have to say, as one of those who was understandably nervous about the contents, as any sane and rational person would be, I was, again to quote the noble Lord, Lord Annan, surprised and delighted.
Having seen what I saw—it was only at a very early stage—I felt that it is something that I and my family and friends would not only want to go to once but would wish to return to on several occasions. I thought that the ones I saw were high quality. They breathed life into the central and core themes. They showed the ingenuity, imagination and talent of young British designers. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that they are certainly not only for the under-40s. I appreciate that she is approaching the age of 40, as I am approaching the age of 65, but the exhibitions are for me as well as for her. I hope that she will enjoy them in due course.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, made an interesting proposal that the Government should present a 20-year plan in the dome. I like the suggestion that we shall be in power for 20 years, but some of his noble friends might be nervous at the suggestion that we should put forward such political propaganda.
The next commitment which we made was on national impact. The most important thing I have to say is that 80 per cent. of millennium expenditure will be outside the dome in other parts of the country. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, is quite understandably afraid of people being excluded. The national programme was the least developed part of the Millennium Experience under the last government, but we have been working hard to ensure that there will be a wealth of events and activities around the country.
There are two separate strands to the company's nationwide programme. The Millennium Challenge is the umbrella title for a series of major artistic, sporting and heritage initiatives which the company is supporting around the United Kingdom during the years before 2000. These will complement what goes on at Greenwich and link into individual zones within the dome.
There are participatory projects already well developed such as Our Town's Story, in partnership with local education authorities, which will involve children putting together histories of local communities. I hope that will be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford. The Millennium Generation, in partnership with BBC local radio and the British Library is an ambitious oral history programme. I hope this will help to build up

797
the legacy which we believe will be provided by the millennium. Living on the Line will link people and places in eight countries along the Meridian line. I hope that it will address the issue of world poverty, which was properly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry.
The company is also contributing £20 million to a £100 million Millennium Festival of celebratory projects in the year 2000. All the lottery distributors—the Millennium Commission, arts councils, sports councils, the Heritage Lottery Fund and the National Lottery Charities Board—are also taking part. We warmly welcome this millennium spirit of co-operation between the distributors.
Finally, around the country, from 1st May this year we shall set up one-stop shops for each country of the UK, receiving proposals for festival projects. We may stop short of paying for fireworks and parties, but we hope that a wide range of projects will apply, including artistic exhibitions and performances, sporting contests, heritage and charitable initiatives and religious events.
A number of noble Lords quite properly referred to the legacy which would be left behind. The physical legacy of the experience is becoming clearer as each day passes. One only needs to visit Greenwich to see the regenerative impact of the investment, the improvements to transport infrastructure, the creation of jobs, particularly in Greenwich, and a sense of local pride in what is being achieved.
A number of noble Lords made contrasts between 1851 and 1951. Of course, the Crystal Palace, being moved, survived for a long time until sadly it was burnt down. In 1951, apart from the Royal Festival Hall, most of the exhibition—the Skylon and the Dome of Discovery—was rapidly removed by the incoming Conservative Government in case it might serve as a memorial to Herbert Morrison. My honourable friend Peter Mandelson did not pay for that testimonial!
I was asked about the physical structure of the dome and whether it will last for only 25 years. There was only one preceding dome. It is in California, it is over 25 years old and is showing no signs of age. Let us hope the dome can last much longer than 25 years, certainly the steel structure can last at least 60 years. It can be dismantled or moved; it is perfectly possible for it to stay there. The suggestion of a convention centre made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is a sensible one which we shall take seriously. The dome could go somewhere else and it could have a considerable life into the new millennium. I am not at all afraid of the judgment of history about something so remarkable in itself which so many people from this country and around the world will see and of which they will be proud in the coming years.
I referred to the management of the dome and the Millennium Experience. That commitment is being well fulfilled by the existing management. A number of noble Lords referred to the transport to and accessibility of the dome. Of course, it is on a regained site, surrounded on three sides by water. We have the commitment of London Underground that the Jubilee
798
Line will run a through service from Stanmore to Stratford via Greenwich well before the opening of the Millennium Dome. The travel time on that will be approximately 12 minutes from central London. It will almost certainly be on fixed block signalling rather than on the more experimental signalling, but that may be a relief to some of your Lordships.
On river services, we have done a great deal. I am not sure how many noble Lords observed that the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 16th March that, as part of his Thames 2000 initiative, £21 million was being allocated to boost new passenger transport services on the Thames. I hope that that will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Luke, and the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery. We expect a million people to travel by boat from central London. There will be new piers and new river services and there will also be a certain number of park-and-ride facilities, although, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said, it is our intention for it to be a car-free zone except for the severely disabled and essential workers.
There will be integrated ticketing. It will be possible to buy coach, rail and air experience tickets at the local supplier of transport and Camelot will act as agents. So there will be an outlet within three miles for 95 per cent. of the population.
I hope I am being given extra time, because the microphones went down, to talk about the religious aspect of the millennium. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, challenged me to say what was a spiritual experience. I started to think of that distinguished man of the cloth, Sydney Smith, for whom it was eating foie gras to the sound of trumpets. However, I decided not. Now it is listening to John Peyton at the top of his form.
Perhaps I may say something about the religious aspect of the millennium. The Government fully recognise that the millennium is a Christian anniversary and want to see a proper acknowledgement of the Christian heritage of the country in the celebrations, including at Greenwich. Reference was made to the Spirit Zone and, as the right reverend Prelate said, Christian elements in other parts of the content of the zones. The suggestion about Jubilee 2000 and third world debt is appropriate.
However, Britain is a multi-faith society and the Government are determined to ensure that the celebrations are relevant and accessible to those who are adherents to other faiths or who have no formal religious beliefs. The year 2000 will, after all, be significant to people who use the Gregorian calendar.
Through a consultation group which meets at Lambeth Palace, the Government, the Millennium Commission and the New Millennium Experience Company have built a good working relationship with the Churches and other faith groups in respect of millennium planning. The group has produced a document giving guidelines to events organisers on how millennium celebrations can be made inclusive of Christians and adherents of other faiths. The Lambeth Group has also produced a document setting out the spiritual values which it wishes to see enshrined in the Millennium Experience at Greenwich. The New

799
Millennium Experience Company is giving this serious consideration and is taking the advice of expert witnesses from the Churches during these critical months.
The company is considering various ways in which the Christian heritage of this country can be incorporated within the experience and its national programme and is looking into the options for providing worship spaces for different faiths. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Minister without Portfolio have all stressed that spiritual as well as physical renewal should be a key theme. That is something which the Minister without Portfolio stressed in his recent constructive meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury.
I do not have time to deal with the wide variety of Church projects which the Millennium Commission and other lottery grant-giving bodies are providing. But I am pleased to agree with the right reverend Prelate that the dome is not the most important part of Christian millennium celebrations. The Churches are planning a wide variety of events and activities for the year 2000 focused on Pentecost weekend in that year.
In the time available I hope that I have answered the majority of questions raised in this valuable and important debate. We believe that it is an important and essential reaffirmation of our confidence in ourselves, our belief and our understanding of who we are and what we may be in the future. I express again my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for raising the issue.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, far be it from me to say anything except "thank you". I have always regarded it as total rashness for anybody moving a Motion of this kind to reply at the end. I have no intention of doing so. I am grateful to all those who took part. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

The National Blood Authority
6.1 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the National Blood Authority.
"Last summer I received representations from local MPs and local doctors against the transfer of bulk processing and testing of blood from Liverpool. This had been approved by the previous government. It was planned to complete the transfer by 19th September 1997. Having looked into what was happening, I decided to appoint Professor John Cash, then President of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh and former Director of the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service, to conduct an
800
independent review of the proposed transfer. Professor Cash's review was welcomed by the chairman of the National Blood Authority, Sir Colin Walker.
"On 9th September Professor Cash submitted to me an urgent interim report confirming that there had been a serious breakdown of trust between the National Blood Authority and many local people and clinicians in Liverpool. He also advised that the rationale of the original decision to move the service from Liverpool remained unproven but that the rundown of the Liverpool centre had gone so far that for reasons of patient safety it should go ahead. He recommended that an independent user group should be set up to monitor the service and that a new leader be appointed for the Liverpool Blood Centre. I accepted all these interim recommendations while bitterly regretting that the original transfer decision had gone so far that it was unsafe to stop it.
"Professor Cash submitted a draft final report which was passed to the National Blood Authority for comment. Points made by the NBA were considered by Professor Cash before he submitted his final report to me. Today I am publishing his final report. This presents a damning indictment of the NBA's treatment of the Liverpool Blood Centre and the clinicians it serves.
"Professor Cash concluded that: over the past three years the Blood Transfusion Service based in Liverpool had been very severely damaged; the position at the centre remained far from satisfactory and that it would continue to underperform unless further action is taken; there was a serious and widespread loss of confidence in the National Blood Authority by Merseyside and North Wales clinicians, hospital blood bank medical and laboratory scientific officers and the general public.
"In the light of what he discovered in Liverpool, Professor Cash extended his review to consider certain aspects of the general performance of the National Blood Authority. He concluded: many of the concerns that had emerged in Merseyside and North Wales were also evident in Oxford and East Anglia. A number of issues of wider concern about the overall management of the blood service applied across the country. All the evidence pointed to a conclusion that the NBA was failing to maintain appropriate operational connections with many of its management teams. The Chairman of the board had often, perhaps perforce, been too close to the day-to-day operational aspects of the NBS and on occasions appeared to have been either misinformed or misunderstood briefing he received. There appeared to be a disturbing degree of isolation of NBA headquarters from operational realities. Instructions had been inappropriately researched and not subject to effective consultation. The National Blood Service has been exposed, since 1995, to a central management structure and a command and control culture that seemed to have insufficient regard for the views of customers, staff and the interface between the patient and the service. Professor Cash also drew attention to shortcomings

801
in the arrangements within the NHSA Executive, the Department of Health and user groups for monitoring the performance of the blood service.
"Having considered Professor Cash's report and other representations about the performance of the NBA, I called in Sir Colin Walker, the Chairman of the National Blood Authority, to say that I was concerned about the overall performance of the authority, and that, as a general principle, I believed that those at the top of an organisation had to take responsibility. I explained that in view of the extra difficulties which the blood service is likely to face, I was not confident, in the light of past performance, that it was in the interests of the NHS for him to remain in the chair of the NBA.
"Discussions have subsequently taken place between my officials and solicitors acting on behalf of Sir Colin Walker. He has refused to resign. So today I have dismissed him. I have appointed in his place, Mr. Mike Fogden, the Chief Executive of the Employment Service under the previous government. Mr. Fogden's appointment was carried out with the agreement of Sir Len Peach, Commissioner for Public Appointments.
"Professor Cash makes a series of recommendations about the future of the blood service in Liverpool. While pointing out potential risks to patients, he does not rule out reversing all or some of the transfer of services to Manchester. He recommends that the performance be monitored closely and the position reviewed after one year's operation.
"He strongly recommends that in the meantime an action plan should be developed by the blood service, the north west region of the NHS and Liverpool University Medical School to upgrade the services in Liverpool by such measures as considering the establishment of a regional stem cell service and a regional tissue bank, arrangements for specialist registrar training in haematology and transfusion medicine and reviewing the development of the zonal reagent unit. The centre should be upgraded physically, new management arrangements put in place, more effort put into attracting and retaining top quality staff, better consultative services for doctors in the area and a drive to recruit more donors.
"I want to reassure the people of Merseyside today that the safety and supply of their blood services is now and will continue to be maintained at a high level. I have already appointed a transition director, Professor Bellingham, who is working to ensure that confidence in the centre is built up again and he established an independent clinical user group. I said in September that I wanted to maintain and improve blood services for Merseyside and that remains my goal.
"I accept all Professors Cash's recommendations. The new chairman's first task will be to implement these recommendations, and consider urgently the broader changes which are clearly needed in the National Blood Authority. The staff of the blood
802
service have worked very hard and effectively to continue to deliver a good service to the clinicians they supply with blood and blood products, during a major reorganisation of their work. They and the 2 million blood donors in England have done us proud. Both donors and staff deserve a new and better lead from the top. Under this Government they will get it."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
6.10 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement on this important matter. From these Benches we view with concern the criticisms of the National Blood Authority which have been voiced by Professor Cash. We accept the decision of the Secretary of State, which he no doubt took with regret, to dismiss the chairman of the authority and we very much welcome the choice of Mr. Mike Fogden as his replacement.
Does the Minister agree with me that the most important consideration in the Government's plan of action for the NBA is that the confidence of patients, of clinicians and of donors in the performance of the service on Merseyside and in North Wales must be restored as quickly as possible? If she does agree with that, will she, for the record, make it absolutely clear that, whatever the shortcomings of management in the north west and at national headquarters, the safety both of blood supplies and of patients is not in question?
The Statement cites a warning by Professor Cash of potential risks to patients and the possibility of reversing all or some of the transfer of services to Manchester. Again, can the Minister reassure the House that the potential risks referred to in that passage relate to the hypothetical situation of a policy reversal and that, as Professor Cash says explicitly in paragraph 4.4 of his review:
"The prospects that Merseyside and North Wales Hospitals will enjoy good supply services in the transition period are high".
Taking this further, am I correct in concluding that in Professor Cash's opinion, by waiting a further year before reviewing the operation of the new structure in the north-west, there is no foreseeable danger that standards of safety or the security of blood supplies will deteriorate in the interim?
Running through the Statement, there is a mild undertone of criticism, suggested rather than explicit, of the decision taken by the last government to restructure the National Blood Service. Will the Minister dispel that impression, which I may be alone in having, and confirm the Government's support for the rationale of the restructuring which has taken place, particularly in the way that it has enabled the NBA to establish a more co-ordinated service across the country as a whole—a common IT system, better inventory control and a more secure system of clinical support to hospitals—and a range of other improvements to what was previously a disjointed and regionally focused system?
I was encouraged to see that, despite the concerns which he felt it his duty to express, Professor Cash has acknowledged with considerable warmth the

803
achievement of the NBA in transforming itself into a better, more modern and more efficient service over the past two years. In the light of that, will the Minister confirm that what is now at issue is a series of failures at managerial level and failures of leadership within the NBA rather than any failure in structure, as indeed is directly implied by the Secretary of State's decision to dismiss the NBA's chairman? Were there now any concern on the part of the Secretary of State that the structure of the service was faulty, presumably that concern would have been acknowledged and addressed at ministerial level.
Looking specifically at the north-west and the decision to transfer bulk processing and testing to Manchester, it is noteworthy that Professor Cash says only that the rationale of that change remains unproven. For all the problems that have been exposed, problems which stern principally from staff shortages and a lack of investment in Liverpool, he does not condemn the underlying policy decision.
I believe that our National Blood Service is one of the best such services in the world. To the extent that public confidence in the NBA has suffered, as it clearly has, in the north-west, it is vital that the new management should take steps expeditiously to restore that confidence. We wish Mr. Fogden every success in steering through the necessary corrective measures during the transition period in conjunction with Professor Bellingham and in his stewardship of the NBA over the longer term.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I have only one question to ask the noble Baroness. As the reorganisation of 1995 seems to have been mainly driven by the desire to cut costs but seems to have led to a lower quality of service and a higher degree of costs, can she assure us that this new reorganisation, while recognising the importance of costs, will be mainly driven by the needs of service?
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken. I confirm the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the Secretary of State acted with some regret today because he had, as I repeated in the Statement, invited the previous chairman of the NBA to resign a little while ago. That invitation had not been accepted and this was the only course of action left to him.
It is true that our blood service remains among the very best in the world. I can certainly confirm that we have confidence in the safety and efficacy of the blood supply in the north west and throughout the country. Our concern has been precisely as both noble Lords reflected in their comments; namely, the management and organisation of the authority since 1995.
I disagree slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. There has been progress in the past few years in the organisation. The present Government affirm that the national structure has the advantages to which the noble Earl referred; for example, in terms of the national IT system and a structure which is not entirely
804
dependent on regional organisations. The problem is that there has been dislocation and great concern among those who work on the technical aspects of the delivery of the blood service that their skills have not been recognised. I suspect, without going into the details, that many of those criticisms have been about the methods of management and the actual organisation of what one might call the human resources policy within the blood service rather than about the structure itself.
I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, that quality of service is paramount in how we want to see the blood service develop from now on. The consistent position in all of our policies on developing the National Health Service has been to lay the emphasis on quality outcomes of service as well as successful financial outcomes. That is very much in our minds.
The noble Earl referred to the details of the organisation of the blood supply in the north-west and the review of the change made last autumn. It is of course not a year from now that that will be reviewed but a year from when that change was made—that is, in September—so there is not really quite so long to wait. One of the things that the new chairman will need to address expeditiously is the assessment that he will want to make with Professor Bellingham about what has happened in the past few months in Merseyside and North Wales and whether he is confident, particularly in consultation with the users' group that Professor Bellingham has established, that the service is of the quality that everyone there needs.
I would just re-emphasise that the Government agree with Professor Cash's report where it says that the National Blood Service has made significant and laudable progress in recent years. We have been concerned, which is why the Secretary of State felt compelled to take the decision that he did today. about particular aspects of the reorganisation, which started with concerns in the north-west and then, unfortunately, became much wider. However, we very much want to pay tribute to the work that has been done by those in the National Blood Service and to those donors who have provided the basic wherewithal for maintaining the very good service that we continue to have in this country.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I have always been under the impression that our blood service is one of the best in the world when compared with many of the countries in the sophisticated parts of Europe and in the continent of North America. I am sure that is still so. Given the difficulty of getting blood products, can she say what current concerns are as regards getting blood from one region to another in the areas where there are sometimes acute shortages?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I wish that I could confirm to my noble friend that the concerns referred to in the Statement were isolated to the north-west and North Wales. Unfortunately, our concern, not about the structure per se but the organisation of the new structure and the way in which it has caused dislocation to the service to the people who

805
would perhaps be distinguished medical colleagues of the noble Lord in other regions, has been part of the evidence which suggested that all was not well. Of course, the noble Lord is right that the overall production of blood is of a very high level and that the quality of the blood products provided is also of high quality. The specific concerns about the transport of blood products between the regions has been a subject of concern as regards the transfer of processing from Liverpool to Manchester. As I said in response to the noble Earl, we shall be asking Mr. Fogden to look at it and to assess the situation carefully.
There have been other suggestions, for example, that the Plymouth and Bristol centres should be merged. Partly because of those kinds of concerns about the transfer of blood products, the Government have asked the National Blood Authority not to proceed with that particular merger.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Secretary of State was compelled to take strong action on this matter because of the appalling failure in some of the fundamentals of the service; for example, as regards the actual deliveries of blood to consultants and other clinicians, the number of donors and missing targets significantly? Will she confirm whether the structure we have and which has been seen to have failed was related to the cuts which ensued at the time that the new structure was planned and we had the shift from the national transfusion service, because there was a significant reduction in staff levels and financing? It is important that we know whether those cuts did impact on the operation of the organisation as well as the structure.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. The points he touches on are precisely about the lack of confidence, particularly among donors, which occurred very destructively in the Merseyside region. We were particularly alarmed when we looked at some of the figures concerning the decrease in the number of donors, who simply felt no confidence in the local service.
As regards the broader point that my noble friend makes, it is true that there was widespread rationalisation which led to disinvestment, particularly in members of staff. One of the concerns that we had when we looked in detail at the run-down of the Liverpool service, which led my right honourable friend to decide last September to confirm the move to Manchester, was precisely because there were so few skilled staff left in the Liverpool area so that it was impossible to maintain a satisfactory blood supply. One needs to be careful about judging with hindsight whether the decisions to restructure the service, which had some of the advantages I mentioned in earlier answers to questions on the Statement, were the same as those which led to the removal of skilled staff from important posts. It is not absolutely clear that that was so. But what is true is that in certain crucial areas the reduction in the numbers of skilled staff led precisely to a lack of
806
confidence, which my noble friend rightly describes as being the issue which caused my right honourable friend to act today.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the House will be appalled and distressed at the sad and dismal tale of mismanagement at the top of the National Blood Service. But will my noble friend take this opportunity to reinforce, and pay tribute to, those at the sharp end of what is a vital part of the National Health Service? I refer to those who work hard in the clinics of our hospitals and in mobile units. Will the Minister accept that the prompt and decisive action taken by the Secretary of State is much appreciated? The problem concerns not only Liverpool, because reference was made in the Statement to East Anglia and Oxford. The Minister was frank enough to indicate that there may be other areas, too.
There are those in the House who may be aware that I recently suffered a thrombosis, in part due to a long air flight for which I was badly prepared. The Minister may care to give some thought to how air travellers can be better prepared, and better prepare themselves, for long air journeys, and even consider which department has that responsibility. Will she accept from me that in Whipps Cross Hospital anti-coagulant clinic I received, and will continue to receive, excellent service, in contrast to the miserable service at the top of the National Blood Service?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I am delighted at the care he received at Whipps Cross Hospital. I am particularly delighted that it has been successful in bringing him back so rapidly to your Lordships' House.
Perhaps I might repeat the final paragraph of the Statement, which I believe confirms what my noble friend asked:
"The staff of the Blood Service have worked very hard and effectively to continue to deliver a good service to the clinicians they supply with blood and blood products, during a major reorganisation of their work. They and the 2 million blood donors in England have done us proud".
I believe that sums up the Government's attitude to those who work within the service and those who donate blood. It is one of the most extraordinary signs of the general sense of public service that we have in our local communities that so many people give blood. Some of us may remember that famous book of some 20 years ago called The Gift Relationship in which the whole area of public welfare was described in terms of the blood service and the way in which people volunteered their donations. That is the fundamental aspect on which we wish to congratulate people who participate.
I hear my noble friend's comments about the problems of long-distance air travel. Perhaps that is something I should discuss with my noble friend Lady Hayman.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, perhaps I might also thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement. Over the past few years we have seen a major change taking place within the blood transfusion service which we now

807
see publicly recognised as being intensely traumatic. Can my noble friend confirm that almost from the inception of these changes the trade unions representing the professional staff involved, and in particular my own union, MSF, have identified problems that were experienced by the professionals involved and have sought to ensure that the changes taking place were mitigated to prevent the difficulties that we now see portrayed before us? Can she also confirm that we must learn a lesson from the experiences over the past few years with this service; namely, that a dictatorial, centralised management style is no way in which to run a public service? It may be that private industry, going through similar major changes, might learn lessons in the way in which the public service should be organised and run and changes instituted by taking much greater account of the workers involved, particularly the points put forward by the organised trade unions.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am happy to acknowledge the constructive role that the MSF union has played in trying to maintain skills and the morale of local workforces in the blood service and in drawing to wider attention some of the problems which they experienced as workers in local blood services. I suspect that one of the problems about the way in which the management was organised was, as my noble friend suggests, that there was not adequate consultation about some of the moves and changes which affected people's lives as well as their working arrangements and that that caused the lack of confidence to which I have referred several times this afternoon.

Steel Exports
6.30 p.m.
Lord Islwynrose to call attention to the value of sterling and its effects on steel exports; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the outset I welcome this opportunity to illustrate the serious problems that face British Steel as a direct result of the high value of sterling. I have had a long connection with the steel industry because for 31 years I represented Newport in the other place. Newport developed as a steel town and still has a major stake in that industry. I recall the situation about 15 years ago when the then British Steel Corporation was on the brink of collapse. It suffered from over-manning, inefficiency and lack of investment. We are all mirrors of our own experiences. I was particularly concerned about the situation in Wales because of its major stake in the steel industry. In the event, there was a number of planned closures, including the East Moors works in Cardiff and steel making in Ebbw Vale and Shotton in north Wales ended. The more modern Llanwern steel works in Newport was also in jeopardy but was saved by a last-minute reprieve, although approximately 5,000 people were made redundant.
I have spoken only about what happened in Wales, but the same thing happened all over the country. Whole communities were decimated, and the scars of
808
dereliction together with unemployment black spots remain to this day. The present situation is altogether more complex. Plants are working flat out; order books are full; and, due to the high level of capital intensity, plants must be operated 24 hours a day. Over 50 per cent. of what the United Kingdom steel industry produces is exported. Nearly two-thirds of these exports go to European countries. Therefore, the relationship of the pound to ERM currencies, particularly the deutschmark, is critical to the competitiveness of the United Kingdom steel industry. Today, the deutschmark stands at 3.065 to the pound. The value of the pound has soared by nearly 35 per cent. over the past 18 months. Even before the post-Budget surge it was generally agreed by economists that sterling was grossly over-valued. In the financial column of the Daily Telegraph on 4th April edited by Ben Potter it was said:
"British Steel is the classic currency casualty".
That is true. Yet export sales in volume terms have been maintained. The United Kingdom Steel Association—the trade organisation representing British steel companies—states that in the 19 months to December 1997 its member companies have lost £1.3 billion in export revenues alone. One does not need to be the greatest supporter of the capitalist system to realise that losses on that scale are not sustainable in the long term. It is almost inevitable that action will be taken to try to restore competitiveness. That can mean job losses and possibly plant closures. Investment will suffer. This is the seedcorn for the future competitiveness of the industry. Training may well be cut back, which again can have long-term detrimental consequences.
I have no wish to try to teach British Steel how to run its business. Nevertheless, to play devil's advocate for a moment the first question to ask is: why borrow in sterling? Can there not be a switch in borrowing into foreign currency using revenue that is now being received? Secondly, steel is made largely from iron ore, which must be imported. Does the high value of the pound have a beneficial effect on the price of the iron ore that is imported? No doubt these questions are being considered at this critical time. Steel is fundamental to manufacturing. Even products that are not made of steel are probably made with steel. Four million people are employed directly in manufacturing and a further 4 million are employed indirectly and provide the United Kingdom steel industry with its domestic customer base.
If we turn to the export sector that is now giving cause for concern, we find that manufacturing is responsible for nearly two-thirds of the United Kingdom's total export of goods and services. That is to be compared with just 23 per cent. for the service sector and 15 per cent. for other invisibles including oil. There can be little doubt that the high value of the pound is having a direct and detrimental effect on the export of manufactured goods generally and that steel is particularly badly hit.
From personal knowledge I am aware that British Steel is a very efficient organisation. It employs 38,000 in the United Kingdom and a further 10,000 overseas. It is modern, technologically advanced and internationally competitive both in terms of quality and productivity,

809
but the Monetary Committee of the Bank of England's use of the blunt instrument of successive rises in interest rates is causing that industry serious problems. The manufacturing sector as a whole bears the brunt of the anti-inflationary medicine; that is, higher interest rates are helping to bring about an over-valued pound. Ironically, the manufacturing sector shows few signs of inflationary pressures. The tragic fact is that companies in manufacturing, and steel in particular, will be forced to review their investment plans and workers may be laid off.
I raise a further interesting aspect of the grossly over-valued pound. In the past 20 years or so many overseas companies have invested heavily in Britain. In the automobile sector big names like Datsun in Sunderland, Toyota in Derby, Honda in Swindon, Ford Engines in Bridgend and major motor component suppliers like Bosch of Germany have settled in this country. More recently, in electronics huge investments have been made by the Korean company LG in Newport. It is estimated that eventually it will provide about 6,000 direct jobs. Hyundai in Scotland has also made a major investment up there. Of course I appreciate that at the present time there are difficulties in regard to Korea and its distressed economy. These foreign companies have played a significant part in providing jobs in economic black spots which suffered the ravages of the Thatcherite years and the closure of the so-called smokestack industries.
Now we need to take note of a warning given by Mr. Jack Smith, chairman of that huge conglomerate General Motors. He said recently:
"The strength of sterling has now turned the United Kingdom into a high cost economy for inward investments".
I do not feel that any further comment is required from me on this issue and so I return to my principal theme. Steel is the classic casualty of the present anomalous currency situation. It has been suggested that the Chancellor in his Budget could have done more to help by way of fiscal policy: 2 per cent. of gross domestic product—and the Chancellor retorts that this was tighter than expected. Nevertheless, we all know that a serious problem still exists.
Finally, let me make it clear that my object in securing this debate was not to make a cheap attack on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Gordon Brown, for he is a man whom I hold in the highest possible regard. He is a caring and compassionate man, as witness his Welfare to Work programme and the determined attempt to get our young people out of the dole queue and into work. What I am asking this evening is for the Minister to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the serious difficulties that our highly efficient and competitive steel industry is facing, due to these currency difficulties, and to ask him to do what he can to alleviate the situation. I beg to move for papers.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, first, I should like to offer my thanks and commendation to my noble friend Lord Islwyn for doing the House a great service in raising a matter which is obviously of very great
810
importance. My noble friend has a long-standing interest in steel. I recall the very long period in which he acted as chairman of our steel committee in the other place, his many contributions to debate there and his devoted interest in steel generally and also in the great steel tradition and activity in south Wales.
My own concern is very similar to his, except that my remarks this evening will be particularly related to the engineering steel sector, which I know reasonably well and part of which I represented in the other place for a very long time. Because of our experience, my noble friend and I, together with many others on this side of the House, will be sensitive to the anxieties which from time to time develop in this essential industry. I have seen in my lifetime, and certainly in the years since I became a Member of Parliament in 1970, enormous change in that industry in my own area.
I recall—and noble friends who know south Yorkshire may also recall—that for a very long period between Rotherham and Sheffield there were huge steelworks which employed tens of thousands of men—steelworks which provided the sinews for economic growth and success and for the materials of conflict. If I go there now, the employment total is little more than 1,000. Most of those big plants have gone and the steel industry to a very large extent has moved to an area which is not that far away geographically. but to the north of Rotherham and away from Sheffield. Indeed, without wishing to enter into local rivalry, Rotherham rather than Sheffield could now be described as the centre of engineering steel.
That transfer has not only sacrificed many thousands of jobs but it has involved enormous investment, so that a very small number of people—perhaps less than 10 per cent. of the total once employed—are now engaged in engineering steel. But the new plants that have been built in recent years—plants like Thrybergh Bar Mill, Aldwarke and Roundwood—have productivity figures which could not have been imagined then. They have become world leaders in engineering steel. However, despite their success, the sacrifice, co-operation and involvement of the people involved in that industry, with the assistance of the community and local authorities, and despite achieving those records, they have from time to time had grounds for very serious anxiety.
Now we have another one. In the early 1980s we had what might be called almost a psychological problem when the last government appeared to dismiss and be disdainful of manufacturing industry. We had after that a very serious problem caused by, shall we say, the partisan approach to the electricity supply industry. In order to sweeten that industry for privatisation the price of electricity rose alarmingly. In the plants to which I have referred engineering steel is made by use of electric arc furnaces, and those furnaces at Aldwarke, Thrybergh Bar Mill, Roundwood and similar works consume as much electricity as a city, so that during that period the proportion of the costs of production accounted for by the electricity bill was almost as much as the labour costs of those enterprises. It brought a great deal of anxiety to people at all levels in that industry.

811
Despite that, the problems were faced and productivity continued to increase. As I have said, we have world-heating plants. I do not think there are more successful plants anywhere in the world than those; yet we then came across another problem. We encountered protectionism in Europe to a point which my noble friend may recall created a great deal of anger, because we found that we were seeking to compete with steelworks where governments were meeting the labour costs, where enormous capital write-offs were engaged in and where government subsidies for so-called research and development were put into what happened to be existing technology. All that meant that we were facing an uphill struggle. We went to the Minister and my noble friend may recall that I had a relevant Question about it the other day. We went to the Minister, to unions, to management, local authorities and the community; and the Department of Trade and Industry seemed to be taking notice. They said that they would raise the matter at the Council of Ministers. A few days after that meeting a press statement was issued proclaiming that a monitoring committee was being set up to examine the situation. My noble friend may recall that we raised this a few months later in the other place and indeed I recall asking who was monitoring the monitors, because there seemed to be no evidence of any monitoring taking place, despite the last government's claims. My noble friend, in an Answer to me the other day, appeared to confirm that there does not seem to have been very much monitoring of that.
My point is that if we continue to succeed and continue to achieve and then find structural, perhaps improper and indeed illegal activity in Europe—which is such a large part of our market, as my noble friend has said—then we are entitled to be deeply concerned. My noble friend has said that so far the high rate of exchange has not led to any dramatic change, but it has led to a great deal of anxiety. I heard anxieties expressed in South Yorkshire at the weekend. That anxiety needs to be considered. We do not suggest that there is a dramatic change in government policy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as my noble friend has said, is committed to maintaining a strong economy. However, I heard at the weekend, and it is an entirely relevant comment, that some people have been saying that Japan, Germany and other countries have achieved great success despite a high exchange rate; and so they have. But Japan was an extremely protected economy and Germany has certainly maintained protection in recent years, whether or not we have Common Market regulations. We must be vigilant to ensure that if we are playing the game, if we are obeying the rules, we must expect other partner countries in the EU to do likewise. If they do not, we are entitled to expect the Commission to pay particular attention to any of their backsliding.
I hope that we can continue to see that Britain benefits, and that those involved in the industry benefit, from the sacrifices and the investment that they have made. As I said, and as my noble friend pointed out, it has cost the steel areas thousands of jobs. It would be an enormous pity if the exchange rate were to prevent Britain from reaping the harvest of that investment. It would also be a great tragedy if that exchange rate in
812
any way deterred the inflow of investment that we need to promote the employment which is so desperately needed in those areas.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, we hear and read that the UK manufacturing sector has failed to live with the strong pound, while its German and Japanese counterparts have in the past made great strides in world markets with a strong mark and yen. It is said that our manufacturers have failed to maintain increases in productivity similar to Germany and Japan and that wage increases in the UK have been out of line with our competitors.
Our main steel producer, British Steel, has certainly not made over-generous wage settlements and its productivity record matches the best in the world among steelmakers. It is taking vigorous management action to restore its competitiveness but this cannot be achieved overnight and certainly not in the face of a huge surge in sterling's strength versus the deutschmark—the major European currency in which British Steel trades—of over 30 per cent. in the past 15 months.
The German economy has not had to contend with this level of change in its exchange rate over such a short period. In the case of the Japanese, the rapid appreciation of the yen versus the dollar in the mid-1990s brought great pain to their exporters, but it came after a long period of exchange rate stability. These are the differences which Ministers and the Bank of England Monetary Committee need to understand.
British Steel has transformed itself over the past 10 years. It is modern, efficient, technologically advanced and internationally competitive; that is, until the pound surged by over 30 per cent. against the deutschmark (the crucial exchange rate relationship) to its grossly overvalued current level. We do not want or need a weak pound but it is doubtful whether the UK customer base can live with sterling's current parity with the deutschmark without major job losses and cutbacks in production and lower exports.
Some 50 per cent. of British Steel output is exported, much of it to other European Union markets, and we are very dependent on the wider UK manufacturing sector (a large part of its domestic customer base) which itself exports some 50 per cent. of its output. In fact, its exports account for nearly two-thirds of Britain's exports of goods and services.
British Steel has already embarked on vigorous actions to restore competitiveness. Some of these will regrettably mean progressive and significant job losses. But while it may be facing a couple of difficult years, its real concern lies with the future competitiveness of its UK customer base.
Prior to the Budget too much emphasis was, and still is, being placed on UK interest rates to combat inflation. It is the UK manufacturing sector, and within it the UK steel industry, that is bearing the brunt of the anti-inflation medicine (increased interest rates leading to the highly damaging overvalued pound).

813
It is widely accepted that Britain currently has a two speed economy. It is not at all clear why the authorities should persist with a policy which unnecessarily damages manufacturing, where inflation is running at under 0.5 per cent. when it is the services sector's inflation rate that is running at 4.5 per cent.
Of course British Steel supports the Government's strategic objective of long-term stability, including low inflation, but what is gained by using the single blunt instrument of interest rate increases to squeeze inflation out of the UK economy, while risking squeezing the life out of chunks of British manufacturing in the shorter term?
The Chancellor evidently rejected the option of seeking a better balance between fiscal and monetary policy in his recent Budget. A one-off fiscal tightening could have been targeted at that part of the economy subject to overheating and inflationary pressures. This would have allowed an earlier and progressive reduction of interest rates. The effect would have been to change perceptions on the part of currency dealers and to weaken sterling versus the deutschmark.
This prompts the fundamental question: does new Labour really care about manufacturing? It would indeed be ironic if one of the Government's flagship policies to reduce youth unemployment began to get the young unemployed into work just as a large and growing number of the current workforce of 4 million in UK manufacturing find their jobs disappearing.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Paul: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, for initiating this debate which is so important for the future of the UK steel industry. To start with, I declare an interest. I am chairman of the Caparo Group, a manufacturer of steel-based engineering products.
Last week we discussed exports and looked at the effect of sterling's appreciation on manufacturing industry. Today we are discussing the steel industry specifically.
The UK steel industry has transformed itself over the past 10 years and exemplifies the changes and improvements to UK manufacturing generally. It is the most efficient steel industry in Europe and one of the best in the world. It is modern, technologically advanced and internationally competitive. It is a dynamic, innovative and progressive employer. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the managements and the unions for working together to make this possible, in particular, Sir Brian Moffat, chairman of British Steel, and Mr. Keith Brookman, general secretary of the Iron & Steel Trades Confederation.
It has been said that industry should make itself more innovative, competitive and productive. Here is an industry that has done all of that. Inefficient practices have been shaken out and productivity improved to world-class levels. However, the UK steel industry, which has to live in a European market, is finding it increasingly hard to compete due to the strength of the pound. Sterling has appreciated against the dollar by
814
8 per cent. since August 1996. Of greater concern is the 35 per cent. movement against the deutschmark over the same period.
Some 50 per cent. of UK steel's output is exported, much of it to other European markets. Steel is also used in the wider UK manufacturing sector—a large part of our domestic customer base—which itself exports some 50 per cent. of its output.
Since three-quarters of the UK's steel output is dependent on exports, much of it to EU markets, it is obvious that the pound:deutschmark relationship is critical. UK steel is the most efficient steel industry in Europe and it is finding it difficult to compete in spite of being very efficient.
There are not many more costs that can be cut, and steel workers can be justifiably angry that their jobs are at risk, not for reasons of poor performance or lack of investment, but simply because of the adverse exchange rate. This is largely due to the boom in service industries which is making it necessary to increase UK interest rates. UK interest rates are far higher than in the countries with which our steel industry is competing. I would add that the UK steel industry has always been in favour of the single currency, which shows its own confidence in its competitiveness in normal circumstances.
Despite the problems caused by the exchange rate, the steel industry still managed last year to export more steel than our competitors sold here; 47 per cent. more, in fact. Although we may need to import many of our raw materials these days, our exports more than pay for these purchases.
Steel contributed £2.3 billion to the UK balance of trade in 1996. Since then, however, the over-valued pound has wiped £1.3 billion off our export earnings.
The Government have stated that they are anxious to avoid "boom and bust" and to ensure steady job creation. It seems to me that Britain is rapidly becoming a two-tier economy with a 1980s style north/south divide. In London and the south-east are the service industries, with higher wages and inflation running at 4.5 per cent. In the north and west the manufacturing industry cannot afford to pay its present wage bill, and inflation is only half a per cent. This cannot go on and should not be allowed to go on.
I am delighted to see that my friend the Chancellor, the right honourable Gordon Brown, has acknowledged the problem and I hope that he will do something soon. Perhaps he can point out to those in charge of raising interest rates that Britain exists beyond one square mile of London.
The loss of job security and career prospects has long-term effects for the industry itself. The loss of confidence in the industry as a future employer caused many of our best young people to shun the steel sector in the 1980s to the point that recovery in the 1990s was hindered by skill shortages and difficulty in recruiting technical staff. Unfortunately, it is already starting all over again.
To create a world-class workforce and to maintain its position in the future, the steel industry needs to recruit young people who will be even more adaptable and

815
skilled and who see that steel can offer them a really worthwhile and exciting career. We must not let them believe that there is no future in the steel industry.
With my experience of the steel industry, let me assure your Lordships that there is no "whingeing". The steel industry has made itself fit to fight any competitive battle, but at the moment it is fighting the battle with one hand tied behind its back.
What would be the position today if we no longer had a steel industry? Other manufacturers would have to import their steel. The direct adverse impact on the country's balance of payments would be some £10 billion a year. Sixty thousand jobs would be lost directly and many thousands more indirectly.
We must redress the balance, otherwise the consequences will be serious not just for the steel industry but for the UK economy as a whole.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Islwyn for initiating the debate. I was not present on a previous occasion when the House debated the exchange rate. I have no practical experience of any industry, certainly not the steel industry, but I wish to call attention to the value of sterling, as the Motion states, and comment on its effect on steel exports. I shall comment more on the former and less on the latter.
Perhaps I may first comment specifically on the steel industry, especially on what was said by my noble friend Lord Hardy. I agree that in negotiations inside the European Community we must insist that the rules of the single market are followed. There is much backsliding on that in other countries because they still have a subsidised steel industry. We do not. Any agreement that we should all make equal cuts in our capacity and so forth should be firmly rejected. We must state that a single market clause must be adhered to and that subsidies given in other countries should be eliminated because they are a tariff on British steel exports. I hope that my noble friend Lord Haskel will assure us that the Government's stance on that matter will be implacable and that no concessions will be made.
As regards the value of sterling, appreciation is vis-à-vis the deutschmark. Appreciation vis-à-vis the dollar has been small. We must examine why that imbalance exists between dollar and deutschmark. It is fair to say that even prior to the present monetary framework coming into effect after the election, sterling had already begun to appreciate against the deutschmark. Before the rises in interest rates which took place before the Monetary Policy Committee was set up, sterling was rising. I believe that there had been a deliberate depreciation of the deutschmark; that the Germans steadily followed the policy of depreciating the deutschmark. They had been suffering a recession in the aftermath of the absorption into the economy of East Germany. That depreciation of the deutschmark has been a major factor in the rise of sterling against the deutschmark.
Secondly, some time ago an analysis in the Bank of England quarterly bulletin showed that even if one examines the effect of the interest rate rises which have
816
taken place one still cannot fully explain the appreciation of the deutschmark. Over and above the interest rate rises, there is what is called the "safe haven effect". Pending the introduction of a single currency there is a great deal of nervousness. Many people are moving into sterling because they believe that for the next five years or so it will be a safe currency: at least we know how it will behave and how it will be regulated. The result is due to a combination of Germany's deliberate policy to depreciate the deutschmark, the safe haven effect and the rises in interest rates during the past year.
What can we do about that? We must strike a balance. When my right honourable friend introduced the new arrangement giving the Bank of England control over interest rates by setting an inflation objective, the long-term rate of interest fell in the UK. Whereas during many previous years we were paying I per cent. to 1.75 per cent. more than the Germans and Americans were paying in long-term interest rates, today those interest rates are practically identical. I checked that in the Independent today. Therefore, there has been an advantage in lower long-term interest rates. Of course, what we have been paying for is higher short-term interest rates, and that is because of the boom in the service economy which my noble friends have pointed out.
I was saying to a fellow economist that people are always surprised when the economy is unbalanced. I do not know why anybody expects the economy, which is a complex machine, to be balanced all the time. It is probably the fault of the economists. They have convinced the world that it is all equilibrium and harmony and that it is a nice round ball which rolls along. It is more often the case that the economy has its imbalances.
The services sector employs the majority of the workforce. We must remember that. The services sector employs two-thirds, if not a larger proportion, of the labour force and the manufacturing sector employs only about 18 per cent. of the labour force. I am willing to be corrected on that, but I do not think that I am wrong by more than one or two percentage points. Therefore, because there is a lot of employment and we have had various building society demutualisations and such matters, we have had a considerable boom.
It is absolutely correct that if we have a monetary framework in existence with an inflationary target, the Monetary Policy Committee which is assigned that task must ensure that that target is met. I am a purist in that regard. I should not have given the Bank of England independence, but that is another story. Once it has been given its independence, it must play according to the rules. It should not start second-guessing and adding other objectives such as what might happen to the north and the south or this or that industry. It must maintain an absolutely straight, single-objective policy.
Even the Chancellor should not do anything which would cast doubt on his own belief in the framework which he has set up. If he starts to say that he is not sure that that framework is right or that the Monetary Policy Committee should do X, Y and Z, it undermines

817
the independence of the Bank of England in setting interest rates and it undermines the credibility of the UK Government in maintaining an anti-inflationary stance. The effect of that will be much more harmful to the economy than anything which a strong exchange rate will do.
For far too long in British economic policy-making, we have believed that a quick devaluation will solve all our problems. It did not do that for a long time. It is only since we have maintained a good monetary policy framework, first under Mr. Lamont and Mr. Clarke and since under my right honourable friend, that the UK economy in the past four or five years has achieved some credibility. Long-term interest rates are coming down. Although our short-term interest rates are high, I do not believe that one can start talking them down, partly because it does not work any more. Capital markets do not like that and they are likely to react rather perversely if the Chancellor starts to say that sterling should be lower than it is.
We are caught in this rather peculiar circumstance in which there are good parts of the monetary framework which have been established. It is essential that we stick to that framework and not disturb it in any way or undermine its credibility. That means that one cannot offer any solace to the steel industry or any other industry.
I gather—and again, I am willing to be corrected on this—that the impact of the pound on different industries is different, obviously because some export to the dollar area and some to the deutschmark area. The pharmaceutical industry has been doing quite well as has the aerospace industry. But steel has been suffering. Therefore, a balance must he struck. It is very difficult nowadays to devise an industry-specific policy without undermining the overall framework of the economy.
One used to be able to think of policy in terms of regional aid and so on, but one cannot do that nowadays. It is not possible to target specifically a particular industry. That may even be in violation of the various EC rules.
Therefore. here we are and here we shall stay. I am sorry to he the usual doom-laden economist. To confirm my reputation as a trouble-maker, I would advise the Monetary Policy Committee, unless it has already done so, to put up interest rates. The market is waiting for the second shoe to drop, as it were. It is still expecting one more increase in interest rates. The expectation has been for a long time that UK interest rates will go up. Unless we settle that question, there is no other signal which the Monetary Policy Committee can give. If it does not increase interest rates now, people will expect an interest rate increase next month because inflationary pressures within the British economy are still quite acute, regional differences notwithstanding.
Therefore, paradoxically, the best way to get the pound down is to have one more interest rate increase. That will convince everybody that we are in the serious business of maintaining an anti-inflation policy, but that further interest rate increases will not happen. People will start to get off sterling because no further interest rate rises are expected.
818
I should add that while I have great sympathy for the steel industry, it is better equipped than many other industries in the UK to withstand this shock, as has been made clear. There is also the problem that in the long run the UK may have to move towards exporting more sophisticated products. Therefore, we should move away from the more basic manufacturing products. But that is for the future.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who, as always, has made a most interesting contribution to the debate. Like others who have spoken, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Islwyn, for initiating this debate. We are discussing a very important industry which is facing, as we have all agreed, an intractable and unfortunate problem caused by the rise of the pound.
The debate has gained a great deal from the speeches of those who have been involved personally and politically in the steel industry, like the noble Lords, Lord Islwyn, and Lord Hardy of Wath, and also those who have had practical experience of running steel companies like the noble Lord, Lord Paul.
In some ways, this debate is a continuation of last week's debate, when again the question of sterling was considered. Opinion then seemed to be divided. There was one school that said we could live with a higher exchange rate; it would be a spur to productivity; there was no reason why we should not be able to emulate Germany and Japan, who lived with a high exchange rate in the 1970s and 1980s and gained from the greater productivity and investment which it produced. There is quit a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that something of the same nature is taking place in Britain at present.
I have been concerned with the setting up of an industrial mezzanine fund and it is encouraging to find that many of the companies applying for loans from that fund want to invest new capital in order to deal with the high exchange rate so as to cut their costs and put themselves on a much better long-term basis. That is certainly happening.
The other school of thought which emerged last week was that the pound is grossly over-valued, and that it is ruining some perfectly efficient industries. Of course, here we come to what the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, described as the "classic currency casualty"—I believe he borrowed that phrase from the Telegraph.
I agree that steel is an industry of which we can be pound because it has done everything that one can expect an industry to do. In the past 10 years, there has been a 400 per cent. increase in productivity—the same production as 10 years ago with one-quarter of the workforce. There has not been a single day during that period lost in strikes. It would be a tragedy if, because of the high pound, that industry found that it had to be severely reduced. It is not only hit by the high pound, it is also hit by the crisis in South East Asia which affects its exports and which means that there will be a flood of cheap steel imports into the EU from that area.

819
I find myself more in sympathy with the second school of thought than with the first. Like the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, I am not in favour of constant devaluation. I believe that a great deal can be done if the pound is strong. But, in the first place, and as the noble Lord pointed out, Germany and France did not have to deal with such a sudden and rapid rise in their currency. It is this rapid rise, which makes it impossible to plan long term, which has hit the steel industry so hard. I am not in favour of constant devaluation; indeed, I am very much in favour of a stable currency, but a stable currency at a somewhat lower level. It seems to me that the present level of the pound overvalues it and is bound to do damage.
The leaders of the steel industry want to enter the monetary union as soon as possible. Indeed, had we entered, or had we declared our intention to do so, it is likely that we would now be facing a lower rate of currency. As soon as Gordon Brown appeared, according to press reports in the Financial Times, to plan to take us into EMU, the pound dropped. However, when all those stories were denied and we had a new version of the "wait and see" policy, the level of the pound rose.
I turn now to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Desai; namely, why is the pound so high and can anything be done about it? It is most difficult to identify exactly why the pound is so high. It is not just a simple matter. I suspect that high, short-term interest rates are as important a factor as any. In particular, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, pointed out, the fear of higher interest rates is a factor which is pushing up the level of the pound. Moreover, the depreciation of the deutschmark is undoubtedly a factor, as is the fear of a weak euro. The American mania to buy corporate equity, wherever it is more modestly priced, is also a factor. The Japanese craving for foreign bonds, which have a yield rather higher than one can get from yen-denominated paper and which yield rather less than 2 per cent., is yet another factor.
In time, all of those factors may change, except perhaps the latter. If there is a recession or a slow-down, which, fortunately, I believe is somewhat more likely than a recession, interest rates will no doubt start coming down. In time—perhaps soon, although we do not know when—it seems inevitable that American interest rates will rise. Moreover, it seems likely that, as the German and the French recovery gathers speed, there will be a rise in continental interest rates. That, again, will help us.
I believe that we are more likely to see a strong euro than a weak one. First, the European Central Bank will be determined to prove its credibility as a central bank and will tend to take a somewhat macho stance; indeed, perhaps even more macho than is desirable. But apart from that, over the course of the next 20 years, once the euro is established or, indeed, from the moment when it is announced, we are likely to see a massive transfer of international reserve holdings from dollars into euros which is bound to lead to a rise in the euro. As I said, it is much more likely that we will see a strong euro rather than a weak one. The trouble is that we have no idea how long this process of adjustment will take. It
820
could take a very long time before the pound comes down. In the meantime, the steel industry will suffer and may have to make very severe cuts.
That brings me to the role of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Monetary Policy Committee is not concerned directly with the exchange rate; it is concerned with the control of inflation. Of course, it takes account of whether a high exchange rate is already having an impact on inflation, but it is not one of its jobs to target the exchange rate. The Chancellor has shown himself to be rather indifferent to the exchange rate. When he made his announcement on 27th October last about Britain's relations with EMU, I was rather surprised that he never mentioned the exchange rate. Indeed, he spoke about five different conditions that he would apply, most of which were entirely subjective and political, but he did not mention the biggest obstacle that we face which is the exchange rate.
The decision is a difficult one because a decision in the MPC is one taken in circumstances where the committee has to consider a tight labour market, a high monetary growth and a high level of consumption. However, it seems to me that the Chancellor has made a grave error in not setting the right framework within which the decisions of the MPC have to be reached. I say that because, unless there is firm fiscal action to restrain consumption by fiscal means, interest rates will have to take all the strain. The Chancellor's defence is that the July budget and the present Budget have been extremely tight and that he tightened fiscal policy by some 2 per cent. But the circumstances certainly needed tightening because the mass of money—something like £30 billion—which came on to the market through the demutualisation process was such that that has had a very strong influence on increasing consumption.
My criticism of the Chancellor is that he took the easy way out in tightening his fiscal policy. He went by way of a utilities windfall tax; he went for the pension funds; and he tightened up on corporations through the acceleration of payments of corporation tax. Indeed, he has hit companies hard, but has not hit consumption hard. He was not prepared to attack consumption, partly because of a mistaken promise not to raise taxes given before the last election and partly because it seemed to be the easy and popular way out. He won the acclaim of the multitude at the same time as claiming to tighten fiscal policy. He cannot have it both ways.
Here I would draw an unfavourable comparison between the approach of the present Chancellor and those of his two predecessors. After the devaluation in 1992, what was desperately needed in this country was a reduction in the growth of consumption below the growth of GDP. I never thought that the government of the time would do so, but they did. Indeed, Chancellor Lamont and Chancellor Clarke did it, although the latter relaxed somewhat just before the last election.
It is just possible that the Chancellor is right to follow a policy of benign neglect towards the exchange rate because, sooner or later, the matter may well be solved because of the changes in international factors. But I believe that he was wrong to take that risk in the belief that, in time, it would all come out right. His actions in

821
that respect have been irresponsible. He should have acted much more firmly: he should have acted directly on consumption. He could perhaps have gone for green taxes. He could have tempered the wind to the shorn lamb by various social measures to ensure that those who would be hit by green taxes would not be worse off.
I believe that the increasing difficulties of the steel industry, because of the high exchange rate, are a tragedy. Here is an industry which should be an example to the rest of British industry as one which has done everything right and which has been supported in every possible way. It is an example that we should have held up for others to follow. But, instead, it finds itself in its present difficulties. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, for initiating this debate. I hope that the Minister who is to reply will convey to his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the concern which some of us have about his failure to act firmly enough against consumption.
7.29 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, from the moment that the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, began the debate right through to the speech which has just been concluded, there has rightly been a clear concentration on the most impressive performance of the British steel industry in recent years. That is an accolade in which I join. Indeed, it has been a remarkable performance and one which we would wish to see sustained into the future. The purpose of this debate should be to argue that there is no reason why it should not be sustained indefinitely into the future.
However, what concerns me is the wearisome predictability about the response that we shall receive to this important debate; indeed, not only wearisome, I fear that it will also be quite without any grasp of the responsibility of government. I believe that New Labour is so concerned that it will suffer the slur of being called "interventionist" that it will regard any activity that it might contemplate introducing as being something that has to be set aside and that it will, accordingly, abdicate all responsibility. I fear that the Chancellor will tell us once again that, while it is recognised that there is a problem for exporters, including steel exporters, there is nothing the Government can do. In any event, we shall be told again that a strong pound is no bad thing, and that now the responsibility for the setting of interest rates has been passed to the monetary committee of the Bank of England nothing can be done by government to adjust those rates to influence the value of the pound. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that if responsibility has been passed to that monetary committee there should be no sneaky suggestions by the Chancellor, or by any of his colleagues, that a degree of influence should be brought to bear on that committee. However, that is possibly a debate for another day.
I have no doubt we shall hear there are parallels to be drawn with Germany and Japan, which at the height of their economic expansion and success had currencies that were even stronger in relative terms than the pound is today. What we need to understand is how different matters are today, particularly in relation to the two
822
economies I have just mentioned. The currencies against which the pound is strongest are the European currencies. There is no such thing as a strong pound, a strong dollar or a strong deutschmark; it is a relative term. One needs to assess that relative strength.
It is baffling that the Government still obtusely fail to recognise that at least one substantial reason for sterling's relative strength against the European currencies is the real doubts that exist in the capital markets over the fudge in the convergence criteria for the new euro currency. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, described it as the safe haven approach. I have no doubt that that is a strong influencing factor. As everyone knows who has participated in debates on Europe in your Lordships' House, the Maastricht requirement is that debt ratios to GDP should be no more than 60 per cent. But in spite of that, both the Italian and the Belgian economies have been allowed to move forward without interruption into the new euro currency at a time when their debt ratios are 118 per cent. Is it the least bit surprising that those who wish to put their money into a currency have chosen the British pound sterling rather than the European currencies which are about to make up the new euro?
The Government's approach troubles me. I accept that they should not interfere with the monetary committee if that is the decision that has been taken—I shall not enter that debate—but has there been no opportunity for the Government, during the period of their presidency of the European Union, to bring about the influence and the leadership that they claimed they would effectively bring to bear, in sharp contradistinction to the previous government? Was there no moment when they could have said, "It simply will not do to establish this new euro currency in direct and obvious breach of the criteria set at the time of Maastricht"?
I hope that even now there may yet be some opportunity for the Government to influence the way in which the euro is being established. It simply will not do to slip out of any responsibility by saying, "We may be knocked out because we could not exercise a veto in these matters and we would be knocked out by majority voting". The position is very different from the previous time when sterling was as strong as it is at present. That was at the height of the second oil shock when sterling was—for better or for worse—very much regarded as one of the important petro-currencies of the world. There was little that could be done to adjust its value then.
I wish to speak briefly about the comparison that has already been drawn in this debate—I have no doubt it will be mentioned again by the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate—with Germany and Japan. When their currencies were strong, they had low sustained inflation, low interest rates and, most important of all, their governments did nothing to damage the industries within their domestic economies by pursuing harmful domestic policies. I shall elaborate on that a little.
During the period of the previous government I was the Minister responsible for sponsorship in the north-east of England. Those who have affection for that

823
part of the United Kingdom will recall the enthusiasm along the Tyne and the Tees at the sound of ringing steel which had not been heard for a long time. Huge ships were being converted for use as floating production platforms in the North Sea. In Middlesbrough, when one of these huge vessels arrived, more of the men who worked there brought their wives and children to see it than were in the Middlesbrough stadium, which was situated immediately behind that yard, such was the sense of pride and renewal that was felt at the fact that those industries were again successful. All those industries were connected with developments in the North Sea and developments in prospect to the west of Shetland.
There has been nothing so damaging to the steel industry than the announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will undertake a review of North Sea oil taxation. While to date I am not aware of any major project being cancelled or postponed, the Government ought to be well aware that the uncertainty as regards a change in the tax regime over the next five or 10 years is such that there must be a real risk that those projects involving a massive tonnage of steel will be set aside. I urge the Government to pay keen regard to the views of the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association that thousands of jobs will be lost. There must be a real risk that the damage will affect the steel industry too. Germany and Japan, at the height of their economic success—when they undoubtedly had a high mark and a high yen respectively—had no intended or unintended development of domestic taxation policy which damaged their industries. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, who pointed out that it is not just the direct steel input into particular projects that is at issue; all manufacturing industry has a clear dependence on steel.
As many of your Lordships know, I am a Scot and proud of it. Since Monday, 850 jobs have been lost in Scotland; some of those were shed by Mitsubishi. Those are manufacturing jobs which Scotland and the United Kingdom can ill afford to lose at the present time. I hope that the Minister will state whether there is a recognition that if we are not already in recession we are dangerously close to arriving at that undesirable state. I do not wish to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say yet again on the radio that he does not wish to see a return to boom or bust. I suggest that he makes that speech in Haddington at the weekend to see whether the people there believe that we have already returned to that state of boom or bust.
If I am critical of the Chancellor's endless repetition of that phrase, I believe that the Prime Minister is absolutely correct to say that the Asian crisis does not end at the shores of the Pacific. The Mitsubishi decision to shed the jobs I have mentioned must, at least in part, be influenced by its problems at home. If the Prime Minister understands that, one would anticipate that he would be particularly sensitive—his Government ought to be particularly sensitive to this—at this moment to the difficulties that presently confront manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom, and the steel industry in particular. We on this side of the House wish to see the steel industry highly efficient and effective. We see
824
no reason why it should not be. What we do not wish to see is a failed steel industry as a backdrop for another film, however close it comes to winning an Oscar. We do not believe that there is any need for that. We would prefer to see it continue as active and vibrant as it has been in recent years.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging debate, and an interesting one. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, has given my speech for me, and I am much obliged to the noble Lord. What he said indicates that he has been listening to my right honourable friend the Chancellor. My right honourable friend has already answered a number of the points made by the noble Lord. I shall repeat those answers because the truth does not become any less the truth by virtue of repetition.
It may be helpful if I start by discussing the question of the high pound and then go on to deal with the steel industry.
The Government fully appreciate the difficulties of the steel industry. Like other parts of the manufacturing sector, it is currently experiencing difficulties because of the strength of sterling. Many speakers have drawn our attention to that point. My noble friend Lord Islwyn asked me to draw it to the Chancellor's attention. I can assure him that the Chancellor is very aware of it. He has made it clear that he wants a stable and competitive pound over the medium term. The Government's policy will achieve that by creating the conditions for sustainable growth, with low inflation and a balanced budget.
This framework has been put in place to avoid the very cycles of boom and bust and short-term expediency which have hampered industry and commerce in planning and executing their long-term investment policies. It is a return to those conditions that manufacturing industry really—and rightly—fears. The level of sterling is taken into account in the setting of interest rates, but it is not a targeted objective of this policy framework. It is the market's judgment on the current and future value of sterling relative to other currencies in international trade. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, on this point. The market currently judges sterling to be strong relative to other currencies. Commentators believe that this judgment may he based on the relatively high rates of interest paid by sterling borrowers and on market reactions to the prospect of EMU. My noble friend Lord Desai judges that the strength of sterling is based on the weakness of the deutschmark. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, also gave us his view.
It is important to put movements of currency into an international context. Sterling has been little changed against the dollar since the end of 1996. The real issue is the fall in the value of European currencies against the pound and the dollar. The deutschmark has fallen by 20 per cent. against the dollar and by 25 per cent. against the pound since the summer of 1996. This is the result of a number of factors. Divergence in economic cycles

825
is part of the story. The need to raise interest rates to head off inflationary pressures already emerging when the Government took office in order to get the economy back on track for sustainable growth is another factor. Uncertainty over the transition to the euro is likely to have played a part, as well. It is a very complicated matter.
Whatever the reasons, the key issue for business today is to recognise that sterling exchange rates cannot be controlled by government or by companies. Two-thirds of the current rise in sterling took place under the previous government. To be competitive, business must be flexible enough to absorb cost variables which cannot be controlled. That is a fact of business life. This can be achieved in part by forward cover in the foreign exchange markets, but generally it requires business to examine margin structures and value added against a relatively wide level of sterling ranges.
Neither is a strong currency necessarily a penalty in economic terms for all businesses. Perhaps I may pray in aid comments made in the debate last week by my noble friend Lord Simpson, who has direct and wide-ranging experience of the business world. He made the point that we no longer live in an age when exports are the result of UK-owned companies selling abroad products made in the United Kingdom with parts sourced from United Kingdom suppliers. It is much more complicated than that. In our globalised economy, exports frequently result from foreign companies making products in the United Kingdom from globally-sourced components. Such companies benefit, of course, from major reductions in the price of their raw materials and intermediate products. My noble friend rightly concluded that there are no simple fixes to exchange rate problems and that the real challenge is to make the UK an attractive environment for manufacturing industry. That is precisely what our policies on skills, education, trade and industry are doing. That is my response to the point made by my noble friend Lord Islwyn regarding General Motors.
If business loses the capacity to add sufficient value to sustained sales overseas, it will have to find alternative markets or realign running costs or, more likely, capital and revenue investment. The answer is not to cut costs by reducing staff and cutting research and development, as was suggested. The answer is often more investment and higher productivity. The significant realignment of sterling values that we have experienced in recent months will not be sustained if the market sees added-value capacity severely impaired.
I would add that economic experts themselves hold sharply divergent views on the consequences of a high exchange rate. Many champion the view that it provides a valuable stimulus to investment and innovation, as it did in Germany and Japan, and other noble Lords have spoken of this. Moreover, if a currency is pushed too high by the market, trade flows will clearly reflect loss of market share over time, with a resultant correction in currency levels, and so achieve the correction sought by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne.
826
The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, spoke about the Monetary Policy Committee. Other noble Lords were concerned that the Monetary Policy Committee was using only interest rates. At its August 1997 meeting the Monetary Policy Committee considered a number of policy instruments which might be used in place of interest rate rises, including overfunding. The committee did not see advantage in such measures or believe that they would contribute to addressing imbalances in the economy.
In short, now is the time to stick to our long-term objectives. Not only the Government but industry and financiers, too, should take a long-term view of economic developments. We should all be long-termist now.
I turn to the question of manufacturing. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, asked whether new Labour had abandoned manufacturing. It certainly has not. Let me tell you what the new Labour Government have done to assist manufacturing. They have abolished advance corporation tax to encourage investment. They are cutting the main rate of corporation tax from 33 per cent. last year to 30 per cent. by April 1999 and the small business rate from 23 per cent. to 20 per cent. over the same period—in both cases the lowest ever rates—and pledging to hold both rates at or below these new levels in the lifetime of this Parliament.
They are exempting small and medium-sized companies from corporation tax payments by instalments to improve cash flow. They are extending enhanced first year capital allowances and reforming capital gains tax with a new taper to reward risk-taking and encourage long-term investments.
In short, I believe that the manufacturing sector is in an excellent position to benefit from the progress that has been made and the measures that we have taken to reverse the long years of decline since 1979—years in which our gross domestic product per head slipped further and further behind that of our competitors.
Some noble Lords spoke about the strength of sterling leading to an imbalance between the service sector, which is booming, while the manufacturing sector is on the brink of recession. The Government inherited an economy growing at an unsustainable rate and in an unbalanced way, reflecting the failure of the last government to take the necessary policy action. As a result of the actions that this Government have therefore had to take to put the economy back on track, growth is expected to slow to more sustainable rates this year with some slow down in domestic demand and services sector growth likely through the course of the year. We are not forecasting recession either in manufacturing or service. Growth will be supported by continuing growth of domestic demand and expanding export markets.
Treasury forecasts manufacturing output growth of 0 per cent. to 0.5 per cent this year and I per cent to 1.5 per cent. in 1999. The CBI forecast manufacturing output growth of 1.3 per cent this year and 2.5 per cent. next.
I turn to the steel industry. My noble friend Lord Paul told us how successful the steel industry has been. Indeed other noble Lords spoke about it. My noble

827
friend Lord Paul congratulated a number of people who had been responsible for that. Perhaps I may congratulate him. I know that he, too, has played an important part in the success of the steel industry. Much of that success has been the result of the sacrifices spoken of by my noble friends Lord Islwyn and Lord Hardy. Certainly we have one of the cleanest, most innovative and efficient steel industries in the world. In the past 20 years productivity has risen more than fourfold. That is why my noble friend Lord Hardy does not see large factories, and a large number of people employed in the industry. The productivity has improved so much. At the same time, the industry has managed to reduce the energy needed to produce a tonne of steel by about one-third.
Those impressive statistics have underpinned an export performance that is again remarkable by any standards. About half of the tonnage produced by the industry is sold abroad, while in its last full trading year, British Steel alone achieved exports worth £2.7 billion, putting it in the top 10 UK exporters.
My noble friend Lord Hardy asked what the steel subsidies monitoring committee was doing. The committee published its last report in February 1996. It drew attention to the Commission's much improved monitoring of state aid and, although the committee continues to meet on an informal basis, it decided that it was no longer necessary to publish reports on its activities.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I am aware of that situation. However, while it did not wish to produce further reports, our anxiety is that the cause of our complaints which justified the work of that committee may not have disappeared. I should like to hope that the present administration will be extremely vigilant in pursuing this matter further should need arise.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, certainly. I shall come a little later to the steps that the Government are taking on that very point.
I wish to take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paul, about the importance of training in the steel industry. Intensive investment in training has also played a major part in that success, as the noble Lord told us. In its last annual report, British Steel recorded that it had provided an average of 11.5 days training for every member of staff—an outstanding record which at that time had resulted in its being awarded no fewer than 24 national and 24 regional training awards, the best performance of any company in the UK.
I make these points not in a spirit of complacency but of admiration for the businesslike way in which the steel industry has responded to rapid market change over which it has had no control. British Steel in particular has understood that exporting is no longer a simple matter of selling a product more cheaply than competitors. Success today is the result of investment—investment in innovation, efficiency improvements and training.
828
In short, it is the result of achieving international competitiveness. That can be done regardless of the value of the pound. As my noble friend Lord Simpson said in a debate last week, we should be focusing on the causes of good export performance rather than the result. That is what I admire so much about the steel industry.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, forecast that we would abdicate our responsibility towards the industry. What the Government cannot do is to tell the industry how to run its business. But what they can do is to build a partnership with the steel industry as with other manufacturers: a partnership with an agenda which includes science, the spread of new ideas, innovation, the labour market, the availability of finance for business, and the creation of an enterprise culture. Those are all issues that we are addressing through the Competitiveness UK Initiative. There will be a partnership White Paper in the autumn.
It is a partnership in which we are actively promoting the industry's competitiveness by helping it with export promotion initiatives and through the joint funding of schemes to introduce best practice and the benefits of new technology.
Part of this partnership is to try to help the industry deal with the problem of unfair competition. We do not hesitate to press for firm action by the Commission when we are given convincing evidence of subsidies, and have consistently supported stringent Commission enforcement of the Steel Aid Code which lays down strict rules on the provision of aid to steel industries in the European Union. It is part of our responsibility in the partnership that we have with the industry.
The same is true of allegations of dumped or subsidised steel products from other countries. The circumstances in which measures may be taken against them are strictly defined in the European Union and other international law, and we shall closely examine all such allegations within this framework. Cases of safeguard action are of course rarer and the criteria much more stringent. But again, should the necessary evidence be presented and action be justifiable within our international commitments and with regard to UK interests as a whole, we would press the Commission to consider the case very carefully.
The noble Lord, Lord Hardy, also raised the question about the price of electricity. We have listened to those concerns. Of course the industry is a heavy user of electricity. The steel industry already tries to be efficient and cost effective in its energy use, but nonetheless considers itself disadvantaged by the way in which the electricity pool operates.
My department has therefore announced plans for a full review of the way in which wholesale electricity prices are set, including the operation of the pool. That is a direct response to criticisms by the steel industry, among others, that the pool has set prices that are too high and that its operations are not sufficiently open. That is a matter which my department will deal with quickly.

829
I see that my time is more or less up. If there are any points to which I have not responded, I shall write to noble Lords. I hope that I have made clear today that the Government are sensitive to the concerns of the British steel industry, and do not underestimate the difficulties that the current exchange rate is causing for it, both in domestic and export markets.
But I hope that I have also made clear that to press in some ill-defined way for government action to remedy these is simplistic in the extreme. Most of the factors underlying the movement in the exchange rate are a reflection of international developments over which we have no control. Some on the Opposition Benches may argue for the politicians to take control again of interest rate decisions or to tighten still further one of the tightest fiscal positions we have had. We do not believe that is the way to the stable but competitive exchange rate. So there is no magic wand that can be waved.
On the contrary, it must be for the ultimate beneficiaries of our policies, the companies themselves, to respond to the challenge of these changing circumstances. I believe it is evident from its recent achievements that the UK steel industry has the strength and resilience to do precisely that.
8 p.m.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, we have had an interesting and informed debate on an important subject. I wish to thank all noble Lords who participated. Steel is a vital industry and its importance to the British economy cannot be over-estimated. I can only repeat that at present it is the classic casualty of the present currency situation. I hope that the Chancellor is listening to what has been said here tonight. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Fireworks Bill
8.1 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
In opening the debate, I wish to speak about the background to the Bill, its parliamentary progress to date and to explain briefly its provisions. Before I start, I feel it is important to place on record our appreciation of Linda Gilroy, Member of Parliament for Plymouth Sutton, for piloting this worthy Private Member's Bill through the other place.
Fireworks provide an enjoyable form of entertainment when used as intended and in the right circumstances. So the last thing we want to do is to regulate fireworks so tightly that they are no longer available to the public, with the risk of a black market developing or people being tempted to make their own. However, we must all be aware that last year 908 people were injured by fireworks and in the year before two people died and 1,233 were injured.
830
The background to the Bill is the concern everyone shares about the injuries and deaths that can result from fireworks; the limit of current legislative framework to introduce regulations to deal with different aspects of firework safety; the limitations of government legislative priorities and timetables, and the ability of the mechanism of Private Members' legislation to take through Parliament small but significant pieces of legislation.
Even before the Bill was drafted, its provisions were the subject of wide-ranging consultation, which continued beyond initial drafting. This consultation included those involved with safety, enforcement and the fireworks industry itself, as well as other interested parties. The Bill received serious and detailed scrutiny in the other place and was amended as a result of that scrutiny. Having been amended, it received all-party support—or, rather, should I say it received support from all parts of the House. I am sure we must all agree that safety is one subject on which there should be no party political division but rather an acceptance that the protection of the public should not be used as a political football.
I should mention at this point that the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, as President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, has asked me to convey to the House his support for the Bill and that of RoSPA, and to convey his apologies that because of a prior engagement he could not speak himself in the debate. I can further report that my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell would have spoken in support but also cannot be present tonight.
I turn now to the provisions of the various clauses. Clause 1 defines the expression "fireworks" and what is meant by "supplying" for the purposes of the Bill. The definition of "supply" is modelled on that in the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The definition of "fireworks" is the same as that in the current British standard, with the capacity to amend that definition if it proves necessary in future: for example, to include bird scarers if people start using them as fireworks.
Clause 2 sets out the basis on which the Secretary of State can make fireworks regulations and the procedures which must be followed. These are the same as in the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Permanent regulations can only be made following public consultation, particularly with those directly interested. But there is also a procedure for making emergency regulations in circumstances when there is an urgent need to protect the public. Such emergency regulations can only remain in force for 12 months.
Clause 3 allows regulations to be made to prohibit the supply of fireworks or specific kinds of fireworks to persons below an age specified in the regulations. The purchase and possession of fireworks or specific kinds of fireworks by persons below the specified age would also be prohibited. This clause will enable regulation to prevent fireworks from getting into the hands of young people who may misuse them, causing risk to themselves and distress to others.
Clause 4 allows for the inclusion in fireworks regulation of restrictions on the supply, exposing for supply, purchase, possession or use of fireworks or

831
specified fireworks at particular times or in particular circumstances. Such power could be used to prevent fireworks being on sale to the public too early before Bonfire Night. However, it would be accepted that fireworks should be available from specialist outlets throughout the year to cater for special events. This clause allows for such exceptions.
Clause 5 provides that regulations may include prohibitions on the supply, purchase or possession of specified fireworks. The powers in the Consumer Protection Act 1987 are not wide enough to enable, for example, the satisfactory completion of a training course to be cited as entitling a person to be supplied with powerful and hazardous fireworks.
Clause 6 provides for the introduction of measures to ensure that public fireworks displays are notified in advance to the authorities. Regulations made under this clause may also specify that such public fireworks displays are only operated by persons who have been appropriately trained. In addition, persons below a minimum age could be prohibited from operating or assisting in the firing of a public fireworks display.
Clause 7 would allow for the introduction of a licensing system for retailers of fireworks to sell fireworks or particular types of fireworks. This is to cater for the concern expressed by enforcement authorities and safety organisations about the fact that the more powerful and hazardous fireworks can be sold by non-specialist retailers who have no real knowledge of what they are selling.
Clause 8 provides for the inclusion in regulations of requirements relating to the provision of information with or in relation to fireworks. This mirrors powers in the Consumer Protection Act 1987; but taken with Clause 2, the circumstances in which the powers may be exercised are wider.
Clause 9 allows for the introduction of regulations of measures to require UK manufacturers or importers to notify information about fireworks. The broad intention of powers in this clause is to provide advance warning to enforcement authorities about consignments of fireworks and to facilitate the tracing of fireworks.
Clause 10 allows for the setting up of a national statutory training scheme or schemes. The regulation-making powers are flexible enough to allow for any combination of arrangements. This clause, when taken with other provisions in the Bill, will provide a readily understood means of determining who should be allowed to be supplied with and possess certain types of especially dangerous fireworks.
Clause 11 specifies the penalties for contravention of fireworks regulations. They are in effect the same as those in the Consumer Protection Act 1987; that is, a fine of up to £5,000, or a term of imprisonment of up to six months, or both. The defence of due diligence in the Consumer Protection Act 1987 is also called up and there is a specific additional defence for suppliers relating to the prohibition on supplying fireworks to young persons which can be introduced by regulation under Clause 3.
832
Clause 12 sets out the arrangements for enforcing any regulation made under this Bill. Different authorities may be designated to enforce, under statutory duty, various provisions in regulations and different authorities may be designated to enforce different requirements in regulations. Where no specific designation is made, the responsibility for enforcement will fall on local weights and measures authorities; that is, the trading standards officers in Great Britain and the district councils in Northern Ireland. The clause also lists sections in the Consumer Protection Act which are considered relevant to the enforcement of regulations made under the Bill. The provisions of those sections will therefore be applied to regulations made under this Bill.
It is recognised that resources for enforcement are an important issue. Enforcement authorities will be among the interest groups consulted on proposals for new regulations. Clause 13 ensures that nothing in regulations made under the Bill can undermine the rules on legal privilege or require a person to incriminate himself or herself or their spouses.
Clause 14 is a technical measure which, when taken with Clause 15 and the schedule of repeals, will allow for the repeal and re-enactment of the provisions of the Explosives Act 1875 at some future date. The Health and Safety Executive intends in due course to repeal as much of the Explosives Act 1875 as it can and to re-enact relevant provisions under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. However, there are several sections of the 1875 Act which the Health and Safety Executive cannot repeal under its own powers. Section 31 of the 1875 Act—prohibition of the sale of explosives to young persons—is just such a section. It is intended to use the provisions of the Bill to tackle that problem. "Explosives" in this clause has the same meaning as in the Explosives Act 1875. This clause also includes powers to enable the Secretary of State to amend that definition for the purposes of this Bill.
Clause 15 brings into effect the repeals of legislation set out in the schedule to the Bill, the timing of which will be subject to the commencement orders laid under Clause 18. Clause 16 provides that regulations made under the Bill will be made by the same regulation- making procedure as the Consumer Protection Act 1987; that is, by the negative resolution procedure.
Clause 17 provides the usual mechanism for dealing with any expenses and revenues resulting from the exercise of any of the powers under the Bill. Clause 18 provides for commencement procedures which allow different commencement orders to be made for different provisions in the Bill. Clause 19 determines the Short Title and extent of the Bill.
We have a short but distinguished list of speakers for this Second Reading debate. I shall listen with interest to all the contributions. I am confident that we all share the belief that the prevention of firework injuries is a high priority and that this Bill will contribute to that objective. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Monkswell.)
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for saying that he will listen with interest to our contributions to this debate. I would have felt some alarm if he had said that he would not listen with interest to our contributions, but I am sure that he did not intend to make such an allegation.
Perhaps I should start by offering my commiserations to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for having to deal with both this Bill and the previous debate concerning the value of the pound. They are somewhat different subjects and I congratulate the noble Lord on getting his mind round two such distinct issues in such a short space of time.
I offer my congratulations also to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, and his honourable friend Linda Gilroy on introducing and progressing this Bill through another place and agreeing to take it through this House. I have some experience of taking Bills through this House, but only once emulated the noble Lord in taking a Private Member's Bill, as a Back-Bencher, through this House. That was the Cycle Tracks Act 1984. It was not a Bill that made a major difference to the state of the nation, but one hopes that this Bill will have a more marked effect than the Cycle Tracks Act 1984.
I was also grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, began by making clear that he accepted that fireworks were an enjoyable form of entertainment. We have all known and experienced fireworks and been to good fireworks displays, whether private or public. I hope the noble Lord does not suggest that, whatever regulations come forward, they should limit the right of people to have private fireworks entertainment. The noble Lord indicates his acceptance of that statement. We all know and enjoy fireworks and wish to see them continue.
Having said that, we all recognise the dangers of fireworks, particularly when they are misused and used in the wrong way. Generally, from these Benches, we would not be in favour of Bills that we felt to be a further form of "nannying" of one form or another. However, having studied the Department of Trade and Industry's document on fireworks injuries dated 1987, we recognise that they show a worrying level of accidents. The figure quoted by the noble Lord was 908 for last year. Fortunately, that was a much lower figure than the year before, which was lower still than the previous year. The numbers have been dropping for some time and all governments recognise that there is a danger and it is right for them to intervene in one way or another, whether legislatively or by means of advertising.
As I said, last year 908 accidents occurred. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, also said that, fortunately, there were no deaths last year from fireworks, though there were two the year before. But there were still 908 accidents of greater or lesser seriousness and we are glad to have seen a decline.
I should point out also that, though we have seen a worrying level of accidents, that should be seen in the context of the number of fireworks sold. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, when he
834
responds, can confirm that in November around 100 million individual fireworks were sold. That seems to imply that it is not a serious problem in terms of the percentage of people injured in relation to the number of fireworks sold, though it is a serious problem for the individuals affected.
I should also point out that Department of Trade and Industry statistics show that most injuries are not serious. As I understand the figures, only around 5 per cent. of those injured were then detained overnight. A great many of the injuries were minor matters which could be dealt with either by an accident and emergency department or by some other means. However, the figures show that a disproportionate number of young people were injured. We have an important duty in Parliament to ensure that young people are protected, particularly from dangerous things such as fireworks.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that I am concerned that whatever regulations come forward the Bill should not lead to a demise of the private use of fireworks—the private display. I should be interested if the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, could comment on the level of injuries at private functions as opposed to public functions. The figures do not seem to indicate that a far greater proportion of people are injured at private fireworks functions, though the figures are slightly higher, than at public functions, on the basis, I imagine, that more fireworks are sold to private functions than to public ones. Again, I should be grateful for advice from the noble Lord.
That said, and having welcomed the gist of what is behind the Bill, I have to say that we have a number of concerns about the Bill itself, concerns which I hope we can address at the Committee stage. I hope that this is something that we can address relatively quickly because I think that the Bill should go speedily through the House and continue on in the proper manner to the statute book. My concerns arise from the nature of the Bill, which was described by the noble Lord's honourable friend in another place as being merely an enabling measure.
The noble Lord, as he took us through the Bill, described each clause as it was set out. As we go through the Bill we see that Clause 2 starts off with the words:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations".
Clause 3 states, "Fireworks regulations may", Clause 4 states, "Fireworks regulations may include", and so on. The Bill gives a considerable number of regulatory powers to the Secretary of State, powers which should be considered carefully.
The noble Lord said that the powers should all be dealt with by the negative resolution procedure. We would want to look at that in Committee and I think it is certainly something that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee would certainly want to have a look at. I hope that we can have the advice of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee before we come to the Committee stage, and I very much hope that, in line with our actions when we were in government, the noble Lord will accept the advice, as

835
we always did, of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee if it recommends that certain powers are slightly greater than what should be given to a Secretary of State without one or two checks or balances.
There are two other powers which I view with slightly greater alarm in that they are powers which, in the absence of my noble kinsman Lord Russell, I would describe as absolutely pure Henry VIII clauses. I refer to Clause 1(2), which states:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (1)'".
That is a Henry VIII power to end all Henry VIII powers. It is giving the Secretary of State power to amend primary legislation. There might or might not be good reasons for that, but I think it is important that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee looks closely at the clause. It is also important, speedily though we want to get the Bill through the House, that in Committee we look at the clause.
I should also point out that there is a second Henry VIII power in Clause 14(3), where again the Secretary of State is given powers to amend, merely by regulation, primary legislation. There might or might not be good reasons for so doing but I think it requires a degree of examination by the House.
Having said that, and having made it clear to the noble Lord that we do not intend to oppose the Bill and that we wish it as good a passage as it is possible to give, we think it is important that we look at those matters carefully in Committee and that the noble Lord should be prepared to take up any points raised by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. If the noble Lord is not prepared to take up those points, we will certainly be prepared to take them up and we will certainly pursue them in due course.
8.25 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, on the skill and the spirit with which he introduced the Bill. He made it clear that this was not done in any killjoy sense. That spirit will win support from all parts of the House. I congratulate also Linda Gilroy on bringing forward the Bill as Private Member's legislation.
I fear that my noble friend Lord Russell will be prostrate with grief when he finds that he has missed the opportunity to comment on the Henry VIII clauses and kindred matters. This will probably prove to be the first one that he has not been present for in many a long year. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, made a valid point. Enabling powers, delegated powers and secondary legislation are much loved by all administrations but they should be scrutinised, rightly, by an alert Parliament. I recently saw the figures for how much legislation is now delegated and enabled. They are quite frightening. Each time legislation, be it ever so worthy, extends delegated powers to Ministers, Parliament should dig in its heels just a little to make sure that the proper scrutiny is being undertaken. I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said on that. I can say from these Benches that as far as concerns Parliament we are asking for a proper thing in asking for such scrutiny.
836
My own record on firework safety is that one of the first Questions I asked in this House was about the import at that time of the Chinese grenades that seemed to be coming through. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, indicated, successive administrations have tightened up fireworks' regulation. The Bill is one of those small pieces of helpful legislation. as the noble Lord rightly said, that Parliament can undertake.
I welcome the training measures in the Bill. When I attended a fireworks display on 5th November last year I was amazed at just how high-tech and indeed computerised fireworks displays have become. It is no longer just a matter of sticking a firework in the wet earth and retreating. It is orchestrated in quite a skilled way. It is important that the advances in firework technology are matched by proper training provisions.
I also believe that the House and the country welcome the various provisions for controls on the sale and distribution of fireworks. I refer particularly to the powers in Clause 9 for the control of imports. There was concern in both Houses a year or two ago that fireworks of considerable power were being imported and used in a most unsuitable manner. Furthermore, the regulations putting some parameters on public displays are welcome. The overall spirit of a general concern for safety is surely right. But in so doing, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, so rightly said, we put the safety issue in its proper context of a very small percentage of users of fireworks against quite extraordinary use of these entertainments by the general public.
I belong to the generation of Ripraps and penny bangers. Heaven knows what penny bangers now cost, if they are allowed to be sold. It was part of the excitement of childhood which I would be loath not to pass on to my own children. This Bill provides for a proper sense of proportion. It recognises that the nature of firework displays has changed. Many parents now prefer to go to the grand, often municipally-organised (or organised by the Lions or similar organisations) entertainments. They are an alternative to the backgarden extravaganza which often costs the earth and is over in a very short time.
There is also the fact that the modern firework display is almost an art form in its skill, ingenuity and technology.
At the other end of the scale, it is also part of our heritage. In reading the debate in the other place I was fascinated at the way the honourable Member for Lewes, Mr. Baker, described the fantastic bonfires and displays in that part of Sussex, bonfires and displays whose origins I suspect date back to pagan times. It would be a great pity to lose that part of our heritage.
But I believe that the Bill gets the balance right between safety and enjoyment. It has those worrying empowerments which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has flagged up to be looked at in Committee and we shall do so. But that will not detract from the general welcome and good wishes that we give to this legislation.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I am sure that it was not the intention of the noble Lord. Lord Monkswell, to

837
mislead this House when he referred to the passage of this Bill through another place. But we must be aware that its passage through another place was not very creditable. The Bill did not have a Second Reading. It is quite unacceptable for a major Private Member's Bill, which drew a place in the Ballot, to come to this House without having gone through the full procedure of having a Second Reading.
What is a Second Reading for, my Lords? It is to explain what are the clear intentions of the Bill before the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, explained them to us in an excellent speech today. From the point of view of another place, it was not until it had a debate in Committee on Clause 1 stand part that anyone knew what the Bill was about. That is quite unacceptable and it is time that we fired a warning shot in connection with that procedure. I notice that the honourable Member in the other place who introduced the Bill is the successor to the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who sits on our side of the House. I am quite certain that in the role that she played in the other place she would not be a party in any way to foreshortening the correct procedures.
As has already been said, fireworks are fun and they give an enormous amount of pleasure in the right circumstances. But it is of grave concern that in this Bill powers are being taken by the Secretary of State to make regulations on the supply, exposure for sale, purchase and possession of fireworks. Admittedly, it says in the Bill that they cannot be made without consultation with the consumer bodies, the trade associations and the safety enforcement organisations. But in Committee I shall certainly press the noble Lord to accept a much clearer definition in Clause 1. I am grateful to my honourable friend for saying that this Bill has to go to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. The purpose of the Bill is all right, but the way in which the Government were proposing to proceed is quite unacceptable when one looks at the extent of the powers that are being given.
I am extremely unhappy about the powers, particularly in Clause 1(2). What is much worse is the ability of the Secretary of State to make so-called "emergency regulations" without consultation. The noble Lord said that those kinds of regulations would apply only for one year. But a tremendous amount of harm can be done by a hostile Secretary of State in one year, particularly if there is no appeal. I share my noble friend's concern about Clause 14. I am extremely anxious about the extensive control and amendment to the Explosives Act 1875 covering cartridges, percussion caps and ammunition. What impact has the Firearms Consultative Committee had on this Bill? Was it consulted about it; has it been informed and what representations has that important Committee made?
Subject to these reservations, I welcome the progress to date. I realise that we have to get this Bill on to the statute book, not in its present form but substantially amended. It is a wonderful step in the right direction in that the number of serious accidents caused by fireworks is falling. We all want to see them continue to fall, but
838
we do not want to see them fall purely and simply by the exercise of iniquitous and over-stated Henry VIII powers.
8.36 p.m..
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I have a longstanding interest in firework safety. As the president of National Firework Reform, as it used to be called—now Nation Firework Safety Group—my efforts in the other place were not always met with success in trying to bring in greater restrictions in what I thought was a very dangerous field.
Perhaps at this point I may pay a tribute to the director of the campaign for firework safety, Mr. Noel Tobin. For nearly 30 years he has worked tirelessly on MPs, the relevant Ministers and civil servants to try to bring to an end some of the horrifying injuries that we have seen in the past. We have had piecemeal and sometimes somewhat ineffective changes. Therefore, I welcome a more comprehensive approach.
But I believe that it is important not to underplay the injuries that are caused because some of them are very serious. Many of them affect children and sometimes their sight. That is an extremely important point always to bear in mind. Furthermore, I suspect that the figures, although accurate as far as they go, may not indicate all injuries that may occur because, as I understand it, they reflect where hospital treatment has been needed. There may well be others that have been dealt with in another way.
Neither do the figures give any indication of the fright and upset that can be caused, particularly to the elderly, when they are in areas where fireworks are tossed around by very irresponsible and very often young people—at any rate, they are tossed about irresponsibly. Nor do they give any indication of the fright that is received by innumerable domestic and other animals as well when fireworks go off in great numbers on or about 5th November.
Every year the RSPCA gives out warnings to people to keep their cats and dogs and other animals in the house and as quiet as possible. So there is that whole range of situations where we need to take care and concern.
A while ago I came to a conclusion which will not be popular in this House; namely, that it would be far better to ban the retail sale of fireworks except for public displays carried out by trained and skilled operators. From what I have heard, I appreciate that that is not a popular view—nor was it in the other place. On one occasion I was referred to as an agent of the nanny state; on another occasion I was referred to as a killjoy at least. I very strongly believe that we need far tighter legislation than hitherto. I view this Bill in the light of that unpopular attitude.
As far as the Bill goes, fine. However, the concern that I share with other noble Lords relates to the enabling nature of the Bill. When I read it through I tried to count the different types of regulations that would be needed and I gave up; they seemed innumerable. I have always been concerned about handing over to Ministers and their departments unspecified powers that they can

839
use as they wish. This is an extraordinarily long Bill with many clauses. I made my own little summary of it. I believe that what the Bill really says is that the Secretary of State may make any regulations that he sees fit in relation to fireworks, including their definition. Therefore, he may do everything or nothing because all of these provisions are permissive. It may be that a Secretary of State who is not interested in this matter may leave the subject alone entirely, in which case those who want a much tighter arrangement will be no better off, or he may be draconian and practically end the sale of fireworks. But we do not know. I do not know whether the noble Lord will be able to enlighten noble Lords this evening. I should be interested to know how the Government intend to interpret all of these regulations and powers that they are to be given.
I go further and suggest that at a later stage in the Bill perhaps a few drafts can be provided to noble Lords to show what the Government anticipate doing with the various regulatory powers that they are to be given. For example, there is the possibility of changing the age at which people may buy fireworks. Do the Government have any intentions in that regard? If a particular age were specified how would the Government enforce it? So far most regulations that rely on proof of age fall by the wayside because there is no satisfactory way in which anyone who sells these goods can determine the age of the person before him. That can be a very weak spot in any regulations.
I hope that we shall also learn what kind of training needs may be required by operators in public firework displays, of which I thoroughly approve. I believe that that is by far the best way forward. Some of them are glorious and are works of art, as another noble Lord has commented. However, is that power related to those who organise firework displays professionally or does it include, as I hope it will, skilled amateurs? At the moment we know about none of these matters. I should like to have information about that before we go much further.
I have an inherent distrust of handing over to Ministers of any party great powers when it is not known how they will be exercised. That is particularly important when past experience tells us that very often it is the fine detail that trips things up and makes for difficulties. Therefore, although I welcome the Bill I do so with one-and-a-half rather subdued cheers rather than three hearty cheers.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Monkswell on the thoughtful and businesslike way in which he introduced this Bill. As he told us, fireworks have the potential to cause serious injuries. In recent years they have been the cause of several deaths. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked for a breakdown of the number of injuries between the various types of firework displays. In 1997 in family and private displays there were 378 injuries; at clubs there were 56; in large public displays there were 137; and incidents in the street caused 256 injuries. Those were some of the reasons why my honourable friend the
840
Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs gave priority to the introduction of new firework safety measures soon after his appointment.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Monkswell that it is gratifying that recorded firework injuries in 1997 showed a significant drop compared with the previous year, but they are still too high, as the figures that I have just read out indicate, and there is no room for complacency. A large number of concerns expressed in the media and in correspondence received by my honourable friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs and others are about the indiscriminate use of fireworks resulting in distress and nuisance, particularly to the elderly, animals and children, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, reminded us. Unfortunately, each year there are also cases in which fireworks are used deliberately to frighten or injure animals. The apparently lengthy period when fireworks are on general sale in some parts of the country and are able to be let off in the weeks before Bonfire Night also feature in representations from the public.
My noble friend Lord Monkswell explained that the Consumer Protection Act 1987 provides powers to make regulations to address the safety of goods, including fireworks. However, many important safety-related issues, including the use of fireworks, are outside the scope of the powers of that Act. Therefore, there is a serious gap in the legislative tools available to assure the safety of those who use fireworks and those at risk from their use. The primary purpose of the Fireworks Bill is to extend the regulation-making powers in Section 11 of the 1987 Act.
Noble Lords were concerned about these regulatory powers. In reply to the noble Lords, Lord Henley, Lord McNally and Lord Kimball, before the regulations are made under the Bill, consultation is required with the industry and other interested parties. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, was concerned about the powers in Clause 14. Those powers can amend the definition of explosives only for the purposes of the Bill. The powers cannot amend the Explosives Act 1875. However, there must be full consultation with the Explosives Inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive. The powers to make regulations, including emergency regulations, match those in the Consumer Protection Act 1987, so there is nothing new.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, wanted to see over-the-counter sales of fireworks banned. Some would go further and ban fireworks completely. I believe that many noble Lords will agree with me that that is just not an option. Most speakers believed that fireworks provided an enjoyable form of entertainment, whether through organised public displays or family events. Fireworks also play an important part in some religious and ethnic events and celebrations.
However, noble Lords spoke of their concerns and they spoke of the dangers and the pleasures of fireworks. So a balance must be struck between their continued availability and ensuring that those who purchase and use fireworks are not exposed to unnecessary danger. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, asked whether there

841
was going to be any requirement regarding the age of those who can purchase fireworks, and I can say that there are no plans for that at present.
It is of course equally important that spectators are also kept out of harm's way, and this is' especially important over the period of the millennium celebrations, when large and small firework displays will feature as part of many thousands of events ushering in the 21st century. There is also a view that the millennium celebrations will establish fireworks even more firmly in the national mood as a means of marking important events in people's lives. This would boost the sales and use of fireworks, with a consequent potential increase in problems of the type I have mentioned and which have been discussed with noble Lords. So my honourable friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs stated during the debate on the Bill in Standing Committee in another place that the Government welcomed and supported this Bill. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Monkswell on having introduced it into this House.
My noble friend mentioned the need for training for firework display operators. I agree with other noble Lords that such displays have become complicated and sophisticated. The Government share the view that training has an important role to play in improving safety. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, that plans for training are not yet completed so I cannot give any details at the moment.
There are other reasons for welcoming this Bill. Voluntary arrangements, which included a limitation on the period when fireworks would be generally available for sale to the public, were agreed by fireworks companies in the 1970s. However, those arrangements have been less effective in recent years. This has been due mainly to the great changes which have occurred in the fireworks industry over the past few years. New companies have entered the market on the basis of importing fireworks, mainly from the Far East and from China in particular. Competition has benefited the consumers in lower prices for fireworks, but a casualty has been the crumbling of the voluntary agreements.
The provisions in the Bill would provide the capability to re-introduce on a statutory basis, should this be necessary, some of the measures which were the subject of those voluntary agreements. Changes in the firework industry and in the way companies market their products, and innovations in the devices which are imported and sold, are also powerful reasons for wanting to ensure that the additional powers in this Bill are available to deal with new circumstances.
I know that the noble Lord and his colleagues consulted widely on the drafting of the provisions in the Fireworks Bill and that because of those consultations the aims of the Bill have strong and broad support. They are widely welcomed by all those who are concerned to see that fireworks are used safely—including enforcement authorities, consumer safety groups and the fireworks industry. The Health and Safety Executive has been consulted on the Bill and supports its provisions.
842
The Bill extends to Northern Ireland and has the support of my right honourable friend the Secretary for State for Northern Ireland.
Whether particular powers in the Bill are invoked by the Government would, of course, depend on the circumstances at the time and on whether there was a credible alternative to the introduction of statutory controls. It would also be important to ensure that the objective of improving levels of safety was achieved without adding unnecessarily to costs which will inevitably be passed on to consumers at the end of the day. As is the case with the Consumer Protection Act, exercise of the powers in the Bill would be subject to appropriate consultation with parties who would be substantially affected by the particular proposals. The only exception to this rule would be cases where the need to protect the public required that regulations be made without delay. Regulations made under the latter procedure—so-called emergency regulations—cease to have effect after a short period, never longer than 12 months, as has been mentioned by several noble Lords. The powers in the Bill are subject to commencement orders so that different powers can become available at different times.
Noble Lords are concerned about the delegated powers. I have it on authority that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee is hearing oral evidence from the DTI on this Bill on 22nd April, having considered the Bill for the first time last week. The committee will certainly report before the Committee stage of this Bill, so that your Lordships will have the benefit of its report.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked whether I can confirm that the figure of about 120 million is broadly correct. I can confirm that that is the correct figure.
The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, was concerned about some of the clauses that were going to be repealed in this Bill. I would say to the noble Lord that the opportunity presented by the Fireworks Bill has been taken to make provision for the repeal of some Victorian legislation which is very much out of date. At Committee stage I am sure we can go into the detail of that and that we will be able to satisfy the noble Lord.
In Northern Ireland fireworks are currently controlled by the Explosives (Fireworks) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1997, which were made under the Explosives (Northern Ireland) Act 1970, as amended. As that Act was essentially a piece of emergency legislation introduced with the aim of controlling other more serious categories of explosives, its powers are not entirely appropriate to an effective regime of firework safety controls in the Province.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wishes to use this Bill to amend the law in relation to fireworks in Northern Ireland, and that explains one or two of the other clauses in this Bill. I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his comments on my versatility. I was rather concerned when he told me that the first Bill he took through this House was the Cycle Tax Act 1985. I am a cyclist, and have been for many years, and I wonder whether this is

843
something which I should have known about because I certainly have never paid any cycle tax over all those years—
Lord Henley: My Lords, if I may briefly interrupt, I think the noble Lord misheard me. It was "Cycle Tracks", not cycle tax. This House tends not to deal with matters concerning taxation.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for explaining that. Obviously I am getting a little hard of hearing, and it is a little late in the evening. The Fireworks Bill has the support of the Government and I commend it to the House.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I be permitted to ask whether a Bill is legally constituted by not having a Second Reading in the other House?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am not acquainted with the regulations of the other place and we shall have to get advice on that.
8.59 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, if I might start off by responding to that last intervention, it is my understanding, even in this House but certainly in the other place, that it is possible to have a strictly formal Second Reading where there are no speeches and the Motion is put and agreed without debate. I think that answers the question, and we are perfectly in order to consider this as a valid Bill, presented from the other House.
I start by thanking all noble Lords who have contributed. As I thought when I opened the debate, it has proved very interesting. I am not sure, given the lateness of the hour, whether noble Lords would appreciate it if I went through every detail of every contribution made by my noble colleagues tonight. However, I will touch on some of them, if I may, but I think it is rapidly becoming apparent that we are going to have a fascinating and interesting Committee stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, seemed to say that the Bill would have to be amended. It may not have to be amended. When we go though the Committee stage there will no doubt be probing amendments to find out the intentions and meaning of the clauses and subsections. When they have been explained across the Floor of the House, I am confident that many of the amendments will be withdrawn, as is the usual way in this House. From what has been said, I am sure that the Bill will receive the scrutiny that this House normally gives to legislation.
I was a little worried by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, about the number of fireworks injuries compared with the number of fireworks let off every year. Other noble Lords said that no matter how
844
few the injuries, we should always be concerned about them. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, pointed out that the statistics we talked about do not account for all the injuries.
I can give the assurance which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was seeking, that private firework displays would not be regulated as public firework displays are. The sale of the more dangerous fireworks for private display purposes where there would be no trained person to operate them would need to be controlled. I am sure that he will agree that that is a sensible provision. He was also concerned about the number of regulation-making powers and the negative resolution procedure.
My noble friend the Minister pointed out that the negative resolution procedure is merely continuing the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and so is no different. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, said that there were a large number of regulation-making powers. A number of them are what one might call fall-back provisions. One of the concerns expressed through the consultation is that if we had a strict regulatory regime in the UK, people might be tempted to go abroad to purchase fireworks which would be regulated in this country. and to import them. There is a mechanism to ensure that the possession of dangerous fireworks is regulated.
Such a power would only be introduced if there were evidence of the trafficking in the private importation of dangerous fireworks. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked also about the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. We have had the assurance of my noble friend the Minister, which I can confirm, that that committee will be considering the provisions of the Bill and will report before the Committee stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, mentioned the lack of scrutiny in the other place. Having been a Member of the other place, he has far more experience of it than I have from being a mere observer. This House should be concerned when a Bill has gone through the other place with large sections of it receiving no scrutiny. Amendments may have been tabled but not moved. That is where this House would say that there has been a lack of scrutiny. I sat through the Committee stage in the other place, and I can report that all the Bill's provisions were able to be discussed; and all the amendments that were set down were debated and agreed or not, as the case may be. This House could argue that the other place did give the Bill good scrutiny, compared with some of the legislation which comes before us from the other place.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, mentioned the control of imports as something which would be a good thing. He implied that that was a provision of the Bill. There is no mechanism to control imports. It was discussed in the consultation process, and it was pointed out that we would fall foul of EU and WTO provisions. However we have a requirement for information to be provided as to the type, number, and extent of fireworks being imported. That provision of information is the same as that we would require of UK manufacturers. Therefore

845
we should not be discriminating between home-produced and imported products. In itself, that information is non-discriminatory. It may reveal the presence of fireworks which would be banned under other regulations.
I was pleased to hear the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. I am sorry to say that the Bill will not provide her Holy Grail. I hope
846
that by the end of our scrutiny she will give it more than one-and-a-half cheers out of three. I thank my noble friend Lord Haskel for answering a number of questions which were raised and for informing us that the Government support the Bill. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at eight minutes past nine o'clock.