Lords Sitting of 16 December 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by The Lord Bishop of Ely.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Gulf War Veterans: Illnesses
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many servicemen and women who served in the Gulf War have illnesses still awaiting diagnosis; and what progress is being made in their investigations in relation to these illnesses.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, physicians participating in the MoD's medical assessment programme seek to make a diagnosis for all patients who present themselves with illnesses. A proportion of the patients can, however, be given only a symptomatic diagnosis. I expect detailed information about the diagnoses given to the first 1,000 patients in this programme, and also the initial results from an important study by Professor Wessely into the health of UK Gulf veterans, to be available early next year.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. Can we be assured that, in cases of doubt involving undiagnosed illnesses, claims can be decided in favour of Gulf War claimants irrespective of the War Pensions Agency's seven-year rule. Of the 400 veterans of whose deaths I was informed by my noble friend in a previous reply, do we know the causes of death and, more particularly, how many were suicides?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the answer to the first part of my noble friend's Question is that, as I understand it, the War Pensions Agency already applies to applications the benefit of doubt rule which was first introduced by my noble friend when he was Minister for War Pensions. As to the identification of the causes of death of the 400 Gulf War veterans, up to this time we do not have the information that my noble friend requests. I asked for the information today but it is not yet available.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, as the National Health Service is being saddled more and more with having to pick up the bill for the health care of Gulf War veterans, we find that the medical assessment programme can advise but not treat and that GPs can apparently treat but not refer locally because they are advised to refer back to the MoD. Does the noble Lord agree that this leaves a gap in NHS specialist treatment that should be plugged by designating informed specialists in the regions to whom GPs can refer sufferers—after all, there are only about 1,000—following the example of what
1342
the NHS has already done for the management of those who suffer injuries caused by radiotherapy for breast cancer?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am not aware of any particular difficulties of the type that the noble Lord describes, nor am I aware of any restrictions on how general practitioners within the National Health Service make recommendations. It may be that advice is given to them. If the noble Lord is aware of any particular difficulties, I am very happy to look into them.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, in light of the failure of the Government to carry out their promises set out in the paper New Beginning, which was published fairly early on in this Administration, and in light of the Persian Gulf War Veterans Act 1998 enacted in the United States of America, which contains the presumption of an association between illness and Gulf War service, will the Government, if by 19th November 1999 the US Government has listed all possible causes of Gulf War illness, carry out their promise to shadow in this country what happens in the United States and make the presumption that these men are ill because of their service in the Gulf?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am very happy to give the noble Countess the assurance that already Her Majesty's Government shadow everything that takes place in the United States. She refers to a recent piece of legislation enacted by the US Congress. I am informed that the US Congress has recently enacted two pieces of legislation in this field, one of which on its face appears to contradict the other in certain respects, and that the matter is being resolved by the US Justice Department.
The noble Countess alleges that Her Majesty's Government have failed to live up to their promises in the document published shortly after they came into office. I shall be delighted to know if she can point to any particular cases in which that has occurred. We are in the process of spending about £6.7 million on research in four different studies. Further, we have drastically reduced the waiting list for people who seek assessment from about 350 when we came into office to the present figure of about 60. We constantly trawl all the literature to make sure that we are completely up to date with developments on both sides of the Atlantic.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, how many Gulf War veterans or their next of kin receive pensions and other similar payments as a result of that service?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, rather than guess at the figures that the noble Lord seeks, I shall write to him and give him the information. I recently answered a Question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, about widows. The number of successful applications for war widow's pension as a result of the Gulf War is in single figures.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Morris asked the Government specifically

1343
how many servicemen and women who served in the Gulf War had illnesses awaiting diagnosis. Can the noble Lord give the answer to that Question?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I believe that 63 are awaiting attendance at one of the medical centres.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, can the Minister tell me what experience our general practitioners have—splendid and excellent though they are—of this disease? When they refer a case to the Ministry of Defence, what advice can the department give? So far we have not found the cause of the problem.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the noble Viscount is right, although in one sense he prejudges the answer to his own question by referring to "this disease". That is part of the problem. We do not know what has caused the collection of symptoms. That is why we are financing no fewer than four studies: two epidemiological studies, one interactive study to see whether the symptoms were produced by the combination of vaccines that the troops took, and a neuromuscular study.

Meat Hygiene: Enforcement
2.40 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to take the same action against meat inspectors and other officials in breach of statutory rules as they have promised to take against private companies.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Government take appropriate action against anyone in breach of statutory rules. Where necessary, disciplinary action is taken against meat inspectors and any other officials who are in breach of statutory rules. This may extend to prosecution. Private companies which fail to comply with statutory requirements will, in appropriate cases where other enforcement action has failed, be investigated with a view to prosecution.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he recall that when his party was in opposition, he and his right honourable friends the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister vigorously opposed the setting up of the Meat Hygiene Service? Is the noble Lord aware that the service is so short of British vets that it is having to employ vets from six different European countries, many of whom are young female vets?
Will the noble Lord agree that an abattoir is not a very congenial place in which to work? In the light of reports a few weeks ago of attacks on Meat Hygiene Service vets, is it not surprising that all of them have not been attacked? What do the Government propose to do to improve the understanding on the part of those
1344
young vets of our culture—there are many cultural differences—improve their communication so that they can communicate the law to the abattoir workers, and instil a spirit of co-operation rather than confrontation in abattoirs?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I agree that one does not go to an abattoir for an afternoon tea dance. Due to the shortage of veterinarians in the UK who are willing to carry out meat hygiene work, the MHS is seeking to recruit English-speaking vets from Europe. Foreign veterinarians engaged by the Meat Hygiene Service are required to have a working knowledge of the English language. The MHS recognises that working in slaughterhouses can be a difficult environment for all staff, in particular if they have to take rigorous enforcement action. However, the Official Veterinary Surgeon (OVS) is part of a team and the MHS provides every support to its staff. The MHS operates a hierarchy of enforcement staff. They seek to co-operate with operators. Only if that fails does more rigorous enforcement action come into play, and those are more serious offences such as animal welfare, food safety and specified risk material controls. Out of a total staff of 1,500, 118 are foreign vets, of whom 47 are women. Of the 47, 36 are from Spain.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how many abattoirs are operational now compared with five years ago? I should like to know how many are closed but keep their licence. It is necessary that there should be sufficient abattoirs up and running at this time.
Lord Carter: My Lords, there are 640 licensed abattoirs. In addition there are just over 900 other licensed premises such as cold stores, cutting rooms, and so on. We do not know the number—it is very small—of those which have closed but still retain their licences. As soon as the authorities are aware of closure, they attempt to revoke the licence.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the Minister say whether he believes that the Meat Hygiene Service is doing its job? Originally we were worried about BSE and E. coli. I understand that the incidence of E. coli is increasing exponentially. I sincerely believe that most abattoir owners seek to co-operate with the Meat Hygiene Service. However, they find that extremely difficult when, the Meat Hygiene Service operators having said, for example, "I found a piece of stainless steel that you have not washed", and having been asked, "Where?", they receive the reply from the inspector, "You can find it". Is that the atmosphere in which these people should be asked to work?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am always wary of anecdotal evidence. However, the protection of consumers is the Government's first priority. We are determined to ensure that meat produced for human consumption is produced to high standards. The MHS has been instructed to take rigorous actions where necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements

1345
of the law to ensure the protection of public health. A balance must be struck between effective enforcement and overregulation. We believe that we have got it right. We are determined to give the protection of public health the highest priority.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, is it government policy further to reduce the number of slaughterhouses, given that those are often sources of useful employment and local activity in rural areas? Alternatively, as part of its rural policy, does the Ministry include keeping open as many slaughterhouses as possible, and indeed encouraging some to reopen in remote areas which are major meat producers?
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a fair point about the balance between the rural economy and the fact that there is substantial over-capacity in the red meat slaughtering sector and in particular in respect of abattoirs which slaughter cattle and sheep. There is intense competition between slaughterhouses for throughput and for customers. We know that the profit margins are low.
As a result of that over-capacity, it is inevitable that some will have to close. Abattoir numbers have been declining year on year for more than 20 years in response to commercial pressures and demand in specific areas.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the same strict standards to which he himself has referred in his answers are being applied inside the European Community, in particular in France?
Lord Carter: My Lords, harmonised EC meat hygiene rules—I am sure my noble friend will be delighted to know that they apply equally in all EU member states—lay down detailed and specific requirements for the supervision of licensed abattoirs by official vets; that is, the fully qualified veterinary surgeons. The rules specify the duties and the responsibilities of such official veterinarians in respect of ante mortem and post mortem veterinary inspections.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked whether the rules were applied equally throughout the European Union. Will the Minister confirm that they are?
Lord Carter: My Lords, as far as we are aware, yes. If they are not, that is the job of the Commission.

CAA: Helicopter Operations
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consultations the Civil Aviation Authority is required to have and what consideration is given to local residents' views before they authorise helicopter landings in central London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Civil Aviation Authority will consider all aspects of proposed helicopter operations, including helicopter type and capabilities, pilot experience and the level of rescue and fire fighting services available. It is not required to consult with local residents.
However, the CAA is aware of the interest to residents of helicopters wishing to overfly London and therefore attach extra conditions to the permission to fly. These can include restricting the operations and the movement of the helicopters. The local authority also has an interest in respect of planning permission.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he confirm that he is aware of the great concern of those people living in the vicinity—I am talking of course about the Harrods' helicopter—where new helicopter landings are proposed on top of tall buildings in London residential areas? Does the noble Lord agree that residents have legitimate cause for worry due to loss of amenity through high levels of intrusive noise, wind turbulence on landing, pollution, and aspects of safety? Do not the divisions of responsibility between the CAA, the local authority and the DETR leave possible gaps in control and as regards consultation with local people?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the CAA's prime responsibility in these circumstances is safety. I understand that with regard to the specific site which underlies the noble Baroness's question, a permission was granted last December to operate a maximum of 10 flights per week for a year. That permission was based on safety standards and the frequency stipulated. As far as the CAA is aware, that has not been exerted apart from testing flights and therefore the CAA has not received any representations. Matters of noise and disturbance are primarily matters for the local authority, as in other noise situations.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those of us who live in central London have to suffer helicopters hovering overhead, sometimes for hours on end. While those may be necessary, perhaps for police purposes, will my noble friend confirm that they will not be used, on any account, for tourist flights and other such frivolous purposes?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is a heliport in London and there are routes to the heliport in Wandsworth. However, the majority of flights in the neighbourhood of this Palace, and, indeed, my noble friend's residence, relate to police and military movements. There are very few building-top sites with permission in central London.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have letters here from Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council which make it clear that Harrods has made an application for a certificate of lawful proposed use which has been refused? Harrods

1347
now has the opportunity either to apply for planning permission or to appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment against the refusal of a certificate for proposed lawful use. In that event, it would be open for members of the public to raise objections.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my understanding is slightly different from that of the noble Earl. I understand that Kensington and Chelsea Council has received an informal approach about planning permission. If planning permission is required and Harrods goes ahead with seeking that, then obviously the views of residents will be taken fully into account in that and in any appeal to the Secretary of State.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, am I to understand from my noble friend that, unlike the situation at airports in London where consultative committees operate with representatives of local authorities and residents who are most affected, heliports are not served by such consultative committees in the capital? If not, why not?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is a different arrangement in relation to the Wandsworth heliport. We were discussing private helipads on the top of buildings and clearly such arrangements would not be appropriate in those circumstances.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I declare a non-financial interest as the chairman of the British Helicopter Advisory Board. Does the Minister agree that in addition to Battersea—and this matter has been discussed over many years—properly approved, licensed and regulated facilities for landing helicopters in London might reduce the number of ad hoc sites such as the one about which my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes is concerned which are allowed to operate under existing planning legislation? Do the Government intend to take forward some of the work which was conducted several years ago in the London Heliport Study which looked into that particular issue?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Lord on that matter. That is not planned in immediate terms. But that will clearly be a matter to be considered when we look at integrated transport provision within London to be undertaken both by the Government and, eventually, subject to Parliament's view, the mayor of London.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, with respect, I did not wholly understand my noble friend's answer. Is he saying that a consultative committee does operate at the Wandsworth heliport?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the structure in relation to that is different from that which exists at large airports. However, there is consultation with users and residents in relation to commercial heliports. I was drawing a distinction between commercial heliports and private use by Harrods and at one or two other sites in central
1348
London which basically consist of helicopters landing on the roofs of buildings which are there for entirely different purposes.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister accept from me that I have a copy of a press release from the Royal Borough in which it is made clear that the application was for a certificate of lawful proposed use, which has been refused? The applicant is now entitled to lodge an appeal against that decision. But as I understand it, if the council had issued that certificate, there would have been no opportunity at all for local residents to make known their views. We were informed that views could not be considered as it was not a planning application but it was for a "certificate of lawful proposed use". The Minister said that the CAA does not have to consult anyone. If the certificate had been issued, there would have been no consultation whatever.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Baroness has a point here but, of course, the responsibility of the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea was to see whether wider planning considerations would apply. I assume, although it is a matter for the authority, that that was one reason for the refusal and why it is now considering whether full planning permission is needed.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is it not the case that Harrods has the opportunity to go to the Secretary of State for the Environment to appeal against the local authority's decision, in which case the public will then have the opportunity to make representations?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, if the planning permission procedure is followed, then appeal would be available.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, are those aircraft compelled by law to carry adequate third party insurance?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am sure that the answer to that is yes, but I had better write to my noble friend after I have made sure of the terms.

National Bus Company Pension Fund
2.55 p.m.
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the £168 million surplus in the pension fund of the National Bus Company has now been handed back to the pensioners, and what are the up-to-date costs in legal fees involving the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Official Solicitor.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the previous government decided to fund litigation by the National Bus Company pension trustees on this matter. We opened discussions on a settlement of the trustees' claim as soon as all the

1349
facts and arguments had been fully prepared and considered. We are giving high priority to achieve a just out-of-court settlement without any unnecessary delay.
Expenditure to date by my department on legal and other costs relating to all aspects of the litigation has been £610,000.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, bearing in mind the pensions ombudsman's ruling on 6th September 1996, would the Minister not agree that this issue is a scandal of Maxwell proportions? Which matters are now being discussed by the department and the NBC pension trustees? Has the Secretary of State made a specific offer for consideration by the trustees? How long is it estimated that it will take to finalise the negotiations?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as soon as the legal advice was followed by the department, the Deputy Prime Minister ordered that the negotiations should begin. They will be complex negotiations and they may take some time. Nevertheless, we wish to conclude this matter with as much rapidity as possible. I believe that it is unhelpful to describe this as a scandal of Maxwell proportions. Clearly the ombudsman made his judgment on the decision of the previous government and of the previous trustees and we are seeking to remedy that. The precise sum is a matter for negotiation and it would be better to allow those negotiations to proceed.

Business
2.57 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, after the debate on Sierra Leone and before the debate on fluoridating the water supply, my noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on competitiveness.

Consolidated Fund Bill
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a money Bill; read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Consolidated Fund Bill
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That if the Consolidated Fund Bill is brought from the Commons, Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with tomorrow to allow the Bill to be taken through its remaining stages.—(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST)
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be appointed to serve as members of the Board of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST):

L. Flowers,

B. Nicol,

L. Winston.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL)
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I have a Christmas present for your Lordships. This completes the cycle of regular committee Motions for this Session but there will be others, not in the regular series, to look forward to in the new year.
Moved, That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be named as members of the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL):

L. Boston of Faversham,

L. Burnham,

L. Morris of Castle Morris,

L. Thomson of Monifieth.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sierra Leone
3 p.m.
Lord Chesham Lord Chesham rose to call attention to the relations between the United Kingdom and Sierra Leone; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am appreciative of the opportunity to have this debate in the House today. Eighteen months after the military coup of 1997 which saw the ousting and exile of Sierra Leone's democratically elected government and nine months after the restoration of President Kabbah to power, today's debate is a timely opportunity to examine the present situation in Sierra Leone.
Since independence in 1961 Sierra Leone's path to democracy has been beset by hurdles. The country's political landscape for the past 27 years has been marked by a series of coups and counter-coups. Africa watchers and human rights groups alike hoped that the election of President Kabbah in February 1996, in the first multi-party elections to be held in Sierra Leone for almost 30 years, would mark a turning point in the

1351
country's political history. Indeed, about 60 per cent. of the electorate voted in elections that international observers deemed to be largely free and fair.
However, Major General Johnny Koroma of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council deposed President Kabbah in a coup on 25th May 1997. In February 1998 the Nigerian-led West African Intervention Force, Ecomog, stormed Freetown and occupied it until President Kabbah's triumphant return on 10th March 1998.
The atrocities perpetrated by this military junta, both during and after its period of rule, are a matter of grim record. Not only did the AFRC suspend Sierra Leone's constitution, it also banned political parties, prohibited demonstrations and assumed extensive powers of detention without safeguards against arbitrary arrest and indefinite detention without trial or charge.
The Amnesty International annual report for 1998 makes horrifying reading. It says:
"As the AFRC and RUF retreated from Freetown, they killed, raped and mutilated hundreds of civilians. Horrific abuses were carried out in the east and the north of the country … Some 250,000 Sierra Leonian refugees have arrived in neighbouring Guinea and Liberia since April 1998, many with amputated limbs, severe lacerations and suffering from disease, starvation and exhaustion after weeks in the Bush".
The report also makes clear the extent of the atrocities perpetrated and states:
"Hundreds of suspected opponents of the military coup were arbitrarily detained. They included supporters of the ousted government, journalists, students and human rights activists. Most, if not all, were prisoners of conscience. Many were tortured or ill-treated. Dozens of extrajudicial executions of political opponents were reported … The arbitrary detention, torture and killing which characterised the period of rule by the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC), joined by the armed opposition Revolutionary United Front (RUF), after it came to power in May 1997 continued unabated in 1998".
However, despite the subsequent restoration of the elected government in March of this year, the country remains in turbulence, racked by a conflict bordering on out-and-out civil war, as rebel forces of the Revolutionary United Front loyal to the junta clash with Ecomog-led forces and Kamajor armed militias loyal to the government. Only a week ago the West African Intervention Force, Ecomog, reported that it had been involved in fierce fighting against rebel soldiers in northern Sierra Leone. In the past two weeks the Kamajors have been deployed along one of the main roads leading to the capital, Freetown.
In August, Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary General, expressed concern about the civilians caught up in the continued fighting. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says that Sierra Leonians now make up Africa's biggest refugee population; 215,000 people are estimated to have fled Sierra Leone this year alone, mostly to Guinea and Liberia. The Foreign Secretary said that the Government will make it a priority of their diplomacy in Africa to build peace and prevent conflict since,
"without peace, nothing else is possible".
Can the Minister say how that is being put into practice in Sierra Leone?
1352
There is international consensus that Sierra Leone needs to embark on a process of reconciliation following the damage done to the country after the months of butchery. That butchery is continuing today for many in Sierra Leone. Stability and security will only become a reality when the country is at peace with itself. However, the "judicial process" which has taken place in Sierra Leone following the reinstatement of President Kabbah continues to cause concern in the international community and among human rights groups.
In August the high court of Sierra Leone sentenced 16 civilians to death for their part in the military coup. One of those is a broadcaster who gave birth in prison a month before the sentence was passed; another is a former presenter with BBC Radio's Africa Service. Can the Minister update the House on the appeals process for those condemned? And what representations have the Government made to President Kabbah and his government to show clemency in the case of those civilians in the name of peace and reconciliation? It would be interesting to hear whether there has been any response to any such representations.
In October there was widespread international condemnation when 24 soldiers convicted of treason were executed without recourse to a formal appeals process. Will the Minister join the UN Secretary General in condemning those executions in Sierra Leone earlier this year? They are a clear breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.
I should now like to turn to the subject of aid. When the Department of International Development pledged £6.5 million to help resolve the conflict by supporting the disarmament and reintegration of ex-combatants, were there any conditions laid down? If so, have those conditions been met? I understand that this Government have committed over £20 million since March this year towards reconstruction and rehabilitation of Sierra Leone. If the government of Sierra Leone fail to ensure fair trials and a proper appeals process for all those accused of treason for their role in the junta, what action will the Government take if due legal process is not followed in further trials?
I should further like the Minister to say whether she agrees that such dispensing of rough justice will not help to bring Sierra Leone the peace and reconciliation that the country so desperately needs. As an aside, does the Minister now accept that it was a misjudgment on the part of this Government in May to seek to justify a breach of international law by describing President Kabbah's government as "the good guys"?
I had not intended to refer to the Sandline affair. However, reports in the press today of evidence given to the Intelligence and Security Committee yesterday that the Foreign Office was warned about the activities of Sandline by GCHQ impel me to ask the Minister for a comment. I beg to move for Papers.
3.9 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, most warmly on having the foresight to raise this question on the very day when the Select Committee in another place is completing the evidence-taking on the question of the role of the Foreign Office in the Sandline affair. The committee took evidence this morning from the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, Mr. Tony Lloyd, and the question that the noble Lord has just raised was put to the Foreign Secretary. The Foreign Secretary said that he had only just had notice of it, that he was looking into the report which was published in, I think, the Financial Times this morning, and that he would make an announcement on the findings later.
The extent to which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was aware of the conspiracy to breach Security Council Resolution 1132 and the Order in Council, which made it an offence to supply arms and other material into Sierra Leone during the period of the military junta has been examined by the Legg inquiry and by the Select Committee fairly exhaustively. I do not want to go into it in any detail in this debate, except in one or two respects.
First, it was clear that the Foreign Office had originally been alerted to the conspiracy to supply weapons immediately after the article appeared in the Global Mail, describing the deal between President Kabbah's representative, Mr. Spicer, and a businessman from Thailand by the name of Rakesh Saxena in Vancouver B.C. That report was sent by our post in Ottawa to the Foreign Office, which issued a press notice stating how the matter was to be dealt with by any of our posts in response to inquiries about the report.
It does not seem that Sir Thomas Legg dealt with that matter during his inquiry. It would be interesting to know why the matter was not within the current knowledge of officials in the FCO at a much later date than when the Sandline inquiry first surfaced. One would have thought that, having been alerted to Sandline's intention to supply 10 million dollars-worth of weapons during the period of the embargo—at the time of the Global Mail report, the Security Council resolution had not yet been passed—that report would have been drawn to the attention of those concerned when the renewed reports of Sandline's activities came to their notice on about 29th January when, according to the evidence given by Mr. Craig Murray to the Select Committee, he heard about the transaction direct from Colonel Spicer. At that stage, he immediately informed his superior. Action began at that point.
At the end of January, the African Department (Equatorial) was aware of the intention to supply arms illegally. I wonder why that was not connected with the reports that the FCO had received from Ottawa at a much earlier date, and deductions drawn therefrom.
It seems that our intelligence was not that good, although I find it hard to believe that Mr. Rupert Bowen, a former MI6 asset himself and an employee of Sandline at the material times, did not keep his former colleagues informed while involved in the Sandline operation.
1354
According to the Legg Report, only one of the numerous briefings by the security services referred to military operations against the junta and because that apparently referred to a plan for Sandline alone to mount an invasion from Liberia, without Nigerian participation, it was discounted by the FCO. Will the Government inquire into why the security services failed to alert the FCO about what was happening, not solely in regard to the sale of weapons, but also in regard to the impending invasion by the Nigerians on 6th February, contrary to Security Council Resolution 1132?
It was said, when the Sandline affair first blew up, that too much fuss was being made because the "good guys" had won, as the noble Lord reminded us. The Prime Minister described the concerns that were being expressed as "hoo ha". The Foreign Secretary, however, accepted then, and has done all along, that violation of a Security Council resolution was a serious matter. That applied not only to Sandline, but also to the Nigerians. No state or group of states is entitled to use military force across an international boundary, under the UN charter, except in pursuance of a decision by the Security Council under Article 42 of the charter, or in self-defence. Does the Minister agree that every time a state uses force, other than under one of those headings, the rule of international law is undermined, and others are encouraged to believe that they can engage in foreign military adventures with impunity?
Clearly, the military junta was unlawful, having usurped power from the democratically elected government of President Kabbah. However, it must be recognised that the democratic legitimacy of the Kabbah government was deeply flawed. Although, as the noble Lord reminded us, the government were given a clean bill of health from the international observers, about 150,000 voters were disenfranchised because they were living as exiles in neighbouring Guinea and Liberia. There was also an arbitrary adjustment of the totals polled in the election in four districts where the votes cast exceeded 100 per cent. of the recorded electorate. Although the opposition decided to overlook that in the interests of national unity, I hardly think it can be said that the elections in Sierra Leone were a model of democratic performance.
The noble Lord is also right that the military junta committed widespread and flagrant abuses of human rights while in office, as their forces have continued to do since they returned to the bush. I agree that the atrocities committed against civilians are utterly unspeakable. They include amputations, rape, disembowelling and beheading. Unfortunately, the militias of the state also commit acts of violence and extra-judicial executions. Although not on the same scale as the rebels', their crimes are viewed as particularly serious because they are supposed to be restoring law and order.
Restoration of the elected government did not bring peace and order to the country, but in expelling from power the combined forces of the AFRC and the rebel RUF, it triggered even more vicious fighting in many parts of the country. As the Foreign Secretary put it in his evidence to the Select Committee this morning, "The war is not over". Although it is reported daily that the

1355
forces of the RUF are suffering crushing military defeats, they seem to be no closer to throwing in the towel after eight months of bitter fighting.
One of the most appalling features of this conflict is the use of child soldiers. UNICEF's Director-General, Carol Bellamy, said at the beginning of October that recruitment of child soldiers was still continuing, despite the government's commitment to end the practice. UNICEF estimates that there are some 4,000 child soldiers at present involved in the conflict: 2,500 recruited by the RUF and the rest serving with the Kamajor militia. Other observers have put the number of children in the conflict at a far higher figure. Deputy Defence Minister, Sam Hinga Norman, cited "difficulties" in discharging teenage soldiers, including lack of resources and the fact that the fighting was continuing. What are we doing to press the Sierra Leone Government to discharge all child soldiers immediately and to cease recruitment of children? Could an appeal be addressed to the armed opposition to stop using children in their forces?
Rifts in the social fabric of the country, of which the struggle is evidence, have been intensified by some of the actions of the Kabbah government. Instead of promoting reconciliation, as urged by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and as promoted by the UN and Britain, the authorities have upgraded the ethnic Mende Kamajors, a paramilitary force that was supposed to have been disarmed under the Conakry Agreement into a "civil defence force", which is now the only indigenous armed force, pending the re-creation of the national army.
Trials and executions of people associated with the former regime have been continuing. As the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, reminded us, 24 soldiers were executed in public after a trial from which there was no right of appeal. On the same day, death sentences were imposed in the High Court on 11 civilians including a 75 year-old woman, Nancy Steele, on charges of treason. On 23rd October Corporal Foday Sankoh, leader of the RUF, was sentenced to death. Another 15 civilians were sentenced to death on 5th November. According to the AFP yesterday, the total number of people under sentence of death now in custody for treason and other charges is 43. Those include four journalists, four medical doctors, four university professors, four lawyers, a former member of parliament and a businessman. No date has been set for the appeals about which the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, asked. The judicial system is clogged up. Only last Friday, a further 22 civilians accused of collaborating with the former junta were charged in the magistrates' court in Freetown. They were accused on a number of counts ranging from treason to aiding and abetting and conspiracy to overthrow the Government of Sierra Leone by unlawful means.
Have we any idea how many more of the 1,200 people in Pademba Road Prison have still to be charged with serious offences arising out of the military interregnum? Cannot we suggest to President Kabbah that there should be a truth and reconciliation commission rather than hunting down and prosecuting
1356
everybody associated with the military regime? Should it not be remembered that some of the people in power today were involved in previous coups? In some neighbouring states, several governments came to power by military coups and are being run by the people who originally perpetrated them.
Journalism is becoming a dangerous profession in Sierra Leone. BBC corespondent, Winston Ojukutu-Macaulay, appeared in court last Thursday charged with publishing false news likely to cause public alarm in connection with his coverage of the armed struggle. It was reported yesterday that he had been granted bail and fined 3,750 dollars, apparently extrajudicially. Two other journalists were reported to be detained on similar charges: BBC correspondent Sylvester Rogers and Concord Times journalist, Sulaiman Momodu. Now it is said that only Mr. Rogers is in custody, and that Mr. Momodu is wanted and on the run. The Minister of Information, Dr. Julius Spencer, had already decreed that all copy about the fighting had to be submitted to the ECOMOG force commander for prior vetting. That seems to be the main reason why those journalists are being detained.
Macaulay's arrest was said to have been ordered by President Kabbah himself, following a report filed by the journalist on 8th December that 8,000 refugees, fleeing heavy fighting, were heading towards Freetown on the highway from the north. Sylvester Rogers was said to have been arrested because he reported that an ECOMOG soldier had been killed by rebels. Another BBC correspondent, Lance Fofie, went into hiding after being told that he too was being sought by the police. What are we doing to persuade the authorities to free the journalists who have been arrested and to ensure that freedom of expression is upheld in Sierra Leone?
Another aspect of the human rights scene in Sierra Leone was highlighted in a report published last month by the UNHCR. Women are severely disadvantaged, having inferior access to education, health, economic opportunities and social freedoms. Violence against women is endemic. Female genital mutilation is widely practised. According to the US State Department, 90 per cent. of the female population are victims of this horrible custom. What specific assistance can we give to the Sierra Leone Government and NGOs on raising the status of women and combatting FGM? I remind the House that according to the FIDH newsletter published recently, other states in the region including Guinea, Burkina Faso, Nigeria and Côte d'Ivoire have been ready to adopt laws banning FGM. I imagine that Sierra Leone could do the same.
The UNHCR report reminded me that when the Home Office originally published its country assessments, it undertook to update them every six months. It is particularly important that that should be adhered to in a situation as rapidly changing as that in Sierra Leone. Yet the assessment of Sierra Leone on the Home Office website dates from January, before the restoration of President Kabbah. Can we have an assurance that that assessment will be updated in the near future?
Sierra Leone is a long way from peace and order and will need help for some time to come. In particular, it will need the external military help that only ECOMOG

1357
can provide, whatever the irregularity of ECOMOG's past actions. Yesterday, at an excellent briefing by the BBC World Service on the transition to democracy in Nigeria, Elizabeth Ohene said that when the elections have taken place there, it is unlikely that the new government will continue to sustain the major role in regional peace-keeping which the military have played, first in Liberia and now in Sierra Leone. It is all the more essential that Sierra Leone accelerates the formation and training of its own national army. A great deal of help will be needed from Britain and others if that is to be achieved. We should give that assistance, but we should seek assurances that the new force reflects the diversity of peoples in Sierra Leone and that soldiers are led and trained to operate within the law.
3.25 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, should he applauded for giving us the opportunity to help encourage and boost international support for this difficult period in Sierra Leone's affairs. The debate underlines the fact that Britain has aspects of an effective foreign policy serving not only our national interest but allowing us to reinforce a caring and concerned relationship with friends.
The people of Sierra Leone are at a loss to understand why Britain's contribution, which they express with euphoria, is seen so negatively. Some say that our actions were the finest thing Britain has done for Sierra Leone since independence, with other observers noting that if there was so much criticism of our role, why has there been no UN resolution condemning Britain.
As is well known, the military junta inflicted on Sierra Leone eight months of horror in such a way that no civilised nation could idly sit back without being sickened and driven to action. The psychological, economic and humanitarian suffering of that period will require painstaking confidence-building to reintegrate that country.
I commend President Kabbah for bringing together, for example, different political groups into his cabinet—a move that other African states should be encouraged to emulate. The criticism that a high level of terror is being inflicted by paramilitary civil defence units and soldiers of ECOMOG is, I believe, wide of the mark. That said, any retaliatory action, even in limited form, must of course be condemned but understood in the context of the atrocities of the rebels. Any criticism reinforces the need for President Kabbah to create internal security arrangements with new armed forces and police units under effective civilian management and constitutional control.
On the positive side, President Kabbah is again to be commended, in my view, for ensuring that the trials process of the rebels has been deemed open, transparent and fair. I recognise that this Government do not condone capital punishment, and Tony Lloyd has taken every opportunity to express concern. It must be remembered, however, that that was the law throughout the colonial era. Sierra Leone should, on the other hand, be reminded that the Privy Council ruled that it is wrong to delay execution after conviction and has set five years
1358
as the limit after which there should be no execution. Executions should only be as soon as is reasonable after due process, including the exhausting of all lawful appeals.
There are a number of ongoing initiatives underlining the dual-track approach agreed at the ECOWAS conference in October which stated the desire,
"to combine the strengthening of ECOMOG with efforts at dialogue to achieve lasting peace and national reconciliation in Sierra Leone".
That must be right.
I understand that there was a contact group meeting in London on 5th November. I should be grateful if the Minister could give some of the detail and tell us, for example, whether a follow-up meeting is anticipated. In addition to the contact group initiative, the RUF contacted the Commonwealth Secretariat on 25th September last to ask if it could help facilitate talks with the government. The secretariat, on behalf of the United Nations and the Organisation for African Unity, constituting the three moral guarantors of the 1996 Abidjan Peace Agreement, rightly responded with three clear conditions: first, that there would have to be a clear statement from the RUF on recognition of the legitimacy of the elected government; secondly, that there should be an immediate, unconditional and indefinite cessation of hostilities; and, thirdly, that there should be a willingness on the part of the RUF to enter talks to end the fighting. Although some dialogue ensued, no statement, one regrets to say, has been forthcoming—in other words, little substance to a commitment to engage in serious talks.
It is conceivable that the RUF cannot agree internally or believes that it has a chance on the battlefield to beat the government. A condition of the RUF is that its leader, Foday Sankoh, who has been tried and sentenced and who has an appeal pending, should be flown to a neutral country for negotiations. But here is the quandary. No one wishes to be taken for a ride or to be seen to interfere with the judicial process. What guarantee is there even that the RUF would enter into serious talks if release was granted? The RUF offer amounts to conditionality, which, on the face of it, should be taken as unacceptable but maybe, as there is no tried and tested formula for success in negotiations—flexibility being key—compromise will be necessary to achieve a lasting peace.
In my mind, there are five key areas where Britain can contribute further in a practical way. First, it is considered essential that ECOMOG forces are strengthened by an additional 5,000 to a total of 15,000 servicemen on the ground. I understand that there is a sense of urgency about additional deployments which, ideally, should be completed by the end of this year. There is also a concern about the newly-elected democratic government in Nigeria. For example, should the latter decide—and this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—principally through addressing public opinion, to scale down their participation from their current levels of 90 per cent. of manpower, how will the shortfall be met? This will put ECOMOG in a difficult position. What is the United Kingdom able to do to help in this regard?

1359
Secondly, Sierra Leone is to be removed from CMAG's remit because a democratically-elected government has been restored and is not in violation of the Harare principles. Technically speaking that is right, but in reality the situation on the ground is not normal. Will the Minister undertake to keep the situation under close observation and not consider Sierra Leone as off the list, because the situation is far from normal?
Thirdly, while recognising that Her Majesty's Government have no influence with the RUF, they, together with the United States, should make it abundantly clear that, in the unlikely event of fighting reaching Freetown, the RUF would be subjected to severe sanctions. That would certainly help to concentrate minds.
Fourthly, there is continuing concern about the RUF having received training and weapons in the past from Liberia. The confusion in Liberia exacerbates the situation. The United States should use its best influence with Charles Taylor to ensure that the RUF receives no more training, and should generally help police the porous border. Fifthly, as I have already mentioned, President Kabbah has determined the need for recruitment and training for new democratically-controlled security forces—both police and army. That is fundamental. What can the Minister do to help in that regard, possibly in the area of training?
Finally, the economy must be giving great cause for concern with the government presumably needing to know where revenues are to come from for the exchequer. Can the Minister say what specific measures would help rebuild the economy?
The wish list of the Government of Sierra Leone, briefly stated, consists of a desperate need for crutches and artificial limbs together with programmes to reintegrate amputees—women and child soldiers—into society. There is also an immediate requirement for medical equipment, medical transport and beds; and, beyond medical supplies, educational infrastructure to include materials for programmes and teaching aids.
I conclude on an emotive issue to this country in the matter of High Commissioner Penfold and, by extension, his colleague in King Charles Street, Ann Grant. Clearly lessons have been learnt and new directions obtained. I believe that it is time to move on. As to the two officials, I believe that they acted with nothing other than integrity and in this country's and Sierra Leone's best interest.
3.35 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I too, thank my noble friend Lord Chesham for introducing today's debate on Sierra Leone. I have never visited Sierra Leone as such, but I met refugees from that country at the beginning of this year when visiting refugee camps in that part of west Africa. Like other speakers, I had not intended to touch on the question of Sandline, but I should like to quote a recent statement from President Kabbah in which he said:
"It's sad that we are in the headlines now, not because the world cares about the terrible things that have happened here, but because of an internal political row in Britain".
1360
Certainly, High Commissioner Penfold is the hero on the streets of Freetown, I am told. That stems from the impact of getting rid of the outrageous coup forces. However, even now, peace is only guaranteed for 25 miles around Freetown. I reiterate what the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said about Liberia. I am told that allegations have been made that Liberia is harbouring and supporting the rebels for political reasons. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether or not that is so. If it is, can she say what steps the Government and the United States are taking to stop this work of the Liberian Government?
As we have heard, the coup junta was in power for only nine months. But the rebels are still active. In their mindless viciousness they maim and kill indiscriminately. We really need to appreciate the horror of what is still continuing up-country in Sierra Leone. I am told that the rebels have been pursued eastward but are still engaged in bitter fighting. Witnesses speak of the seemingly mindless viciousness they perpetrate. Fathers have their arms cut off for refusing to rape their daughters; and women and children are being herded into houses and then burned alive. People caught by the rebels are treated violently, and a particularly malevolent game of rebel roulette takes place in which the victims choose their own fate: to lose an eye, a limb or their life by selecting a piece of paper with the grisly option written on it. The extent of these atrocities is, as yet, known only to the protagonists and their victims. We are talking about a very serious situation in Sierra Leone.
As far as concerns the fighting, there is really no Sierra Leone army at present. There is the involvement of the Kamajors but, as the former army was very heavily involved in the coup, I understand that there is no real army at the moment. Indeed, there is just a weak police force. ECOMOG alone is keeping the peace. I endorse what has been said about rumours in Freetown suggesting that its presence there is to be reduced even though the fighting continues unabated. Can the Minister confirm that and, in particular, say what Nigeria's plans are in that respect? Do the Government have any prognosis for the cessation of fighting up-country in Sierra Leone? Should the UN, the Commonwealth and the Government be doing more to support ECOMOG? It is sad that hope is less high in Sierra Leone now than it was in April. That is a great pity.
The horrific injuries to people constitute a problem which will be a burden for a generation. It is not short-term. It is not like paying a sum of money for a year and then seeing the problem go away. A whole generation has been traumatised. My wife is the president of the Church Mission Society; it plans to build and resource a trauma counselling centre. A great deal of this type of work is needed in an area far wider than Freetown as soon as there is stability. Physical, mental and emotional needs are appalling and increasing as the rebels continue to operate. The Bishop of Freetown, Julius Lynch, says that,
"there is need for physical and spiritual healing: to house and feed people: to tend their wounds and support them in their grief. Reconciliation: reconciliation. What is it? What does it mean? A

1361
dictionary definition says that to reconcile means to become friendly again after a quarrel; to make yourself accept something unpleasant. Now that the junta has been ousted, this is what is demanded of us, reconciliation. We are called to reconcile with our killers, our looters, our rapists and their collaborators. We arc called to be friendly again after, what I can term, an unprovoked war".
So many buildings have been destroyed or looted—to the extent of the electric wiring and plumbing being taken out—and tin roofs have been punctured. This is a major problem, not only because of the gaps made but because of the rain. The coastal area of Sierra Leone has 150 inches of rain a year; inland areas have 80 inches of rain a year. Sometimes we think we have a problem with rain here. We have only 30 inches of rain in a year, one-fifth that of the coastal area of Sierra Leone. If you have 30 or 40 big holes in your tin roof, you have a problem in the rainy season. The rain will soon complete the destruction of a property if it is not repaired. We have heard that the Government are providing funds to help. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness can update us on what help the Government are giving and what Sierra Leone is receiving for repairing and reconstructing buildings? Freetown is in poor shape, but up-country things are totally desperate.
I wish to ask a few questions about the future. What steps are being taken to train and provide resources for building up Sierra Leone's internal law-keeping forces? I have already mentioned that there is no army and only a weak police presence. There is a desperate need for help to rebuild the army. As I understand it, Sierra Leone had a good officer corps, but when the army had to expand it took on desperate troops and the whole army became vitiated. There is a need to re-establish the Sierra Leone army. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness can help us about what is planned in relation to that.
I wish to talk about business confidence. There is a tremendous lack of confidence—obviously because the war is continuing—but there is safety in the Freetown area. There is great need for encouragement and the building up of confidence so that business can be resumed and refugees encouraged to return. There has been a brain drain; so many of the best brains have been lost. There is a need to encourage those brains to come back.
Are the Government planning to help equip Sierra Leone for political, legal and administrative progress? We have heard in the debate about the many failings of the present Sierra Leone Government. Are they willing to accept help from us and other parts of the Commonwealth in order to establish their political position? Failures between parliament and government before the coup may have been a factor in bringing it about. Sierra Leone needs to build up its legal resources—questions have been asked about the appeal process this afternoon—its national and local administration.
There is an enormous need. Sierra Leone requires people who can help as much as money; it needs both. I hope that the noble Baroness can help on these points.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, very warmly for providing this timely opportunity. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for providing such an authoritative statement, as he always does, and has done consistently on this subject.
Anyone living in Sierra Leone who cared to study the British political scene in the first half of this year must have been amazed, after years of relative neglect of their country, at the amount of time apparently devoted to Sierra Leone by these two Houses of Parliament. The famous Starred Question—or perhaps, for the Government, ill-starred question—by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, tabled in February, and a simultaneous article in the Observer, started a war of words in the Commons which continued throughout the parliamentary Session, right up to the publication of the Legg Report.
What has been gained from this debate? I do not want to minimise the skills of the various advocates and witnesses involved, but I contend, after reading through most of the 164 pages of the report, that from Sierra Leone's point of view, we have achieved almost nothing. The report shows up the weakness of the human condition better than any of the scripts of "Yes, Minister". I say this despite the sympathy I, and the whole House, have felt for our own noble Baroness, Lady Symons, throughout this matter. It shows the frailty of administration and the desperate scramble of civil servants and Ministers, both protagonists and bit parts, to get to the front of stage. It is possible that we have learned a little humility from the conclusions of the Legg Report, but I doubt it. It has shown up politicians at their worst, like Shakespeare's "strutting players", attempting to speak their lines before they hurry off the stage in darkness and confusion.
The tragedy is not here in Westminster, it is in Sierra Leone, and yet somehow the plight of Sierra Leone has been overlooked or ignored. I am not denying that there is a political question as to whether or not we ignored a United Nations arms embargo—or, more pertinently, whether we even understood what a United Nations embargo or an Order in Council was about and to whom it applied. As far as concerns Sierra Leone, we ignored at least half of it, and our High Commissioner became a hero, as has been said by the noble Viscount. This is the reality. It is shameful that, in washing our hands of the embargo, we had to let down our representative, who was working alone, in the best tradition of the FCO, in what he believed was our interest. I hope that the Minister can say something personal about the honour which has been denied to him here, even if not in West Africa.
More to the point, whatever we did not do for Sierra Leone then, what are we doing now? That is the real subject of this debate. Peace is still the overriding objective. It does not seem to me—but I hope that the Minister will correct me—that we are taking the fullest advantage of the Commonwealth in finding a peaceful solution to Sierra Leone's problems.

1363
I would hope that after the brouhaha some new initiatives might now be expected from a chastened FCO. The Legg Report (paragraphs 9.8 to 12 on page 84) reveals the somewhat casual social conversations at the Edinburgh Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in October 1997 between senior Ministers and Mr. Kabbah. The results look rather lukewarm. At least Britain and three other countries are supporting a small Commonwealth taskforce of police officers to help reorganise the Sierra Leone police. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, on that matter and on the strengthening of the Sierra Leone army. I know that the Commonwealth has pledged its support to reconstruction, but it would be helpful to know what progress has been made both with this and with peace-keeping since last summer when the United Nations resolved to send an observer mission. If the UN and the Commonwealth together are unable to bring greater stability to Sierra Leone, one wonders whether they are able to bring peace anywhere.
Nigeria has played a valuable peace-keeping role and that must be acknowledged despite our diplomatic difficulties. The Nigerians should not be left in isolation with perhaps 10 per cent. Guineans and others. It may be that Commonwealth troops from Ghana and other countries could continue to back up Nigeria, though I appreciate the difficulty of strengthening ECOMOG until some form of democracy is, as everyone hopes, restored in Nigeria next May.
Since President Kabbah was restored last March, the people of Sierra Leone have been waiting for peace and the rehabilitation of their country after the trail of destruction, vandalism and looting left by the previous junta. Sadly, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and others have said, the news is not good. Outside Freetown there is still a climate of fear and insecurity. There are regular attacks by RUF and AFRC groups on ECOMOG soldiers and civilian targets on the roads. Authority in some areas is only maintained with the help of the Karamajors and other traditional fighters and armed gangs. Kidnapping, murder and atrocities such as mutilation of innocent villagers are still a daily threat not far from the capital. The effect of interminable civil war on the economy and on the people's morale is almost at the level it was before.
Yet there are many areas, inside and outside the capital, where aid programmes can have an effect. We must look positively at the situation in Sierra Leone because it is so easy to be depressed by it. Parts of Freetown are being rebuilt, its institutions restored, with the help of international agencies including the EU's ECHO programme, which has been a constant source of support through previous governments and, more recently, through the DfID. A lot has already been achieved in emergency assistance, rehabilitation, capacity-building and mediation, much of it through the non-governmental organisations and the Churches. Oxfam, Care International, Action Aid and Christian Aid are among the active agencies involved.
Seeds and tools are being distributed in many parts of the country and displaced people are returning even to areas like Moyamba which were formerly the site of
1364
fighting. This is reconstruction in action and it can be seen, and is being seen, by our own voluntary organisations and others. The Christian Council of Sierra Leone, which has 14 member Churches and 28 affiliates, has been active and successful in promoting a national dialogue through the setting up of public meetings, radio programmes and direct discussions with the president on the nature of good governance and advocacy. This approach has already yielded tangible results such as the adoption by the police in Freetown of a code of conduct.
In a small country, once a lasting peace is secured and guaranteed, it need not take long to restore confidence. The seeds of that confidence are there. But a lot, of course, depends, as others have pointed out, on the ability of President Kabbah's government to renounce their appalling present policy of executing their enemies without the due process of law, to give their opponents a fair trial, to extend the amnesty and to reach a genuine settlement with the various rebels.
Sierra Leone is undervalued by any international yardstick. It is listed as the very poorest country in the world in the UNDP human rights index. In the charts of highly indebted countries, it has one of the highest debt-to-export ratios. We know that it is not exporting anything like enough to pay off the interest on the debt, let alone the debt itself. On any scale its people are among the most deserving of development assistance. It is a potentially wealthy country to which we have a historic obligation and which holds our own culture in high regard. That is very important in the work we are doing overseas. We cannot blame its people for difficulties which were only postponed while we were the colonial power. In many cases, they are endemic difficulties. We must not shrug off an African responsibility because of our own problems or on the fashionable grounds of finding regional African solutions. It is, furthermore, a restored "democracy"—democracy in inverted commas, I admit—in which we have invested a good deal of misdirected political energy in the past year. In my view we should concentrate our resources on solving its current economic problems and give it the highest priority for our humanitarian assistance.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, on introducing the debate. As one who spent 32 years in the other Chamber of this Parliament, perhaps I may say that one of the attractions of this Chamber is that it can find time to debate issues such as the problems of Sierra Leone which perhaps receive only fleeting attention in the other place. It has been a useful and worthwhile debate.
When the coup took place last year and there was the determined and successful effort to reverse it and reinstate the democratically elected government, one of the outcomes was the argument which led to the Legg Report and to the whole question of who said what to whom about the Sandline operation. I remember saying at the time—the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, rather doubted me—that one of the problems lay in the fact

1365
that the Security Council resolution was somewhat ambiguous and sweeping in its wording whereas the British Order in Council was absolutely specific and much more tightly drawn. That was only a suspicion from my own reading of the two texts but I was very interested to note subsequently that Mr. Penfold, our High Commissioner, in his evidence to the Select Committee in another place, reinforced my suspicion when he acknowledged that he was aware of the Security Council resolution but was not aware of the terms of our own Order in Council. I hope that lessons will be learnt from that.
The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and my noble friend Lord Avebury raised questions about the precise role of our intelligence services in this matter. I understand that the Intelligence Committee in the other place is to take further evidence on that. I am in no doubt that, whether it be nods and winks or whatever, there must have been some involvement in and approval given to the Sandline operation. I very much agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, that to go on arguing about this is fairly pointless. Indeed, I very much welcome the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who introduced a proper sense of perspective in pointing out that, while the rest of the world looked on in astonishment as we continued to argue about dancing on the point of a pin, the situation in Sierra Leone was not perhaps receiving the attention it should have received. I thought that his speech gave us a proper perspective.
I understand that since the restoration of the government—perhaps the noble Baroness can confirm this—around 200 million dollars of international aid has gone to Sierra Leone from the European Union, from the IMF, from ourselves and from the United States, and that it has greatly helped the economic situation in the country and has helped to stabilise prices. But the real crisis in Sierra Leone at the moment, as others have said, lies not with the economy but in the lack of peace, of law and order and of stability. The rebellion, sadly, continues. The official line from Freetown is that ECOMOG has the situation under control. Only yesterday General Maxwell Colby was reported as saying that the rebels will never enter Freetown because they do not have the ability to do so. While that may be the case, he is also reported as saying that ECOMOG needs more manpower and logistics to clear the rebels with minimum force. There have been reports from Reuters in the past few days of considerable battles with loss of life on both sides in the countryside outside Freetown. My information is that there are some doubts as to whether ECOMOG is able to contain the situation.
However, whatever the detailed rights and wrongs of this argument, there is no doubt at all that an unhappy rebellion is still continuing in the country. Peace and stability have not returned, even though the democratic government have returned. Therefore the question we all press the Foreign Office to answer is, what help can we give, and what help is being given by other outside agencies, to try to bring the country back to some kind of normality?
1366
As regards the conduct of trials by the present government, I share much of the anxiety expressed by my noble friend Lord Avebury and others about the extensive use of capital punishment. We may deplore this—I certainly deplore it—but, unhappily, capital punishment is still part of the law of the land there, as in so many other countries around the world, including the United States. It is important to recognise that at least in the country we are discussing, unlike some others in Africa, the due processes of law have been properly carried out. Dr. Banya, the Foreign Minister, telephoned my office yesterday. He sent me an extract from a letter of just two months ago which was addressed to the Attorney General and Minister of Justice of Sierra Leone. It was written by the president of the International Bar Association, Klaus Bohlhoff. We have to bear in mind that in the early days of the restoration of the government there was a constant public demand for retribution against the rebels. Indeed some people took the law into their own hands. It was the ECOMOG forces and the government who stopped the lawlessness there. The president of the International Bar Association states,
"I have been struck by the evident professionalism and determination by yourself, judges of Sierra Leone and the legal profession to conduct fair trials in the difficult and emotionally charged circumstances in which you find yourself at this point in the history of your country".
I believe we can take some comfort from that, but I hope that we can speak with one voice in this House in making clear to President Kabbah and his government that they are in danger of losing much of the sympathy which they have had if they continue with the scale of executions which is threatened.
On the matter of press freedom, I understand that in the past few days military censorship has been introduced with regard to the reports of journalists. Any government can, of course, do that in times of war, but there is a clear difference—which I hope we would all accept—between censorship of war stories and persecution of individual journalists, such as my noble friend Lord Avebury outlined. I hope that we can speak forthrightly to the Government of Sierra Leone on that matter.
The important point is to see whether there are any means through the Commonwealth, the UN and through our own efforts to try to secure some new reconciliation of the kind which existed back in 1996 between the two forces which, sadly, did not last. Unhappily there are too many parts of Africa where there are conflicts of this kind still raging at the present time. We cannot assert that our Foreign Office should be able to solve all of them at a stroke. That is a totally unreasonable attitude. However, we need to devote more time and energy to trying to get at the source of these conflicts and getting the warring partners to meet together and to recognise that to continue to inflict suffering on the civilian population of their country is not a solution. In the end we should all use our external efforts to the best possible advantage to get them round the table and to come to some kind of political settlement which will enable that country to resume its normal life.

1367
I say in conclusion that Sierra Leone is one of the few countries in Africa which I have never visited. I have always wanted to do so, if for no other reason than that my late father-in-law was awarded the CBE for his services to forestry in the colonial period. I understand that his handiwork is there for all to see. However, I would hope to visit it in times of peace and the restoration of calm and prosperity in the country.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Chesham for securing today's debate on Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone's turbulent post-colonial political history—a history of mercenaries, of diamond dealers, of arms dealers, and of coups and counter-coups—has long meant that it is a country which generates news reports disproportionate to its size and 1998 has been no exception with the restoration of President Kabbah's legitimate government, ousted from power in May 1997 by a military coup masterminded by the AFRC (Armed Forces Revolutionary Council).
However, noble Lords are well aware that Sierra Leone has come to particular prominence this year. Many column inches were generated as a result of claims by the private military company, Sandline, that it had Foreign Office approval for a shipment of arms to assist in the restoration of President Kabbah in Sierra Leone—a shipment which in fact breached both the UN arms embargo and the Order in Council enshrining that embargo in UK law. The exact nature of the Foreign Office's relationship to President Kabbah's exiled government and the role played by the Foreign Office and its Ministers in that restoration were the subjects of especial scrutiny, as Africa watchers, human rights groups, journalists and parliamentarians alike struggled to fit the pieces together in the jigsaw that is the arms-to-Africa affair.
In the light of the Foreign Secretary's evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee this morning, I wish to return briefly to the Foreign Office's role in the arms-to-Africa affair. I shall do so in the context of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. Can the Minister confirm whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has received any representations from private military companies, including Sandline International, regarding the supply of arms to either Iran, Sudan or the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?
First, however, and most important today, nine months after the restoration of President Kabbah, the situation in Sierra Leone—a country to which we have long-standing ties of friendship—bears some examination. The months since March of this year have seen repeated clashes between rebels of the AFRC and the Revolutionary United Front, who together embarked on a campaign they called "Operation No Living Thing", on one side, and the ECOMOG Nigerian-led West African peace-keeping groups and the Kamajor militia loyal to President Kabbah on the other.
There is seemingly no end to the cycle of violence and the trail of tears. Outside of the main cities, President Kabbah's control of the situation looks
1368
increasingly shaky. Last month there was a rebel attack on Pendembu. The victims of that attack, beheaded by machetes, were left as a grim message with which to challenge the government. Only days later there were reports of 50 people abducted and 16 murdered in the northern village of Kamporoto. Members of the Kamajor militia are now reported to be deployed along main roads leading to the capital, while it has been reported that Freetown is under its greatest threat since ECOMOG troops ousted the junta in February. I should be grateful if the Minister could give the House the benefit of any intelligence on the rebels' advance on Freetown and the safety of the capital.
Most recently there has been heavy fighting around the town of Masiaka with ECOMOG troops inflicting heavy casualties on the rebel forces. Thousands of civilians have once again been forced to flee this land of violence and fear. Some 215,000 have fled this year alone, mostly to Guinea and Liberia. There are now some 530,000 Sierra Leonean refugees in neighbouring countries and the UNHCR said that Sierra Leoneans make up Africa's biggest refugee problem.
During the months of the junta's rule, the people of Sierra Leone suffered appalling brutality, mutilations and systematic rape. The US, the European Union and the UNHCR all have evidence of the outrageous violations of human rights and grave breaches of international humanitarian law which took place. As my noble friend Lord Chesham mentioned, Amnesty International's 1998 annual report on Sierra Leone catalogues the evidence of widespread slaughter, rape and injury of civilians by rebel forces, including the many cases of limbs hacked off and facial mutilation with machetes.
But President Kabbah's return to power has not stopped the butchery. In eastern and northern Sierra Leone, the rebels of the RUF and the rump of the deposed military junta continue to visit unspeakable cruelty on the civilian population of Sierra Leone in an undeclared war of guerrilla tactics waged on the innocent.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, put his finger on the pulse. This is a war where children fight children. It was described by Anthony Bloomberg of UNICEF as "a quiet emergency". Young boys are used as fighting material by both sides. Abducted from their villages, sent into battle as soon as they are old enough to carry a gun, doped with a potent cocktail of drugs to make them "fearless", child soldiers are the most tragic and traumatised victims of the violence in Sierra Leone, all the more so because they are perpetrators of it. What priority are the Government giving to the demobilisation of the estimated 4,000 or more child soldiers, particularly in the light of the fact that although the Sierra Leone Government are committed to their disarmament, Defence Minister Hinga Norman has said that it cannot be done while the fighting continues?
From these Benches we welcomed the British Government's commitment of over £25 million to help the re-building and rehabilitation of Sierra Leone, including support for disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of former combatants; and for parliament,

1369
the judiciary and the media, in accordance with the Foreign Secretary's pledge to make it a priority of the Government's diplomacy in Africa to build peace and prevent conflict.
However, does the Minister consider that it is possible to realise the wholly commendable ambitions of disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration when Sierra Leone is still in a state of virtual civil war; when there is still no cease-fire; when thousands of child soldiers have been forced into the fight; and when battles are still raging for control over the country's diamond producing areas? How far is reconciliation possible in these circumstances without a peace agreement?
Questions are also being asked in Sierra Leone about why it is taking ECOMOG so long to defeat the die-hard junta loyalists and their guerrilla allies in the interior, despite their repeated promises and deadlines. Does the Minister consider that that may be at least in part because the conventional ECOMOG troops are not trained to fight against guerrilla tactics? But if ECOMOG cannot contain the rebels, what other prescriptions does the Minister have for how peace can be achieved?
Will the Minister update the House on the progress of the United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone, which was established to monitor the military and security situation in the country for an initial six-month period up until 13th January next year? Back in August, the UN Secretary-General reported his concern to the UN Security Council about civilians caught up in the continuing fighting in Sierra Leone and urged that every effort should be made to end the threat that they face.
In the light of the Government of Nigeria's ongoing transition to civilian democratic rule, what assessment have the Government made of the view that it will be extremely difficult for an elected government in Nigeria to justify the expense of maintaining ECOMOG troops in Sierra Leone given the unpopularity of financing the regional peace-keeping force among the deprived and impoverished Nigerian population?
Given that the UN Special Conference on Sierra Leone emphasised in particular the critical need to support ECOMOG's efforts in carrying out its peace-keeping role and ending rebel atrocities against innocent civilians and children, have the Government drawn up contingency plans with our partners—for example, in the European Union and the UN—should Nigeria reduce, if not withdraw, its level of participation in ECOMOG. Here is a fundamental point which is central to this debate.
Does the Minister agree that unless Nigeria is working, west Africa will not work? While Nigeria's political future hangs in the balance and there are 100 million poverty-stricken Nigerians not far from Sierra Leone's back doorstep, with the potential to destabilise the whole region, what assessment has the Minister made of the view that until Nigeria is working the chances are that Sierra Leone will not work either? I commend the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, on this important issue. Nigeria's role has been, and will continue to be, vitally important to the future of Sierra Leone.
1370
We are all agreed that what Sierra Leone needs above all is peace. Reconciliation, the lasting restoration of democracy and respect for human rights are vital commodities which are scarce in Sierra Leone at present. The country presently finds itself caught in a vicious circle. There can be no lasting peace without national reconciliation and, it seems, there can be no national reconciliation without lasting peace.
President Kabbah has certainly paid lip service to those needs, calling for national reconciliation at the UN Special Conference in July. Britain welcomed the return of Sierra Leone's democratically elected government and the concomitant rule of law. Yet the actions of that government, in particular with respect to the judicial process for those suspected of complicity in the coup, have caused concern, as in this House today, in the wider international community and have somewhat tarnished President Kabbah's apparent good intentions.
In October, 16 more civilians were found guilty of the same crime, 11 of whom were sentenced to death for allegedly collaborating with the military junta. In November, a further 15 civilians were convicted of treason and, likewise, sentenced to death. Will the Minister confirm that over 40 civilians have to date been sentenced to death in trials connected with the overthrow of President Kabbah? Furthermore, Justice Minister, Solomon Berewa, has said that a further 50 civilians await trial on similar charges. I should be grateful to hear whatever details the Minister has on the progress that has been made on the appeals lodged with the Court of Appeal for those civilians convicted of treason.
International calls for clemency, including those of the UN Secretary-General, were again ignored on 19th October, when 24 soldiers, sentenced to death for their involvement in last year's coup, were executed by firing squad. That decision was widely condemned, both by the international community—and this afternoon by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley—and by human rights groups including Amnesty International, which released a statement saying that,
"the use of the death penalty will not contribute to the process of reconciliation",
and the African Commission on Human and People's Rights, which called upon Sierra Leone to stop the executions.
The convicted soldiers had recourse to a Committee for the Prerogative of Mercy, but there was no formal appeals process. In other words, it was either mercy from President Kabbah himself, or death. President Kabbah chose not to show mercy. Given Sierra Leone's obligations under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, which places an obligation on signatory governments to ensure fair trials for all those accused, in what ways are the Foreign Office's regrets at the executions and its concern at the lack of a proper appeals process for the military courts martial taking practical expression?
I return briefly to the Foreign Office's role in the restoration of President Kabbah—as did the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—not least because today the Foreign Secretary and his Minister of State came before the

1371
committee to give evidence on that very subject. It is of course the responsibility of Foreign Office Ministers to ensure that questions are answered. Amidst the conflicting stories and facts, the allegations and counter-allegations, some of which boil down to one individual's word against another's, the Select Committee has found one thing upon which both the High Commissioner to Sierra Leone, Mr. Penfold, and Colonel Tim Spicer of Sandline agree. Both are absolutely certain that the Foreign Office did not make it clear to either of them that the UN arms embargo and the Order in Council which enshrined it in UK law was comprehensive in its coverage and included the supply of arms to President Kabbah as well as to the ruling junta.
Given that the Foreign Affairs Committee has found that Mr. Penfold gave the illegal arms shipment a degree of approval on the basis that he believed that the UN sanctions applied only to the ruling military junta and not to President Kabbah's government in exile, presumably because the true position of the British Government had been well and truly obscured for him, whose duty does the Minister understand it is within the Foreign Office to keep ambassadors informed of issues of legality, such as the Order in Council in this case, and who should accept responsibility if those ambassadors and high commissioners are not kept fully informed?
In his evidence to the Select Committee, the Foreign Secretary stated that Mr. Penfold could have done more to inform himself about the extent of the UN arms embargo. Does the Minister believe that the same could equally be applied to Ministers in other aspects of the affair? The Foreign Secretary also said that Mr. Penfold should not have relied on the Foreign Office internal telegram 277 which briefly addressed the issue of the coverage of the UN arms embargo. Is it not a further incredible indictment of the state of communications in the Foreign Office if high commissioners cannot rely on the information contained in internal telegrams?
What is happening in Sierra Leone runs far deeper than parliamentary point-scoring. Bearing in mind the recent manner in which President Kabbah was restored to government and the British Government's role—whatever it might prove to have been—the reason it is so important is that its implications go to the heart of the future of Sierra Leone and the future of a region racked by tension and instability. Let us not forget that the real tragedy in Sierra Leone is the condition of the ordinary men, women and children of the country to whom we owe a moral and political debt, given our historical ties and the responsibility we have towards a member of the Commonwealth.
4.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I too welcome this debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for the opportunity to draw attention to the immense problems faced by the people of Sierra Leone, one of the poorest countries in the world—as the noble Earl,
1372
Lord Sandwich, reminded us—and to talk about ways in which the United Kingdom is helping Sierra Leone to tackle its problems.
The democratic elections held in March 1996 offered the people of Sierra Leone the chance to put behind them seven years of civil war. President Kabbah was elected. The elections were a demonstration of the commitment of the people of Sierra Leone to peace and democracy. They were held despite the efforts of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) to disrupt the electoral process through violence.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, reminded us, on 25th May 1997 hopes for a better future were dashed by a military coup. The coup overthrew the democratically elected government. It was rightly condemned by Britain and the entire international community: the United Nations, the Commonwealth, the European Union, the Organisation of African Unity, the Economic Community of West African States and others.
The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, quoted from the Amnesty International report, which makes clear that the period of the military junta was characterised by widespread human rights abuses and atrocities, which many of your Lordships remarked on this afternoon. The rule of law collapsed. Hundreds of civilians were arbitrarily killed. The junta had nothing to offer the people of Sierra Leone but murder, violence, torture, rape and looting.
Furthermore, the junta was rejected by the people of Sierra Leone, who stood up for the principle of democracy. There was a widespread yearning for an end to the violence. Many thousands fled the country, and the vast majority of people in Sierra Leone refused to have any dealings with the junta.
Britain led the international efforts to restore the democratically elected government of President Kabbah. We led action in the United Nations; we supported the Economic Community of West African States' efforts to find a peaceful solution. That is why we warmly welcomed the restoration of the government chosen by the people of Sierra Leone in March this year. No one who supports democracy or who has witnessed the scale of atrocities committed by the junta could disagree.
The return of President Kabbah on 10th March was greeted with widespread popular relief. It was a justifiable source of pride for the people of Sierra Leone. It was also a source of pride for the Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group (ECOMOG). It can be argued that the end to that misery would not have been possible without its assistance.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about the use of military force across boundaries in those circumstances. Her Majesty's Government attach great importance to the rule of law in international relations and the authority of the Security Council. While we welcomed the fact that the rule of the military junta had been brought to an end, we were unable wholeheartedly to endorse the ECOMOG action. We believe that any use of force must be based upon international law. But the fact is that President Kabbah's government faced then, and still faces, the massive task of rebuilding the

1373
country after the abuses of the junta. The democratic Government of Sierra Leone is publicly committed to re-establishing the rule of law, respect for human rights, the restoration of national institutions and, importantly, the strengthening of the civil administration, and also to offering the people of Sierra Leone lasting peace.
Of course, it is right to help the government of Sierra Leone in those tasks. It is right if we care about human rights and the rule of law. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, was quite correct when he said that since the restoration of democracy in March, the Department for International Development has committed over £20 million for rehabilitation and reconstruction in Sierra Leone.
In answer to the specific point put by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, that includes a DfID pledge of £6.5 million to support the Government of Sierra Leone's programme for disarmament, immobilisation and reintegration of 33,000 former soldiers. The programme is vital for rebuilding peace and for long-term reconciliation in Sierra Leone, as the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, implied. It demonstrates to the combatants that there is an alternative to violence; that they have an economic future if they have a peaceful future.
Britain is providing humanitarian assistance through non-governmental organisations for post-conflict relief and rehabilitation. Current support during this financial year is in the region of £2 million. That money provides direct support for agriculture, health and education. We shall also provide £6 million over three years for a funding programme for good governance in Sierra Leone. I assure the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, that the money will help to restore not only the key areas of civil society and parliament, but also the judiciary—a point to which he particularly drew our attention.
In answer to the point on aid put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, Her Majesty's Government will continue to remind the Government of Sierra Leone of the need for continuing evidence of their real commitment to human rights and the rule of law and respect for their international obligations, including during the current treason trial process of which I hope to say more in a moment.
We are also helping in other ways: for example, in the United Nations. We fully supported the creation of the United Nations observer mission in Sierra Leone in July. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, particularly asked about it. It is a military/civilian observer peacekeeping mission and it also monitors human rights in a way that we hope helps the Sierra Leone Government to address their human rights obligations. Britain has provided seven of the 40 military observers for the current first phase. Those observers are playing an extremely important role.
We are also planning to help the Government of Sierra Leone to reform the army—a point that several noble Lords raised—to ensure that there is proper democratic control. A reformed army is central to preventing human rights abuses, sustaining democracy and building lasting peace and stability. It is essential to ensure stronger oversight of the military by democratic government and, of course, parliament.
1374
But we all recognise that Sierra Leone faces an uphill struggle. Progress cannot be achieved without a lasting peace. I believe that that point was made by virtually all noble Lords who spoke in this debate. Peace is elusive. Continuing violence in the country is a source of great concern, as many noble Lords pointed out. Since their removal from power in February remnants of the military junta have conducted a campaign of appalling atrocities against the civilian population. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was right to say that several thousand civilians have been brutally killed or mutilated by the rebels since February. Killings have occurred on an even greater scale than during the rule of the junta. The indiscriminate mutilation of men, women and children is particularly grotesque. There have been more than 4,000 cases of mutilation since February. I believe that the description given by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, went to many of our hearts.
Her Majesty's Government condemn these atrocities in the strongest possible terms. We are also deeply concerned about the fate of children. Not only are children being killed and mutilated but several thousand have been separated from their families, due mainly to their forcible recruitment into rebel forces. The United Nations estimates that 4,000 child soldiers are still attached to the military forces. The majority of them—about 2,500—are forced to fight with the rebels and the rest are recruited by the civil defence force. In answer to the point put by the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Moynihan, Her Majesty's Government have expressed their concern on this matter to the Government of Sierra Leone. We shall continue strongly to urge the parties, including the rebels, to disarm and demobilise all children. We shall also continue to support the efforts of the United Nations in this regard. The successful reintegration of child soldiers into civil society will be a difficult and long-term process but it is one that we are determined to follow through.
The rebels are particularly active in the north and east of the country. Like many noble Lords, we are concerned about recent reports of attacks on villages and towns close to Freetown. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, made particular reference to that. We understand, however, that the Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group (ECOMOG) has regained control of these areas in the past week or two. We are monitoring the situation very closely. We believe that ECOMOG is in a position to safeguard and protect Freetown at the moment, but we shall be very vigilant and keep the position under review.
ECOMOG is helping the Government of Sierra Leone to combat rebel atrocities and to restore security throughout the country. Her Majesty's Government support these efforts. In addition, Nigeria has played a leading role, as the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, told the House. Nigeria is making real efforts and daily sacrifices in the interests of peace in Sierra Leone and stability in the region. We hope that other countries in the region will also be able to play a similar role by contributing troops to the ECOMOG force in Sierra Leone.

1375
It is vital to ensure that the rebels who commit these atrocities are starved of weapons. Therefore, the rigorous implementation of the UN arms embargo on Sierra Leone is essential. We shall play our part and we expect others to do the same. We welcome the Economic Community of West African States' small arms moratorium. Strict implementation will contribute to stability in the region.
Britain is also playing a leading role in supporting efforts to restore security. We gave £2 million to the United Nations trust fund for peacekeeping in Sierra Leone. Of that, £1.5 million has gone on direct logistical support to ECOMOG. We hope that others can continue to follow Britain's lead in providing much-needed logistical support for ECOMOG. As the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said, Britain organised, hosted and chaired the first meeting of the international contact group on Sierra Leone on 5th November. That conference brought together key international organisations and donors and the Government of Sierra Leone. We are pleased that the meeting resulted in new pledges of financial support for peacekeeping in that country particularly from the Netherlands, Japan and France.
The meeting of the contact group marked an important step in broadening support for the Government of Sierra Leone among the international community. It was an important boost to international efforts to bring long-term peace and security to Sierra Leone. Britain will continue to draw to the attention of the international community the urgent needs of Sierra Leone in this way. In answer to the specific point raised in the debate, we hope that there will be a second contact group meeting early next year.
Diplomatic efforts are vital if long-term peace is to be achieved. The contact group meeting endorsed the dual approach of support for ECOMOG and the pursuit of a diplomatic solution. A proper reconciliation process is the key to long-term peace. We shall continue to encourage the Government of Sierra Leone along this path. Difficult decisions will need to be taken if real progress is to be made. A way to achieve lasting peace has been mapped out for the rebels. In answer to specific points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, the Commonwealth Secretary-General has set out to the rebels clear terms for talks with the Government of Sierra Leone, including recognition by the RUF of the legitimacy and authority of the government; unconditional and indefinite cessation of all hostilities; and willingness to enter into talks to bring about an immediate end to the conflict. The United Kingdom Government fully support the efforts of the Commonwealth in this respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, also referred to the treason trials. Her Majesty's Government are following those trials very closely. We recognise that the junta overthrew a democratically elected government. There cannot be immunity for those who are responsible for committing atrocities. But the Government of Sierra Leone cannot be in any doubt about our very strong opposition to the death penalty. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, drew attention to the execution of 24
1376
soldiers. Her Majesty's Government regret those executions. We hope that they will be the last. We believe that large-scale executions will not promote national security.
In answer to the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, my right honourable friend the Minister of State has intervened personally with President Kabbah to urge clemency for those who are sentenced to death. For civilian trials, President Kabbah has undertaken to consider our representations carefully once the appeals process is exhausted. I hope that that answers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
International observers agree that fair trials have been conducted under difficult circumstances. However, we have concerns about the lack of a proper appeals process for military courts marshal. We have urged the Government of Sierra Leone to instigate such an appeals process. We shall continue to take every opportunity to remind them of their international obligations to provide fair trials for all concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the arrest of journalists, in particular Winston Ojukutu-Macaulay and Sylvester Rogers. We have asked our High Commission to express to the Government of Sierra Leone our concerns about those arrests. We have asked the High Commission to point out that while we understand the effects of inaccurate reporting on the fighting we look to that government to see what can be done to ensure accuracy, for example by means of daily bulletins on the security situation. Mr. Rogers is unwell and has been transferred to a hospital in Freetown and Mr. Ojukutu-Macaulay has been released on bail.
The noble Lord also asked about the status of women. The DfID is providing funds for a number of non-governmental organisations that work in this field, particularly in the area of women's health. Recent examples include £227,000 to the Marie Stopes international programme for safe motherhood and community health and over £100,000 for the Campaign for Good Governance which is also very active, particularly on women's issues.
Several noble Lords asked about the reports in today's newspapers on Sandline and GCHQ. Sir Thomas Legg saw all of the intelligence reports and assessments on Sierra Leone during the period in question. I believe that this can be seen from paragraph 2.16 of the report by Sir Thomas Legg. He concluded that only one bore significantly on his investigation, and he addressed it in his report at paragraph 6.53. I believe that those questions were dealt with thoroughly in the Legg Report and have been dealt with thoroughly all over again by the FAC.
There was no cover up. There was no effort to mislead Parliament. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary accepted the findings of the Legg Report in a Statement to the House on 27th July. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, in particular for his constructive summary of that point. Similarly, I extend my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood.

1377
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about the Home Office country assessment. I understand that that assessment is due early in the new year. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was concerned about the possibility of Nigeria pulling out and the situation in Sierra Leone degenerating as a result. The Nigerians have made clear that they cannot stay indefinitely in Sierra Leone. What we have said to the Nigerians is that they and the rest of ECOMOG should stay, with the support of the international community—I stress that—until a self-sustaining peace has been established in Sierra Leone. We are having those discussions with the Nigerians. I hope that that assures the noble Lord that the Government are engaged on that point.
Sierra Leone is facing many daunting challenges: the shocking atrocities, about which we have heard; being one of the poorest countries in the world; the grave humanitarian crisis; and the plight of child soldiers. But the people of Sierra Leone can also be justifiably proud. They have stood up for democracy. They overthrew a brutal military junta. The Government are doing their best to build a better future for their people. It is a fertile country rich in natural resources. Her Majesty's Government's policy is to support the people of Sierra Leone in their search for lasting peace, security and stability and democracy. We believe that it is right to do so. The rebels must now stop their violence and enter into the internationally supervised disarmament which is available to them. That and the path set out by the Commonwealth is the only way ahead for them.
It is important that Britain remains a friend to Sierra Leone. That does not mean giving anyone a blank cheque. It does not mean ignoring faults. It means continuing to remind the Government of Sierra Leone that we expect a continuing commitment to respect for human rights and international law. We shall also try to build on international support for Sierra Leone because it deserves stronger interest and support so that the people who have suffered so much in recent years can look forward to a better and more secure future.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It has been useful. I hope that it sends a message to Sierra Leone that we do care. Everyone has demonstrated that in their speeches. As the Minister mentioned, certain aspects need to have an eye kept on them—but we care. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before we move to the Statement on competitiveness I should like to take the opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on the Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Competitiveness
4.43 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Statement is as follows:
"The White Paper I am publishing describes the Government's strategy for modernising the United Kingdom economy. Overall our industrial performance still lags well behind the United States and our European partners, despite all the privatisations and trade union reforms of our predecessors' 18 years. Yet a new economic landscape beckons, radically changing the terms on which businesses compete with each other. As a government, we have to create the conditions for an economic step change in this country. This White Paper is a wake up call to the nation to do just that.
"The starting point for the Government's analysis is that knowledge and its profitable exploitation by business is the key to competitiveness. An advanced industrial nation like ours cannot sustain the growing prosperity we want by producing standard products and services made with pedestrian methods and commonplace technology. Others can do that just as well and more cheaply. We will only win by developing innovative goods and services that customers want to buy and that use world-class production systems and the most sophisticated technology to keep us ahead of our rivals and by ensuring we have the best environment for business in the world here in the UK but also in the rest of Europe which is our home market.
"The bedrock of that business environment is macro-economic stability. Business hates uncertainty. That is why this Government are so determined to steer a stable course through the world's current economic turbulence. We fully understand the difficulties that this turbulence can cause.
"The Government have no illusions that they alone can transform Britain's economic performance. Of course they cannot. It is not government's job to second guess boardroom decisions. Nor is the hidden hand of market forces sufficient to secure our competitive success. The false hopes of planning in the 1960s and 1970s, and the obsession with laisser-faire in the 1980s, both failed. This Government steer a new path: to work with the grain of markets; to use our regulatory powers to promote competition as the single most important spur to innovation; to encourage businesses to collaborate with each other to compete more efficiently; and to invest in the capabilities of the economy, including its skills and technological awareness.
"Within this framework there are three key roles for my department. First, we must invest in our world-class science and knowledge base. Secondly, we will step up our efforts to convert the fruits of this vital resource into hard commercial success. Thirdly,

1379
we will lead a crusade to develop in Britain the spirit of enterprise so characteristic of the United States so that we seize the new business opportunities that are before us.
"The quality of the UK's science and engineering base is the foundation on which the knowledge economy is built. It is the mainspring of innovation. Yet university research has been the victim of long-standing under-investment. This Government have acted to reverse the decline. With the Wellcome Trust, we are investing an extra £1.4 billion in British science and engineering. We also need the private sector to increase its commitment to research and development. That is why my right honourable friend the Chancellor will be consulting business on supplementing the current tax system with an R&D tax credit for small business. And that is why we will back strong participation by UK business in the EU's research and development programme.
"But research by itself does not generate wealth. We must ensure that more research is transformed into commercial success; that new ideas lead to successful innovation and new products. My department will therefore switch resources to increase its support for innovation by 20 per cent. An expanded teaching company scheme will pay for 200 technology champions every year from among our best science and engineering graduates to help businesses innovate and to exploit the latest technology. In addition the Government will offer a range of new incentives to reward universities which work effectively with business. Our target is to increase by 50 per cent. the number of innovative start-up businesses each year from the public sector science and engineering base by 2002.
"Exploitation of science and business development is often strongest when businesses cluster together, creating a critical mass of investment, skills and co-operation. Government cannot create clusters out of nothing, but they can help emerging clusters to grow. In a new initiative I regard as of fundamental importance the Government will for the first time set up teams, each led by a Minister, to tackle barriers to growth of nationally significant clusters, co-ordinating action across government and with business. The first of these teams will concentrate on biotechnology and will be led by the science Minister, my noble friend Lord Sainsbury.
"Boosting enterprise will be given the highest priority in what the Government say and do. We must encourage more people of all ages and backgrounds to start their own business, and we must help those businesses to grow.
"I have no magic wand that can create an enterprise culture in Britain. But government can play a role in changing attitudes, in facilitating finance, in offering networks of support and enabling businesses to learn from each other, in improving technological awareness, especially access to the new digital technologies, and in promoting at every opportunity liberalisation and competition without which an enterprise culture cannot flourish.
1380
"First, attitudes. We will back a business-led campaign to promote enterprise in every part of the country. We have asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to consider how best entrepreneurship skills can be introduced to teaching in school. This year the Government are spending £15 million to promote links between education and business and are co-sponsoring, with the private sector, the expansion of the young enterprise scheme into higher education, helping students to run their own businesses. This will build on the measures the Government have already taken to invest in and reform the education system at every level.
"Second, finance. The financial community needs to be as entrepreneurial and innovative as the business community. This Government have already introduced a much needed cut in capital gains tax. Today, I can announce the creation of a new £150 million enterprise fund to bring together public and private finance for high growth businesses. The fund will help financial providers develop the expertise to understand and back growth businesses and new innovative technologies. It will help create in the UK a far-sighted financial community capable in future of taking risks alone.
"Thirdly, support for innovative business start-ups. To help them through their crucial early stage of development I have set the Business Links network a target of support each year for 10,000 new growth businesses across the UK.
"In a modern, enterprising economy, businesses need to learn from each other. The Government can play a crucial role and we are full partners in the CBI's Fit for the Future best-practice campaign. My department has helped the Motor Industry Forum to bring master engineers from Japan to advise and train vehicle component suppliers on world-class practice. This has produced truly outstanding improvements in performance. My department will fund up to 10 similar programmes in other industrial sectors.
"To help the regional development agencies in England promote innovation and competitiveness we shall provide them with an extra £10 million. We have decided to re-focus regional selective assistance on high-quality, knowledge-based projects which provide high value jobs.
"Fourthly, access to new digital technologies. These provide the nerve system of the knowledge economy. Electronic commerce will be among the most revolutionary changes to markets since the Industrial Revolution. However, I recognise many smaller firms find it difficult to make the leap into electronic trading. I am therefore launching a new programme to ensure we achieve a target of one million small businesses exploiting the Internet to the full by 2002. The Government will invest £20 million in new comprehensive advisory services to ensure that this target is achieved. My ambition is that Britain should, by the end of this Parliament, have the best environment worldwide for electronic trading. I have today published a document that benchmarks our performance in the digital economy against our

1381
main competitors. I will introduce an Electronic Commerce Bill later in this Session to bring our laws into the electronic age and reinforce confidence in electronic trading. I will appoint an e-envoy to help lead for the UK in international discussions on electronic commerce. The performance and innovation unit in the Cabinet Office will conduct a study to build on this. I am also developing proposals to liberalise further communications markets.
"Finally, if enterprise and innovation are to flourish in the UK, we need greater competition in markets and those markets need to modernise. For 18 years our predecessors preached free markets but took fright at big business. We have already passed the new Competition Act, and we will use it to attack anti-competitive practices, strengthening the OFT so that it can expose all corners of the economy to the stimulus of competition. I will also consult next year on the case for reform of merger policy to ensure this too promotes competition.
"The White Paper sets out 75 commitments to boost business capabilities, to promote business collaboration and to strengthen competition, all aimed at closing the performance gap against our main competitors. But in addition we need to measure how well we are doing. I have also decided therefore to develop and publish indicators to track the country's progress—a new competitiveness index. Each year the Government will review Britain's progress against these indicators and agree what further action is required. A new competitiveness council, drawn from across business, will advise the Government on the action needed.
"In one respect only this is a modest White Paper. It is a mere 67 pages compared with the 634 pages of the three competitiveness tomes published by the last administration. The right honourable Member for Henley was thoroughly dedicated in his goals and I commend him on giving Britain some home truths. But still Britain slipped behind. The growl was there but not the bite. In contrast, our White Paper charts a realistic and attainable way forward. For too long, a dignified retreat from economic success has satisfied us. Britain has played on half the pitch: inventing but not selling; competing but not working enough with others. Now we are going to do things differently: government and business in partnership, with focus, with energy and with enterprise. I commend the White Paper to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.57 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. There is much to welcome in the White Paper. That is not surprising because, as was said this morning by my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham, he could have written it some years ago. I also ask the Minister to convey to his right honourable friend in the other place my thanks for the briefing he gave me just after eight o'clock this morning. I thought that the honeypots
1382
would then come in the Statement but, unfortunately, it seemed that the full briefing was on the "Today" programme.
I was in the DTI under the leadership of my right honourable friend Michael Heseltine. I have memories of the three-volume competitiveness White Paper and work which he brought forward. I hope that the Minister does not criticise us for being conscientious about the detail. It certainly moved matters forward and brought home to people what was needed at that time.
In this case, the principles and the theory are there but I worry about the pragmatism. I am delighted that there will be measures, indicators and benchmarks which we can use. I suspect that we shall ask for a quarterly review, even if by way of a Question in the House, of what is happening.
I am worried that noble Lords opposite have the wrong image of small firms. The White Paper puts great emphasis on electronic trading, information and knowledge. That is great. It is wonderful. But many people who run small firms do not get round to reading the newspapers. How does the Minister propose to persuade people under pressure and with limited time to take on board the proposals? My definition of a small firm is a place where the end of the day comes before the end of the work and there is no one to do it for you the next day. We will find great treasure in such companies if there is a practical way in which they can participate in these services.
In the past, small firms were located next to accountants and solicitors and the owners knew their bank managers. Now they start from scratch, often with innovation, which we all want to see, but more often having to learn by mistakes. We cannot afford that in the present economy.
Another problem is the difficulty of attracting graduates into smaller firms. They will flock to the big firms with reputations, although some reputations have changed in the past four months. Is there not some way in which the Minister can bring forward the opportunity for smaller firms to share in graduate skill and knowledge? That is very important.
We need industry heroes, not just service heroes, and I hope that the Minister will bring that about. We all miss John Harvey-Jones who showed that business and industry are fun. That attracts people. I see nothing wrong with it.
The Statement declares that the bedrock of the business environment is macro-economic. I hope that that does not mean tax harmonisation because there could be nothing worse for our economy. I say that with some feeling. I watched so much enterprise and industry slide south from Northern Ireland because of tax issues. The corporation tax of 10 per cent. is a frightening example of what will happen.
The Government have stated that we will use our regulatory powers to promote competition. I hope the Minister will explain that. It appears to be a contradiction in terms. Competition is what you have openly; it is not achieved by regulation.

1383
We have a world-class science and knowledge base. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain why in that case about 13 per cent. of pharmaceutical manufacturing in this country has moved to the Far East in recent months. We can rightly be proud of the industry, with its limited subsidy, but already parts of it have gone to Taiwan and Vietnam. I should be grateful to hear what the Minister believes are the reasons.
I also approve of the university-industry links. Such links did not occur in the past because universities believed that industry was not for them to spend time on. I suggest that the Minister discovers how the successful links worked. They worked because people met each other at school sports days and not because the department brought them together by identifying possibilities. I look forward to the Minister's assurance that incentives to the universities apply to industrial processing as well as to innovation and research.
I note that the first of the teams to come forward on the critical mass of clusters will be on biotechnology. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that Friends of the Earth made some fairly serious allegations on Monday. I hope that he will be able to come to the House and dispute them. A statement from the Department of Trade and Industry yesterday indicated that the Minister is not responsible for the £185 million budget of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. If the Minister is not responsible for the budget, who is? I hope that in BSE enterprise the Government will include the Prince's Trust because it has the advantage of using businessmen.
Facilitating finance is absolutely key to the proposals. What arrangements have been made with the banks not to pull the plug when the going gets tough? How can one stop them saying that there is no profit in business from small businesses? I hope that we can encourage the banks to "stay with it" if the rest of us are working to make things grow. I heartily endorse the expansion of the young enterprise scheme. I have seen it change people's lives enormously.
Many proposals in the Statement need more detail which we might not receive today. As regards the enterprise fund, who chooses which enterprises are involved? Is it on a smaller scale than that related to industries? Who guarantees the loan? Who stays with it to make sure that it does not leave them?
I worry about using Business Links because if those who advise in Business Links are skilled in entrepreneurship they would be out there as entrepreneurs and not advising in Business Links. Perhaps we could look at another area alongside if not instead of that. Can the Minister explain why, when motorcar quality of Japanese manufacturers is greater in England, it was felt necessary to bring master engineers from Japan? Could not more engineers from Gateshead and Derby have been employed?
The greatest need will be training to allow the knowledge to be utilised. The Statement mentions the decision to refocus regional selective assistance on high quality, knowledge-based products. Does that mean that the areas with the greatest need will therefore be
1384
neglected? Does it mean that one is picking those with the greatest skills rather than the greatest need? I should be interested to hear the Minister's view.
The Government, rightly, are keen to ensure that people who are bankrupt are not written off as entrepreneurs. There is no quicker way to learn than to make mistakes. That is how I learnt about working capital. When it is £2 million above where it should be, you never let it happen again. I hope that we will see protection against the revival of phoenix companies where the car is transferred to the wife and the company is set up again within a few weeks.
We never took fright at big business. If there was one thing the President of the Board of Trade knew it was that if you are to be globally competitive you have to have large businesses, otherwise the Germans, the French and the Americans will move in over you. That is important. I hope that the Minister will reassure the House that competition policy accepts that there need to be many big companies.
We debate the Statement in a climate in which the number of bankruptcies and late payments is rising—and that after the Government put forward the policy, "If you won't pay £500 you might £550." I should be grateful to hear what is to be done about that.
I should like the Minister to comment on two further issues. The IMF, in its Korean restructuring, is moving the tables. The Minister shrugs. I do not expect an answer today. It is telling the Koreans what to do and is about to move Daewoo Electronics out of here in favour of Samsung, which is not interested in "here". We are going to lose jobs by accident. I should like to know whether the Government intend to investigate that wearing their IMF hat.
Secondly, and it is for me to say this, there is sound evidence that the companies which survive best in tough times are run by women. What input to the paper was from the women's group in the Cabinet Office? If there was none—I may be being sceptical—can we have the Government's opinion as to how we obtain more women entrepreneurs? They start from scratch and develop companies which stay, I suspect because the Porsche does not appear on the books in the first year.
I conclude with those queries which I hope the Minister does not feel are too detailed. Industry—getting it right and getting the sums together—is a matter of detail.
5.10 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, one of the benefits of recent skulduggery on the Conservative Benches is the happy return of the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, to the Front Bench. That is most welcome.
My appearance today is because of the non-availability of my noble friend Lord Razzall. It is therefore appropriate that I declare an interest. I am president of the British Radio and Electronic Equipment Manufacturers' Association—BREMA to its friends—though it is not in that capacity that I want to put forward a few points. However, I suspect that the members of BREMA will welcome the emphasis on

1385
digital technology. They are convinced that the British-based electronics industry is well equipped and well poised to take benefit from the digital age.
The White Paper once again identifies, as it seems to have done ever since I became involved in politics over 30 years ago, that Britain is a low pay, low skill, low tech and low productivity economy. As has been pointed out, there have been a number of attempts to cure that malaise. The Secretary of State calls his paper "A Wake Up Call to the Nation". But there is a need for more than clarion calls. Resources must match intent; the means much match the ends; and the words on the cheque need to match the numbers. That is why, though I see some of the glamorous figures quoted, I shall await the expert comments from some of the sectors involved as to just how generous the Government's initiatives will be and what impact they will make.
I am in a little difficulty in that I know that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry raises high emotions, both for and against. I admit at once therefore that I am a Mandelson fan, just as I was a Heseltine fan in the last government. I rather suspect that the present Secretary of State sees himself as the natural successor of Mr. Heseltine rather than of Mrs. Beckett.
I agree that the Government cannot back winners. But the Secretary of State is surely right that his role cannot be wholly passive. That is why I welcome the assurance again that efforts will be made to make our competition policy truly effective. The Minister and I spent many months going through the Competition Bill—now the Competition Act. We welcomed it onto the statute book. But the jury is still out as to how effective we will make our competition law. It is too easy to allow it to slip back into listening to hard cases instead of making sure that our competition law favours those who are truly competitive.
The matter of university funding is extremely interesting. Almost at the same time as the Secretary of State's Statement landed on my desk came a statement from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry announcing its study of similar issues called The UK Pharmaceutical Industry at the Crossroads. Again, though I have not had the chance to study either document in detail, it is interesting—certainly from the chapter headings—to see how much shared analysis there is. On the question of university funding the pharmaceutical report says:
"Given limited resources, such funding should be targeted to key areas and focused on a relatively small number of leading institutions".
I wonder whether the Government agree with that. If they intend to put a large amount of money into university research, will it be spread thinly or targeted—as the pharmacists recommend—on a relatively small number of leading institutions?
I share the anxiety of the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, in relation to small and medium-sized enterprises. There is a whiff of big business, which is probably the first love of the Secretary of State, when there is need within his department to keep an eye on small and medium-sized enterprises. There is also a need for co-ordination and co-operation between
1386
departments. This cannot be just an initiative of the DTI. That is why we welcome the announcement today of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. This initiative will touch education, the Treasury, and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and they must pull together. That is why I hope we hear for the last time these ridiculous briefings and counter-briefings between the DTI and the Treasury. The spinning really must stop if the Government are to be treated seriously on this matter and if we are to be clear that the Treasury is on board for this initiative.
I noted the visit of Professor Michael Porter, of Harvard Business School. It was said that he made a great impact on the Secretary of State. Among Professor Porter's strong recommendations was a much friendlier tax regime and deep cuts in capital gains tax. Is that the shared analysis of the DTI and the Treasury in approaching these matters?
I do not see many of the usual suspects on the Benches and I do not want to promote a diversion, but the Statement does not seem to fit with the Government's policy on the euro. The Conservative policy of waiting 10 years is positively barmy if we are talking about giving industry some kind of stability in which to make plans. Therefore, on these Benches, in welcoming much of the Statement, we say that it only makes sense if there is an early rather than a late decision on our membership of the euro.
The White Paper has a lot of the fizz we would expect from the Secretary of State. He is right to point out that the privatisation and trade union reform of the 1980s, though taking us so far, still left us with many of the problems which this Statement identifies. It will need not just a government effort, but also a national effort. It is interesting—perhaps the Minister can enlighten us in these news days—that the paper mentions discussions with the CBI but does not mention whether discussions have taken place with the TUC. I should like to know whether there have been such discussions and whether the TUC will be playing a part in seeing the proposals through.
We welcome the targets; we welcome the measurement. The real test will not be a test of the Secretary of State; it will be a test of us all as to how willing we are to change attitudes that have been entrenched too long and that rightly need to be changed now.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Denton of Wakefield, to the Opposition Front Bench. It is a pleasure to see the noble Baroness there. This is our first debate together and I have looked forward to it. It was also a pleasure to hear the noble Lord, Lord McNally, speaking about digital technology as it is one of the key frameworks of the document.
As I listened to what I thought were two generous responses from the Benches opposite, I heard understanding and support for the requirement to invest in Britain's capabilities, in the areas of the science base, the skills base and communications technology, and an understanding of the whole of the supply chain.

1387
A number of detailed questions were asked, some of which I shall address now; I shall address others in the fullness of time, because of the time constraint. Many detailed comments were raised which, I agree, is the right way in which to approach micro-economic planning as opposed to macro-economic planning. However, we must not forget that a stable macro-economic background, with low interest charges, low cost of money and sound government finance, is an essential pre-condition. As I said in the Queen's Speech debate, for the past 20 or 30 years it has been difficult for any government to achieve that background stability although we all need to work hard to do so.
I return to the key points. Where I saw and heard the support was, as I say, in regard to investing in the capabilities of our country. The second, strong feature where there is common understanding is the need for government to act as a catalyst and for industry to collaborate. In saying that, I can immediately answer one of the questions asked by the noble Baroness about how we allow small businesses to enter into the modernisation of competitive capacity. I believe that one must drive this forward through collaboration in the supply chain. We have started that in the automotive supply chain and I have personal experience of it from my own career in the North Sea supply chain. Efforts have been made in the food industry supply chain, driven by the larger, lead companies. In key terms, that is how one drives knowledge and the use of knowledge through to small companies within the system.
In such areas as investing in our capabilities and catalysing collaboration throughout the system, there is a strong resonance in the Chamber that that is good micro-economic policy which we must all encourage.
I sensed uncertainty about the third key area of government's role in the micro-economic strategy, which is regulation to ensure open and competitive markets. I thought there was a doubt in the question of the noble Baroness about the role of regulation in ensuring competitive markets. I join the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in saying that the first tool is the Competition Act itself. That is the framework for competition and it is different from anything that we have had before in this country because it is not about form based competition. It is about removing obstacles and allowing freedom to compete to the hilt unless one infringes the two classical prohibitions.
That is a regulatory structure, but it gives business much more freedom to compete. I can illustrate what I mean by "regulation to achieve better competition" by the overall structure of the Bill. In developing new markets, regulation is totally appropriate to achieve competition. When we discussed the Bill, we talked about the regulatory process for privatised new marketplaces in which state monopolies were turned into new companies. One needs a regulatory framework to ensure that competition grows in those areas of privatisation.
In the immensely interesting new marketplace of electronic commerce and the Internet, I would argue that unless we set the correct regulatory structure, which
1388
protects consumers, harnesses the technology and gives an international framework, we shall not take full advantage of the new marketplace or give our companies the opportunities that they should have to become leading-edge competitors in a new technology or a new marketplace in the next millennium. Therefore, we are convinced that the regulatory framework has a positive role to play in encouraging the correct spirit of competition.
Interesting questions were also asked about the quality of scientific investment, the issue of how funds would be put into science, and the role and responsiveness of the research councils in ensuring that excellence is the outcome of the dialogue in the bidding process between the scientific institutions and the fund providers. We shall use the well-known process of the research councils, but we shall attempt to ensure that excellence is focused through the bidding process which, as we have learnt, is the best way; through the Foresight programme and in the research councils; and through increased links between business, its aims for good scientific investment and the academic capacity to produce new technology.
Much was made of Michael Porter's visit to this country. I can only believe that he was "in search of excellence". It appears to me that he came here because he wanted to find out exactly how we are positioning ourselves as regards competencies within the new European market structure and in order to take advantage of that marketplace. That is an interesting part of the debate. It is a point that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, raised and I certainly would not want to avoid it. I advise the noble Lord to look carefully at the text. We recognise Europe as the home market. That is the first great underpinning of a positive attitude towards the European adventure. Without doubt, this paper looks at the capacity to grow, whether through electronic commerce, the Internet, the European research programmes, entry into the marketplace or our competitive regulatory process. The axis is our capacity to exploit and develop in the single market. That is absolutely as it should be and it is vital for the competitiveness of our country.
Finally, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that this is truly a test for us all. It is not government's solution to competitiveness: it is an industry partnership solution to competitiveness, involving government and the people of the nation. The noble Lord asked whether the TUC was involved in preparing the document. Like others, the TUC was deeply involved in the 10 working parties over the 18 months of close counsel with members of the business community, who themselves underwrite and underpin the report as the direction for progress. It made a very strong contribution through the working parties to the development of what, I agree, is a test and a responsibility for us all which we should not fail.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, much of what the Minister said when repeating the Statement is extremely welcome and encouraging, but I have two worries that I should like to put to him. First, at the

1389
beginning of the Statement he asserted that Britain was well behind its competitors in performance and productivity. He implied—I thought a little implausibly—that that is because nothing has happened in the past 18 years to improve our performance.
That contrasts with the reported comments in this morning's paper of his own Secretary of State who said that the attack on state monopoly during the Tory years and the privatisation programme was entirely right and that the then Labour opposition was utterly wrong to oppose it in almost every single case. We should like to be reassured that the Secretary of State is setting the mood and it is the continued attack on state monopoly and increased competition that is the theme rather than "bad mouthing" everything that has happened in the past 18 years.
My second point concerns productivity. As I understand the Government's analysis, much of the argumentation rests on some of the Mackinsey reports—the recent observations on sagging productivity in this country. Has the Minister noted the comments of Ted Hall? He is the head of Mackinsey's global research team in America, although he had a hand in preparing that report here. He explained that nowadays productivity cannot be measured in traditional terms because the productivity gains—the gain in product—are in the quality, innovation and "connectivity", if I may use that word, between people and machines and people and people. He explained that those matters do not show up in the traditional productivity modes. When we add to that the fact that the comparison between ourselves and America appears to ignore the length of working hours applied, it seems a slightly weak basis on which to build up a whole thesis about productivity in this country. Perhaps that should be looked at more carefully before we plunge ahead.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that it was never my intention to bad-mouth policies of the previous government. In looking at the competitiveness report, I was trying to explain the fact that they were long on analysis and relatively weaker on solution. What was undertaken was certainly a reconstruction of competitive markets in areas where we had had state monopolies. That is a pre-condition for a competitive marketplace, as has been said by my noble friend in another place. We believe that very strongly. However, where we failed—and this refers to the second part of the noble Lord's question—is in understanding how value was created through the system.
While we could create the conditions for competitive markets in the newly-freed areas where there had been monopolies, we did not have the same capacity as in the previous government to create higher value added through the private sector chain as well. It is clear that on the basis of the statistics—whether we take GDP per capita or, more conveniently, as the noble Lord mentioned, GDP per hour worked—we are producing less than our major competitors.
To back that weakness even further, we are certainly investing less per capita in the industrial and service system than our competitors; sometimes in the region of 40 to 50 per cent. less. The congruence of less value per
1390
capita produced and less investment per capita is indeed ensuring that we are not as competitive as others. Whether we talk of connectivity or value across chains, the final output is not as competitive. That is an issue this paper is trying to address. As I have said, I believe it is the responsibility of all within our country to understand that and to work to improve it.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as chairman of an SME as well as of a larger company. I recognise that my noble friend's business experience was not in an SME. However, I should like to take up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on productivity. Would my noble friend accept that improvement in productivity frequently results in a reduction in jobs rather than an increase?
Often we hear great announcements from major companies, but as my noble friend will know, the way they improve productivity is by slicing away a fair number of jobs. In the past, small companies have been helped by the DTI under both governments. but the help has been dependent on the number of jobs created. Can the Minister tell us whether the new enterprise fund, other grants and finance referred to in the documents rather than the Statement, would also be dependent on jobs being created?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, in response to the first part of my noble friend's question on whether productivity essentially always results in job losses, I am sure that there is some connectivity, but I should like to return to the point I made previously. Concentration on adding value through investment and in the process in the workplace is an important feature of productivity and one which may not result in having fewer workers. A company may find itself with exactly the same or a greater workforce because it has understood the methodology for creating value in a new way. That is what we should be concentrating upon.
However, as has been said, in certain sectors of industry new technologies result in fewer jobs. In asking the question as to whether the new methodology for regional aid and grants will be looking at the number of jobs at stake or to be gained, all we have said in the Statement is that we wish to refocus that policy to take into account the value that will be created through jobs. Therefore, we are looking at the quality of the jobs and the quality of the future value capacity of the investment in perhaps a rather newer way than we have done in the past.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I suspect that when the commentators get their hands on this paper tomorrow, or at the weekend, they will find it to be something of a damp squib. It seems to me to contain very little that is new. The schemes announced today have their predecessors in schemes of the mid and early 1980s; that is, the enterprise schemes in support of small businesses and schemes of that sort. I was glad to see that the Minister recognised in his response to the last question—not in the Statement—that the prosperity of the country, which this Government inherited, was due to the policies of privatisation, deregulation and

1391
liberalisation, all of which his party, of which he was a member, voted strongly against. I hope that there has been a genuine acceptance by the Government that these policies have proved effective for our country.
When the Government took over in May 1997, we enjoyed fifth position in the competitive table. I do not think that Britain has been as high in the competitive table for nearly 100 years. Can the Minister hazard a forecast, as a result of this White Paper, on whether we are likely to improve upon that position? I do not expect him to jump up and say "Yes" because when the figures are eventually announced and measured, he may not be around to take blame or credit. However, my point is that we had a considerable measure of success and that should be recognised. That success came from liberalisation.
The most job-positive area in our country at present is that of telecommunications and the Internet, as the Minister correctly stated. I have some interests in that area. As regards electronic commerce, perhaps I may suggest that the Minister looks at Finland. That country leads the world in electronic commerce on the Internet. Thirty per cent. of all commercial transactions in Finland are now conducted over the Internet. They have achieved that not by government regulation but by aggressive marketing and aggressive deregulation. I believe that that should be the way forward.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his views about the effectiveness of Finland in exploiting the new digital technologies. I share those views strongly. We are delighted that so many of its companies wish to invest in the UK because they find it to be the appropriate environment for the development of that technology. They no doubt see the moves we are making to "Europeanise" our capacity to compete as being very good.
I should like to venture a comment on league tables. The noble Lord reminded me somewhat of those football discussions that we have about the competitiveness of the Premier League and how brilliant, competitive and fast it always is until we actually go away and play games against the opposition abroad, when we find that the results are slightly less attractive. My feeling about the noble Lord's fourth place in the league is that he was not very careful about saying which league it was; indeed, it sounded to me a little like the Premier League. Although we may be fourth in whatever league the noble Lord invented in his mind, I look at 18th in the OECD league table, which seems to be the international one, and wonder to myself whether, when we go abroad, we are quite as fit, quite as athletic and quite as successful as the noble Lord may have thought.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, there is much in the Statement to be welcomed. As a member of the Select Committee that looked at the information society some three years ago, I am especially delighted to see the emphasis which has been given to increasing electronic commerce and other applications of information technology. There are also a number of
1392
sums which appear to be new money for a variety of research work. However, I believe that I detected the use of the verb "switch" at one stage; namely, that some new money for innovative research would be found by "switching" it. Therefore, in order to get a better balance, can the Minister indicate where the losses, or the lack of support which the Government now feel is necessary in the fields of research, will fall? At present, we seem to be getting just the positive side and not necessarily the negative side of the Statement.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, when I used the terminology "switching", I did not want to give the impression that we had already defined that we were moving research funds out of one area and into the other. I do not believe that that would be for the Government to predetermine. As I explained, the process whereby the funds are actually directed would be by agreement and discussion with a number of interested parties, whether that be the universities, private research centres or industry. As I said, the research councils will play a strong role in that respect. My use of the word "switching" was truly more related to moving DTI innovation budget funds from one area to research. We are moving funds out of some areas which we might have favoured in the past and putting more, net, into research to make up that £1.4 billion total with the help of the Wellcome Trust, which has already been announced.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am pleased to welcome the Statement and the White Paper, which I look forward to reading, just as I was pleased to welcome the White Papers produced by the previous government. It is very important that successive governments should continually take this subject very seriously.
One of the major points that strikes me about today's Statement is the number of positive and practical measures proposed. Indeed, one of the measures which I believe to be of great importance and which, of all the measures supported, could yield the quickest results, is the best practice campaign. Here we can translate that practice very quickly into improved results. I hope that the Government will soon be announcing the sectors to which this campaign will address itself. I hope that they will include in that the energy sector with which I am personally involved, especially the energy efficiency sector.
The reason I make that point is that we now have all the environmental pressures to get greater improvements in energy efficiency, but we have a market situation in which there is no incentive to save energy. Indeed, as the noble Lord will be aware from his past connections—and perhaps he is pleased that he is not in the oil industry at the present time—there is also the way in which prices have fallen. Further, there is a great overseas potential for efficiency in the environmental sector. I hope, therefore, that that will be one of the sectors which will be included in the list.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for his welcome for the Statement and his support for the focus on the

1393
bench-marking and best practice areas. Indeed, the noble Lord will be aware—and he will certainly see this when he reads the White Paper—that we have worked very closely with the CBI in its campaign development. I cannot say how much I would like to emphasise the point that the noble Lord has made. I believe that the process of bench-marking and best practice sharing through the supply chain is one thing which will bring small businesses into closer awareness of what this whole challenge is about for the future, based on the knowledge economy. Moreover, through the White Paper, we shall make it clear that everyone is involved in this challenge. I refer not just to high technology businesses but also to traditional businesses, like construction, engineering, banking and, as the noble Lord said, the energy sector.
I turn now to the issue of the lower oil price. I should point out to the noble Lord that it was totally fortuitous that I chose to change careers at this particular time. However, one of the interesting features of the nine dollar oil price, or thereabouts, is that the industry regarded itself as sophisticated, despite the fact that it seemed to drill vertical wells for 80 years. That was always surprising when the thought that you might drill them horizontally was perhaps more appropriate for developing a reservoir. However, I leave that thought with the noble Lord. We are talking about a truly technological application of a new process to change the terms of an industry. So it could even happen in the oil industry.
The point that I wish to make is that that industry, sophisticated as it is, will have totally to rebench-mark its performance capacity to flourish in a nine dollar oil environment. The demands that will be made on that industry are quite extraordinary, but I am sure that it will face up to them. Indeed, we may find many parts of the industry thinking that alternative investment in energy saving projects is probably quite a good way of increasing their return on capital in this current phase. Therefore, there may well be hope for that sector of industry which I know the noble Lord has long cherished and supported.
Lord Desai: My Lords, although I welcome the extra money for research in universities, can my noble friend the Minister assure us that blue skies research, which is high risk/high return research, will be protected and that it will not be discouraged in favour of more applied research? Further, does my noble friend agree that the best use of competition is getting prices down for the consumer? Indeed, I do not see any mention made of the consumer in the document, but I hope that my noble friend agrees with me that consumers must benefit from competition.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the terms and conditions for blue skies research in so far as the government are involved with its encouragement—indeed, I believe that that should be so, as do the Government—will not be changed by anything in the Statement. I also agree that the main beneficiary of competitiveness should be the consumer. After all, the drive is to give the consumer
1394
better and more choice; in other words, better quality at a lower price. That is entirely the spirit with which our competition policy is framed and which applies to this challenge to industry to improve the value of its output for the benefit of future markets.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can my noble friend give us a definition of what a "cluster" is in terms of the Statement that he has just repeated?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, perhaps the easiest response would be that well known expression, "I can't explain it but I know it when I see it". The best definition of a "cluster", in terminology that we currently understand, derives from Silicon Valley, which is the strip of road running south from San Francisco through Menlo Park and past the Stanford complex down to San Diego. It is known to be the greatest centre of the exploitation of digital technology in the world. We are now developing southwards from Cambridge with much the same intent: to create a digital centre of excellence in a "cluster", which is a joint availability of academic excellence, small businesses and large businesses to create an area where the trade-off of ideas, knowledge and technology in partnership creates more value for all within the system.

Fluoride in Water
5.50 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am grateful for the chance to raise the issue of water fluoridation, which I do not think has been considered in any depth in your Lordships' House since the Water Bill in 1989. The context is the Green Paper Our Healthier Nation, and the pressure that is being exerted on the Government to extend fluoridation schemes. This is a subject I have been studying for many years, and the predecessor of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, in conversation earlier this year, urged me to put down a Motion which could help to clarify thinking on the subject.
There are two strands to my Motion. For the wording of the first part I am indebted to Dr. lain Chalmers, the head of the UK Cochrane Centre which has a brief for high-quality scientific evidence in health-care, who believes that:
"a group should now be commissioned which is seen to he independent of any particular viewpoint in order to draft a protocol, to be endorsed by both supporters and opponents of fluoridation, for a scientifically defensible systematic review of the available evidence (published and unpublished), and that the results of such a review should be made public".
The second strand recognises the fact that this is not just a scientific matter, but that reaching whole populations through the public water supply involves questions of ethics, social policy, cost and cost-effectiveness, appropriateness of the decision-making process, environmental consequences, and so on. Only through a public inquiry, in an area where feelings have always run extraordinarily high, can such matters be properly addressed.

1395
There are logically three questions to which would-be fluoridators must be able to give an unequivocal Yes. First, is water fluoridation effective in reducing dental decay among children, the purpose for which it is put forward? If it is, then, secondly, is it safe? Finally, is it appropriate? For example, as a society we compel motorcyclists to wear helmets, but we do not force people to be vaccinated against quite serious diseases. I say the answers must be unequivocal, because it is axiomatic that for a major public health measure, where millions of people cannot avoid the treatment even if they want to, the science must be beyond reproach.
It is impossible in a short debate to cover all aspects of the argument. Let me start by telling a tale of my attempts to get at the evidence, conscious that the field resounds with claims and counterclaims by scientists on both sides. (And let me say for a start that to anyone like myself who keeps a regular eye on the medical press the notion that the controversy is a scientifically "bogus" one is quite unsustainable.) The only reliable approach in such a case is to go to primary sources.
For more than a year I have been tabling Written Questions to this Government and their predecessor. My first request for the scientific evidence for efficacy and safety was turned down. I then asked for the principal studies, and in particular those that had been randomised. I was given a list which consisted of other people's reviews, which, as any scientist will tell you, are of no value if one is trying to eliminate bias. Next, in an attempt to make things even easier, I asked for the major controlled studies. I was referred again to the list. At the same time I was corresponding with the National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health, and after three letters met with the same lack of success apart from a motley collection of secondary sources and reference to a large number of studies in the literature. My Lords, this should be bread-and-butter stuff in the world of science; any reputable body expects to have to display its best evidence if challenged. Even the Committee on Toxicity did so over Vitamin B6 in the summer. Finally, I had a meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and her advisers, where, after initial demurring, I was promised a selection of studies but with a warning that some of them were quite old and not of the standard of today's methodology. Indeed. That was in May, and I have had nothing yet.
This has been an eye-opener, and something I have found to be replicated, not only in others' experiences, but in most of the other scientific aspects of fluoridation which I have pursued through Questions. Why is good methodology so important? Among other reasons, because dental caries has long been declining worldwide, and it requires a well-designed trial to determine whether a reduction in decay is due to fluoridation or some other factor; also because the temptation is to cherry-pick your regional examples so as to get the result you want. (Did your Lordships know that quite recently 15 out of the best 25 areas for children's teeth were unfluoridated, and that for 12 year-olds an unfluoridated area headed the list?) No amount of poorly designed studies can constitute good evidence.
1396
What I have been able to see leads me to believe that few, if any, studies meet the criteria of good science, despite all the assertions to the contrary; and that what the arch-fluoridationist Dr. John Colquhoun found, which caused him to change his mind, is probably true—namely, that when proper epidemiological methods are followed and comparisons are made over whole populations and not isolated areas, in New Zealand, in the UK, in the USA, the supposed benefits of fluoridation melt away. Dr. Paul Connett, professor of chemistry and international authority on environmental toxins, is on record as being
"appalled by the poor science underpinning fluoridation".
That the experts on the subject have been unable to refute my suspicion that the evidence is not there, when it would have been so easy to provide it, I find highly indicative, and I draw my own conclusions.
I must confess, however, that this has surprised me, since it had always been the safety issue that really concerned me. The problem with fluoride is that it is no harmless nutrient, as it is sometimes portrayed, but is a substance that ranks alongside arsenic and lead in tables of toxicity. It inhibits bodily processes. No essential function has been proven in humans, as a recent Department of Health report confirms. The origins of fluoridation are interesting, because it was as a result of major environmental problems in the disposal of fluoride as a toxic waste product of American industry in the 1930s that the impetus came to put it into the water supply, and the research behind this was largely funded by the industry concerned. The US Environmental Protection Agency has described it in a letter which I have seen as
"an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem".
For substances of high toxicity, where parts per billion are common currency, 1 part per million can be quite a big dose. But of course it is not a dose at all: it is merely a concentration, and old and young, sick and healthy, malnourished and well-fed, will drink and absorb greatly varying amounts of fluoride. As one doctor has put it:
"No physician in his right mind would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: 'Take as much or as little as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because it may benefit other people's teeth.'".
Incidentally, the claims that it is not medication at all, and that 1 ppm simply replicates the best that is found in nature, were dismissed as wrong by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, in the Strathclyde case often cited favourably by fluoridationists. If it is not intended to treat, will proponents please stop talking about teeth. As for the claim that 1 ppm is an "optimal" level, I quote from the Journal of the American Dental Association that this
"has never been determined scientifically and has been used only in general terms".
It was a ball-park figure arrived at in the 1950s, since when, with toothpaste, drops, and a large increase in fluoride in our food and environment, it is overdue for revision downwards and has in fact been revised by some authorities. And yet our own experts, the same ones who cannot find the good scientific studies, are still standing pat on 1 ppm.

1397
None of this should make it too surprising that reports of possible harm have been appearing in the world literature with increasing frequency. Dental fluorosis we all know, that unsightly mottling that can so distress children and which now runs at between 10 per cent. and 30 per cent. in artificially fluoridated areas. Allergy to fluoride is a worry. Skeletal fluorosis is a serious concern, with reports now appearing to link hip fractures to fluoride in the water. Up-to-date research which I have seen, shortly to be published, casts doubt on current recommended safety levels and predicts that over a lifetime of artificial fluoridation we may see an epidemic of bone and joint problems in this country. At present doctors are not trained to look for this because of the ingrained belief in fluoride's safety, and there are no routine NHS tests to indicate possible fluorosis; so the well-worn phrase "there is no evidence" will once again be literally true, but only for want of looking. I will quote two other developments among many.
India has a major problem, with very high levels of natural fluoride producing crippling fluorosis. This has given them a strong incentive for research, which their leading expert talked about on a visit here in October. Professor Susheela, a former president of the International Society for Fluoride Research, stressed that India took no lessons from the West in either quantity or quality of peer-reviewed studies, and expressed her shock at the weakness of our research base and the lack of official interest in remedying this and in facilities for testing. Their principal finding was that there was no change in caries prevalence between 0.5 ppm and way above the maximum limit at 5 ppm; also that fluoride toothpaste gets quickly into the bloodstream, and that a variety of health problems result. The findings have been so clear that the Indian medical and dental professions are now united in wanting to get rid of fluoride at any concentration at all. They are thus poised to join Germany, Japan, the old USSR, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Chile, and other countries and regions, in abandoning the fluoridation of water. Most other countries have rejected the practice from the start.
The second example comes from America. Last year the Washington DC branch of scientists and other professionals working for the Environmental Protection Agency publicly repudiated the fluoridation of water, and stated:
"Our members' review of the body of evidence over the last eleven years, including animal and human epidemiology studies, indicates a causal link between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment and bone pathology."
Lest there be misunderstanding, let me emphasise that this body embraces the in-house scientists working for the EPA in the Washington area—some hundreds of chemists, toxicologists, and those whose job it is to assess the risks of fluoride; except that, curiously, they were prevented from doing this formally when their political bosses almost uniquely contracted out their most recent fluoride assessment to scientists of a different persuasion. I have contacted Washington and verified these details. This is no bogus controversy, my Lords. Time and evidence have moved on since Jauncey, Knox and the Royal College of Physicians' report.
1398
I quote another US professor of chemistry:
"In the development of drugs.. we generally insist on a [margin of safety] of the order of 100; a therapeutic index of 2 or 3 is totally unacceptable, yet that is what has been proposed for public water supplies."
Researchers at Odense in Denmark have likewise drawn attention to the exceptionally narrow margin in water fluoridation. Fluoride tablets and drops have to be sold as medicines; why has fluoridated water never been assessed by the Committee on Toxicity? Given all that I have said, it is small wonder that disquiet remains and that assurances do not reassure.
How is it, then, that the great majority of dentists and doctors in the very few countries that now fluoridate are convinced of its benefits and have persuaded others to follow them? In the first place, only a tiny minority of professionals actually read the primary papers: assertions of absolute safety, extensive research and of the "unscientific" nature of anything which disagrees with this, are mostly based on what the professional bodies put out in their publications, and I have to say that these are highly selective. Your Lordships will find nothing of what I have said in these pamphlets produced by the fluoridation lobby (which, incidentally, receives a goodly annual sum from the Government). Knowing some of the background, I find them quite breathtaking in their bias. Independent commentators have pointed to the refusal to publish contrary views, an "unwillingness", in the words of an American dental journal, "to release any information that could cast fluorides in a negative light", in such a way that organised dentistry has now lost its scientific objectivity.
This suppression and distortion of evidence are well documented. Selective presentation is what distinguishes propaganda from science. "The emphasis", the British Dental Journal has advised dentists, is on "propagandising rather than education". (It is there, my Lords, in black and white!) I had an interesting experience recently when, at an All-Party meeting on the subject the MP in the chair, who described herself as a scientist, felt it was entirely right to have three panel speakers in favour of fluoridation and only one against. This mindset is not at all unusual.
What comes across most clearly, and again I quote independent sources, is that fluoridation was a campaign from the beginning, before the first trials were ever completed. It has now, sadly, become a dogma, which is hard to retreat from, and the zeal that accompanies it can be frightening. Few scientists dare oppose it publicly. But the problem that its proponents recognise is that once public doubts take root the campaign is lost; hence, I believe, the absolute nature of the claims that are made and the attempts to bludgeon all opposition.
Political correctness; a bandwagon effect; the emotional satisfaction of a "cause", especially when you are persuaded you are making a difference to society: all these have been quite enough to subvert a profession which is at the same time under pressure from sections of industry to keep up the campaign. (For if flouride is the answer to poor teeth, that lets the sugar and food industries off the hook.) Professions can be wrong, my Lords. Remember what doctors used to think of

1399
alternative medicine—how osteopathy was "quackery" for 80 years until, hey presto, for no good scientific reason opinions changed. Fifty years ago the American Medical Association was endorsing brands of tobacco.
I shall have to leave to other speakers the ethical issues of mass medication, what those who are allergic to fluoride are supposed to do, why we put fluoride and not Prozac in the water supply, what environmental effect the other 99 per cent. of water may have that does not go into children's teeth, why a Government that do not want to be seen as a "nanny" so easily buy the red herring of dental inequality when, even if fluoride were proven to be safe and effective, there are other solutions to the problem.
I am convinced that a full and unbiased review of the evidence is long overdue. I know that the WHO is about to look at the subject again, but I doubt from what I have heard that its process will be as comprehensive as Dr. Chalmers of the Cochrane Centre is asking for. I believe that nothing less than a full public enquiry will meet the case. If this does not happen, I fear that when the hexafluorosilicic acid eventually hits the fan, as sooner or later it will, the Government and their advisers will find they have nowhere to hide. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, what an enormous windmill the noble Earl has constructed and how lustily he tilts at it! This issue has been on the agenda for 30 or 40 years. In fact, most of the scientific work was done quite a long time ago. There has been some new work. But, so far as I am aware, recent papers have nothing more to offer to those who are opposed to fluoridation than the original ones.
I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising this subject because it allows me—I hope it will allow me—to reassure him about the safety of fluoridation at one part per million or thereabouts. However, it seems that I shall not make much headway as the noble Earl has amassed a wonderful array of arguments to back up his case and I cannot possibly deal with each one of them in the debate. I am also very much handicapped because I had written a rather careful speech exactly timed to 11 minutes and containing much detail and references. But 10 minutes before my time for speaking arose I discovered that I had left it at home. Therefore, I am having to speak in a rather extemporary way.
Another reason why I am grateful to the noble Earl for bringing the subject forward is that it enables me to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench about current government policy towards fluoridation as a whole, but particularly with regard to the effectiveness of the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985 which was subsumed in the 1991 Act.
The noble Earl suggests that the science which backs up the use of fluoridation is somehow less defensible than the science which does not. It is very difficult on the Floor of your Lordships' House to argue the benefits of one type of science versus another. It is something that is done all over the country in academic meetings
1400
and conferences many times a year and occupies much time. Noble Lords are not experts. The best we can do is to look at the credentials of those who back one view or another of a scientific argument.
The credentials of those who favour fluoridation are extremely good. They include 39 national organisations which are concerned with dental health; for example, the British Dental Association, the British Medical Association, the Health Education Authority and, the noble Earl may be interested to know, the Patients' Association, quite apart from the fact that many eminent epidemiologists helped the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, in 1983 to come to the conclusion that the use of fluoride at one part per million in water supplies was perfectly safe and also beneficial.
There are now five million people in this country who have a fluoridated water supply or who live in naturally fluoridated districts. Obviously there are some exceptions but the general trend is that those who live in fluoridated districts, whether naturally or artificially fluoridated, have better dental health. The noble Earl mentioned deprivation. As regards districts which are not fluoridated there is a clear trend for those in the most deprived areas to have the worst teeth with the greatest number of cavities, fillings and missing teeth. However, even in deprived areas, with fluoridation people's teeth do well and are healthier in some cases than the teeth of people in well off areas.
Hartlepool has a natural level of 1.2 parts per million of fluoride in the water, slightly above what is advocated. It is a relatively deprived area. However, it is absolutely top of the league in dental health. In this regard there is also no evidence whatever of cancer, hip fracture or any other kind of problem there which is ascribed to fluoridation. One of the most important functions of fluoridation is to reduce the unfair discrepancy as between the teeth of well off and poor children.
It is perfectly true that fluoride acts mainly on the surface of the teeth and that the frequent and regular use of fluoride toothpaste is effective. However, such toothpaste is far less regularly used in deprived areas, and in those areas the diet is also poorer than in better off areas. The noble Earl says that we can do something about that. I hope that we do but it will take a long time to upgrade the standard of living of the people living in the worst circumstances in this country. The noble Earl knows well that that is a matter on which I have been trying to persuade governments of both complexions to act ever since I was dragged, unwillingly, as it were, into the political sphere about 15 years ago.
Sir Donald Acheson, in his recent report on inequalities in health, states that the difference in the dental health of the top social classes; that is, classes 1, 2 and 3 (non-manual) and the bottom social classes, 4 and 5, was 17 per cent.—if my memory serves me correctly—in 1983 but the difference had increased to 79 per cent. in 1993. It seems to me that despite the availability of fluoride toothpastes, we are going backwards with regard to eliminating inequalities in dental health. Sir Donald is the ex-Chief Medical

1401
Officer of Health in the Department of Health. One of the recommendations in his report is that fluoridation of the water supply should be increased.
As regards the safety issue, the two main dangers mentioned in this regard are cancer, mostly osteosarcoma, and hip fractures in elderly women. In a seminar held about two years ago, many papers were submitted on fluoridation which reviewed—I believe quite dispassionately—all the research that had been done. One paper studied the effects of fluoridation with regard to cancer. It was written by Dr. Paula Cook-Mozaffari, who is a disciple of Sir Richard Doll. She stated:
"Professor Knox in 1985 referred to twenty papers that had examined cancer incidence or mortality in relation to natural levels of fluoride and had found no adverse effect; and to seven geographical and over 30 time-trend studies that had looked for an effect of artificial fluoridation on cancer risk in different parts of the world and had found none. Only the work of Yiamouyiannis and Burk stands out against this weight of negative evidence and their analyses have repeatedly been shown to be flawed in both content and argument".
Yiamouyiannis and Burk are two American statisticians.
As regards hip fractures, Professor Cyrus Cooper, of the Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit in Southampton, states:
"The burden of evidence suggesting that fluoridation might be a risk factor for hip fracture is weak and not sufficient to retard the progress of the water fluoridation programme".
In conclusion I ask my noble friend what the Government are doing to speed up the wider introduction of fluoridation and what they intend to do, if anything, about strengthening of the relevant legislation and making it mandatory instead of permissive—changing "may" to "shall"—to allow health authorities to ask water companies to fluoridate when the former feel that is necessary in their district. Yesterday, a judgment was given in judicial review. It was stated that Northumberland Water Authority was within its rights as the law stands not to fluoridate, although the health authority said it should. That suggests to me that the law needs to be changed.
6.17 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, when I saw that this subject of fluoridation was to be debated today, and I noted that the noble Earl was calling for a review, my first reaction was one of exasperation. How could anyone want more research when the amount already done, and fully scientifically assessed, is so extensive and so conclusively in favour of the benefits of fluoridating the water supplies?
Then I stopped and thought again, and for this reason I welcome the debate being brought to your Lordships' House today by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. Today we have the opportunity to put the clear facts to the House and finally to put the false arguments against fluoridation to rest. I hope that the Government will take the necessary action to ensure that the public will be able to enjoy the huge dental health benefits that come from a fluoridated water supply.
Health statistics are kept for all parts of the United Kingdom. There are no health patterns anywhere that indicate that fluoridated water produces any adverse
1402
health effects, when used in the correct proportions, that is one part per million. The noble Earl sent me a paper today which quoted four parts per million as being the safe level. That is not the level recommended as optimal and all water supplies that are artificially fluoridated are at 1 ppm, so you can see there is a very high margin of safety at the optimal dental benefit level.
Fluoride occurs naturally in water supplies throughout the world and therefore has been ingested for centuries. A high concentration in natural water produces mottling of the teeth, fluorosis. This is unattractive but not unhealthy and does not occur where there are correct concentrations of fluoride in the water.
This morning I received a letter from Water UK which states,
"the decision whether to fluoridate a water supply should lie with the health authority—the current discretion on water operators whether to accede to an application from a Health Authority should be removed".
Water authorities want the duty to be imposed upon them. They are clearly tired of the pressures put upon them by those opposed to fluoridation of the water supply. They want to be able to say, "We were obliged to do it", and to pass the responsibility on to the health authorities.
There are already 3 million UK residents using fluoridated water and a further 3 million would benefit if fluoride was in the water supplies in the north-west of England. On the basis of firm evidence, over 60 district health authorities have decided that fluoridation of their water supply would be beneficial for their communities.
There are instances where fluoride has been used in the water supply and for some reason later discontinued. These cases have shown a direct correlation between fluoride and dental health. The Welsh Water company began fluoridation of the water supply to Anglesey in 1956. This continued until 1991. By 1994 dental health had become as bad again as on the mainland. The Kilmarnock study gave much the same result. With fluoridated water, dental decay was reduced by more than 50 per cent. against the "control" community in five years. It was reversed again on cessation.
As an Australian dentist, with no personal interest to declare, I must ask your Lordships to look at the Australian experience and health patterns. Fluoridated water has been in constant use in Tasmania since 1953, in Canberra since 1954, and fluoride is in the water supplies of all major cities in Australia. There is no strange incidence of any "Australian" disease that differs from the rest of the world.
I have a nephew who is a dentist in Sydney. He treats most of the pupils from a large school, which has both day pupils and boarders. I heard from him that he never sees tooth decay now in the city boys but can tell instantly when a boy from the bush comes in, from an area where the family use rain water or a local supply. The country lad's teeth are still as bad as they used to be in Sydney in the days when I was a dental student, before the fluoridation of the water supply.

1403
The Australian nationwide experience spans not just one generation, but two or even three generations. There have been no known adverse effects on general health and markedly good effects on dental health. Australia is advanced in medical research. If all the cancer scares we have heard raised had some basis in fact, the Australia researchers would have been aware of them and the world would have that information. No, we must not be taken in by alarmist talk. Cancer is a disease spread throughout the world and specific links between, for example, smoking and lung cancer have been confirmed. There are no known links between cancer and fluoridation and scare tactics have been used for too long.
We have heard that strange bone deposits are seen. Only last week I put this point to an eminent consultant orthopaedic surgeon and asked him if he had seen such cases, as he is constantly studying X-rays of knees, hips and other bones. His reply was that in many thousands of patients he had treated, he had never seen any sign of unusual bone development, or spicules of the type described linked to fluoride. The most clearly established fact is that fluoride at correct strength in the water supply results in a marked drop in dental caries and has no adverse effects.
It is easy for those who are fortunate in life to say that fluoridation is not necessary. They do not stop to think of the most deprived sections of society who suffer the pain caused by severe tooth decay. In Northern Ireland, the north-west of England and some parts of Scotland, tooth decay is rampant. Hundreds of children each week need to have teeth extracted and suffer great pain from massive tooth decay. The educated, the affluent, have little if any understanding of the pain and suffering caused by toothache due to teeth so badly decayed that the nerve is involved. It is useless to say that those people should go to a dentist for a check up. Until the agonising pain of toothache manifests itself, they are not even aware that dentists exist. They desperately seek relief for the child's pain and the distress caused to the family by disturbed sleep.
The British Medical Association reports that more and more patients are asking their general medical practitioners for help with dental pain and emergency dental treatment. They state that only about 55 per cent of the population are registered with a dentist and many dentists do not accept NHS patients.
Once the toothache pain level has reached this degree of intensity, extraction is usually the only answer to relieve the child's pain. In February this year, in the national health debate, I mentioned that nearly 100 children a week in Blackburn needed to have teeth extracted under general anaesthesia. The situation of such children has dramatically worsened recently, as dentists are no longer to be allowed to administer general anaesthetics and so the child must wait until a medical anaesthetist is available, probably in the local hospital. The shortage of anaesthetists in the UK means prolonged pain for those children to endure. Pain killers will be the only interim answer.
1404
Here today, in your Lordships' House, we have the luxury of debating this subject. Few in this House would be unable to afford to drink bottled water if they were genuinely worried about even the remotest possibility of fluoride being damaging. The situation is quite different for the most deprived section of the community. They need help which can reach even those least informed or aware of health needs.
The only way to ensure an improvement in dental health, and its consequential improvement in general health, for these children is by the introduction of fluoridation to the general water supply throughout the UK. As Water UK says, it cannot be piecemeal. In particular, those members of society living in areas of deep deprivation, who have virtually no contact with the NHS, would be reached and would benefit from the fluoridation of water supplies. Again, I emphasise that the level of concentration is always to be carefully controlled to one part per million.
In September 1983, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, delivered his verdict in what has become known as the Strathclyde case. In his 392-page judgment the noble and learned Lord completely vindicated the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. He went thoroughly into all the points raised. Surely there could be few more thorough considerations of the huge amount of evidence on fluoride. All the applicant's complaints of toxicity, medicinal purpose and harm were rejected.
It was ruled that it was ultra vires—that is, that the council did not have the necessary powers to add the fluoride—so the 1985 Water (Fluoridation) Act, in which I played a part, was passed to remove this grey area and make fluoridation legal. It is an enabling Act.
Over the years I have followed the many interesting questions that the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, has asked. I have always considered that his wide-ranging interest in complementary medicine and other non-routine treatments was not harming others, and for that reason I have supported rather than opposed many of the rather obscure questions the noble Earl has put on health matters. Today, I am completely opposed to what I consider a most damaging demand for delay and further delay, adding further deprivation to the already deprived.
I consider that fluoridation in water is a well-established practice and has been in use for many years. It is time to decide that fluoridation should be implemented. There are so many aspects of health that can benefit from more research and the money available for research can be much better spent on subjects other than fluoride. I hope the Government will not accept the Motion misguidedly put forward today.
I look forward to the day when dental pain will be something that even the least fortunate children in Britain do not suffer.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may remind Members on all sides of the House that when the figure 10 appears on the clock, 10 minutes have been completed.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, we must all be grateful to my noble friend Lord Baldwin for initiating the debate. This is a subject about which a growing number of people are increasingly concerned as new and worrying evidence comes to light. Few people in this House can have worked so hard on this subject as my noble friend who has sifted through evidence from all parts of the world—not all of which seems to have permeated in this direction—and few can match his acquired expertise.
Perhaps I may turn from the medical to the moral aspects of fluoridation. There are some people who maintain that it is quite wrong to administer a medicine to whole populations via the public water supply, even if it could be proved that not one single individual suffered adverse side-effects. I do not take such a purist view. If there were substantial benefits and absolutely no disadvantages, it would not be easy to argue against the controlled addition of a "medical product", as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, described it in his famous judgment.
However, that is entirely academic. No medicines, not even aspirin or sodium bicarbonate, are entirely harmless to everybody. Fluoride is vastly more dangerous than either of those. It is actually more toxic than lead and almost as toxic as arsenic. It used to be used as a rat poison, and the American Food and Drugs Agency requires poison warnings to be placed on the labelling of fluoridated toothpaste in the United States.
Fifty years ago, it was genuinely believed that fluoride in very small doses—in the proportions given by the noble Baroness—was entirely safe, just as it was believed that strychnine in very small doses was safe enough to add to tonics then sold in chemists across the counter without prescription; that DDT was entirely safe; and that asbestos was safe enough to be used in children's playgrounds as a substitute for sandpits, as was revealed on "Newsnight" two or three days ago. Somewhat more recently, it was believed that thalidomide and leaded petrol were safe and that tobacco was relatively safe. It was believed that tranquillisers were safe enough to be prescribed in their hundreds of thousands like Smarties, as they used to be in the 1960s.
Now, strychnine, asbestos and thalidomide are banned. Leaded petrol is soon to be banned, and sales of DDT, tobacco and tranquillisers are heavily curbed. Fluoride is not banned, but even the British Dental Association, in November 1996, admitted that there are risks in fluoride use, even though the association went on to contend that the risks were outweighed by the benefits.
That is where moral considerations kick in. Can it be right to add something to the public water supply which may help some at the expense of others, particularly when there are alternative ways of administering this chemical which would target it much more precisely on the narrow age group—those aged 12 and under—it is supposed to benefit?
Suppose there were to be an epidemic of rape and other sexual assaults carried out by young men in one particular part of the country. Would the Government consider adding bromide to the region's water supply?
1406
Of course they would not. The addition of bromide might well reduce the incidence of rape and similar assaults, but it would also be ingested by women, elderly men, boys under the age of puberty and babes in arms, with unforeseen consequences.
If only one person in a million were seriously adversely affected by fluoridation, it might conceivably be justified—but certainly not if the figure were one in 10,000, still less one in a hundred. Yet somewhere between the latter two figures seems more probable than one in a million.
Are Her Majesty's Government aware of recent research in Boston, Massachusetts—not Boston, Lincolnshire—which indicates that fluoride adversely affects the central nervous system? Similar research was carried out during the Second World War, in 1944, which seemed to reveal the same, but because of the war it remained a classified secret. Do the Government agree that fluoridated water leaches lead from old pipes—of which plenty remain in this country? Are they aware that since 1990, 54 American and Canadian cities, together with Brisbane—which the noble Baroness will concede is a major Australian city—have rejected or stopped fluoridation? Are they aware that in the past few years 17 prominent American organisations have withdrawn their endorsement of water fluoridation? They include the American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, the National Kidney Foundation and the Society of Toxicology.
Do the Government agree that fluoridated water cannot be used for kidney dialysis anywhere, nor for the manufacture of babyfood in many countries? Do they agree that fluoride is deemed to be a dangerous substance under the 1995 EC dangerous substances directive?
That brings me to my last point. The Government constantly proclaim their determination to be at the heart of Europe. Are they aware then that every single continental EU country, together with Norway, rejects fluoridation? Some have never tried it, some have tried it and found it dangerous and have subsequently banned it, notably the Netherlands. Those countries include such ultra health-conscious countries as France, Sweden and Germany.
Despite that—and this may answer some of the noble Baroness's points—Denmark, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands have as good a record where the health of children's teeth is concerned as the UK, and a better record than the heavily fluoridated Republic of Ireland. Will the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, at the next EU summit, be trying to convince the other 13 EU countries that they are all wrong and that the United Kingdom and Ireland alone are right?
6.35 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, and I welcome the debate in advance of possible public action. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, feels incensed that the matter should have been raised again. I would have thought that if she is so

1407
confident of her case she would not be worried about a public inquiry but would welcome it as an opportunity to have all the arguments put from both sides. That is what the noble Earl asks and it is an eminently reasonable request. I hope that the Government will accept it and put it into operation.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, made an authoritative and well researched case against fluoridation on scientific and medical grounds, as did the noble Lord, Lord Monson. So there is no need for me to go over it again, except to say that in my view any evidence that the addition of fluoride to water supplies assists in preventing tooth decay in children is not conclusive. I shall go no further than that. The medical risks to the general population cannot be ignored, particularly since, as we have heard, fluoride accumulates in parts of the body over time.
My noble friend Lord Rea and I are so often at cross purposes. It is a shame because he is such a nice fellow. He says—and he made it part of his case—that the credentials of those who support fluoridation are good. He cited 39 of them. But how can he say, and who is he to say, that the credentials of the people on the other side are not equally good? After all, when Darwin brought forward his great theory of evolution, all or most of the great scientists and religious people were against him at the time. Should he have dropped his ideas? How the world would have suffered if he had.
In addition, try telling that to the noble Countess, Lady Mar. She has been fighting on the issue of organophosphates. Time and time again she has been told by the experts that there is no danger. We are now discovering, and the experts are coming around to the fact, that organophosphates are dangerous and may have been responsible for many diseases and injuries to people who worked with them. Let us not be so confident that the experts are always right. That is another reason why we should have a public inquiry.
Even if the evidence of benefit to children up to the age of 11 is overwhelming, the case for forcing the remainder of the population, throughout the rest of their lives, to ingest a known poison, whose long-term effects on the human body are not really known, is weak. Dental decay is not a life-threatening condition. Why on earth, for the benefit of perhaps as few as 1 million children, should the remaining 58 million have to ingest this substance throughout their lives when there are other ways to ensure that children's teeth and dental care are good?
In a free society mass medication cannot be right in any circumstances. Noble Lords should ponder that. Once we start along that road where do we stop? No doubt all kinds of claims can be made for various substances that benefit one minority section of the population or another, whether it be the young, middle-aged, old, or male or female. The proposition that we mass medicate the whole of the population in order to benefit only a small proportion of children up to the age of 11 is preposterous and one that every person who believes in individual freedom should reject out of hand. Furthermore, it is inefficient and potentially dangerous for the rest of the population.
1408
Tooth decay among children and adults has declined dramatically over the past 25 years. That is due not to artificially fluoridated water but to better dental care, education, diet and free dental treatment, particularly for children. It is upon those factors that we should proceed, not mass medication. There should be better education about the care of teeth, regular check-ups at the dentist and diets that promote healthy teeth. That is what the Government should concentrate upon, not the slipshod and potentially dangerous route of compulsory mass medication.
My noble friend said that the worst cases of dental decay occurred in deprived areas. Let us get rid of the deprived areas, not feed the rest of population with fluoride. I believe that that is the sensible approach to take and I hope that my noble friend agrees with me.
I emphasise "compulsory" since in any given area there is no choice as to the water that a person drinks. There is no escape from the ingestion of a substance that one believes is harmful to oneself and others. Furthermore, individuals cannot give up drinking water if they believe that it contains poison. Water is a life-supporting substance, unlike tobacco or alcohol. We must drink or we die. I hope that noble Lords will recognise the force of the argument about compulsory fluoridation. The supporters of compulsory fluoridation say that the concentration is only one part per million and therefore it cannot do any harm. It can, because it accumulates over a period of time. In addition, because virtually all toothpastes now contain fluoride the amount that is ingested particularly by children may be very much more than one part per million.
In conclusion, off and on over the past 30 years or so I have entered the debate on fluoridation. When I was leader of Reading County Borough Council in the 1960s I helped to resist compulsory fluoridation of Reading's water supplies, and I am glad that I did. Later, when I was chairman of the Land and Works Committee of Thames Valley Water Board, I had some influence in resisting the fluoridation of water supplies in Berkshire. I still believe in what I did then. It is wrong compulsorily to medicate people's water supplies. But I am prepared to support the call of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, for a public inquiry. That is the least that the Government should do before they embark on any further measures to introduce the compulsory fluoridation of the water supplies of this country.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Craigmyle: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, for bringing the issue of fluoridation before the House today. The noble Earl has steeped himself in the science of the debate, none of which I care to tackle. I believe that all sides of the argument have been well shaken out this evening. The case that I make for a review of the evidence is made on behalf of the consumer. I declare an interest, for I am a poor, bewildered consumer. My dentist tells me to use fluoride but my doctor is unenthusiastic, while a steady stream of evidence through the media over 20 years or more on balance appears to warn against the use of fluorides. The consumer needs guidance on this subject and that needs to come from a disinterested party.

1409
Just last week in your Lordships' House the noble Countess, Lady Mar, introduced a debate on organophosphates. I do not dwell upon the medical aspects of organophosphates, but the noble Countess expressed disappointment at a report on organophosphate sheep dips. That has a parallel with the present debate. The noble Countess was concerned about the membership of the working party which produced the report, and its terms of reference. She believed that both predisposed them to a particular conclusion. We face similar problems in examining the issue of fluoridation. The consumer knows that a fishmonger will sell him fish. We all know with equal certainty that the BDA and the Fluoridation Society will sell us fluoride. I do not question the good work of those bodies, any more than I question the good intentions of my fishmonger. However, the case for a review of the evidence for and against fluoridation needs to be not only scientifically defensible, but also defensible before the consumer, particularly as the latter may be told to accept fluoride whatever his wishes.
What we appear to lack is a random blind trial with sensible controls. I have asked the British Dental Association for help in this matter and it has provided me with a good deal of information. I have picked out what I believe to be one of its most promising statistics to try to improve its case. It begins by saying that poor dental health is a disease of social deprivation—a true and brave admission. But we are then asked to compare the tooth decay rates of children from Bolton with those from fluoridated south Birmingham. The comparison may well be valid. It may well make a good case for fluoridation. But there are regional and social variations in tooth decay rates. We need to know where Bolton fits into the pattern. We need to know the histories of dental care in the two areas. We need to know the histories of health care for pregnant women. Quite simply, there are too many variables in such comparisons. Even the opinions of individual dentists can vary as regards which teeth need to be filled and which should be pulled. As I say, that point, and indeed other points raised by the BDA and the BFS, may be valuable. But if the proponents of fluoridation want to persuade people of their case, they must share their evidence, not just their opinions however well founded.
Gone are the days when a man in a white coat on a public information film was enough to quell public anxiety. If people feel that fluoride is a poison which should not be in their water, they will need full and open debate to persuade them otherwise before the Government move forward on the matter. That is a case for a review of the evidence.
6.51 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I enter the debate with a strong sense of déjà vu, and thank the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, who is at the forefront of our search for healthy living and clean medicine, for his telling speech in support of a review of the evidence. I well remember discussions at home when the subject was first debated. My mother, who was a devoted adherent of Lady Eve Balfour, took up the cudgels against her brother who was MP for Abingdon and a
1410
member of the Thames Water Board. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, may have been on the same board with him. It was then considering the need to impregnate London's water supplies with fluoride. So I have been brought up in an atmosphere of division in the matter.
The futility of fluoridation has been well demonstrated. Upwards of a quarter of all water is lost through leakage, and of the remainder most is used by industry so only a minimal amount gets into the drinking water. Reports of the success of fluoride are largely anecdotal. Therefore, if the need is to protect against tooth decay the way to do so is not through a massive waste of the product. Ironically enough, the fluoride used is itself a waste product of the agricultural fertiliser and nuclear industries, among others, so all we are doing is to recycle a corrosive chemical back into the environment through our river system. That is hardly something that we should be doing today.
Regardless of the fatuity of the scheme, there is the problem of the ethics of mass medication, which noble Lords have discussed in detail. Were such a scheme necessary it would still be debatable whether it should be done by enforcement, leaving the individual in the area concerned no option but to be subjected to the use of contaminated water. It may be said that chlorine is used in that way, but at least we can filter out that chemical. We cannot filter out fluoride.
Calcium fluoride, which most importantly occurs naturally in our diet and daily life, is beneficial in the quantities supplied by nature, whereas the waste byproduct of our farming and nuclear industries which is fed into our water system contains trace minerals such as lead, and its cumulative properties have been shown to have a deleterious effect on several of our bodily organs. It has also been described as a cumulative proto-plasmic poison. That surely should be enough for us. Indeed, it is not even a nutrient; and, in addition, it inhibits important enzymes in the human system.
Is fluoridation necessary in any event? Caries may be distressing but it is not life threatening, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, pointed out. Is this not a case of nuts and sledgehammers?
So much for fluoridation in principle. The social reason often given to excuse this waste of resources is that the less well off are the ones who need help with the protection of their children and they are less able to define the need. Besides being supercilious and condescending, the principle is no longer true except perhaps among teenaged single mothers, who can surely be approached in a number of other ways. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned the use of toothpaste.
The real problem is simply one of diet in general and rationing of a child's sugar intake in particular. Perhaps supermarkets, which claim that they are so beneficial to society, could display sugar-free sweets at the checkout. That might have an instant effect, but whether that would be greatest on the children's teeth or the supermarkets' profits I am not sure.
The efficacy of fluoride for the purpose for which it is intended has been shown to be counterproductive by noble Lords from all sides of the Chamber. I shall not

1411
detail the wealth of evidence that has accumulated over the years, and which other noble Lords have clearly demonstrated. Most of our colleagues in Europe have accepted and acted upon a determination to ban the product.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, pointed out the number of poisons which have been introduced into our society from chemical companies in the past 50 years, many of which we have been persuaded were vital to the success of the world in the future and which have now been put in the dustbin. There may therefore be some benefit from harmonisation if it comes about since the Commission will undoubtedly find an early opportunity to ban the use of fluoridation. In the meantime, we need a scientific review of the matter. I support the noble Earl's Motion.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I compliment the noble Lord on initiating the debate. However, my appreciation of the subject ends there because I totally disagree with everything that he said. I have been involved in the issue of fluoridation since it first became a topic in the 1960s when I was a young councillor on the health committee in Manchester. In those days Manchester was the biggest water authority in the United Kingdom outside the metropolitan authority.
We agonised over the issue. In fact, I almost have a feeling of déjà vu because the same tactics were used then as now, only the lead figure is a different person. Every few months we had a different scare as to what fluoridation was supposed to do. We had run out of steam at one stage so Mongolism was dug up; and the argument that fluoridation produced children with Down's syndrome. That was totally blown out of the water when investigated. There was also an argument about bone malformation. We have had a plethora of those types of argument.
The noble Earl graciously sent me a document today containing certain statistics and names. I cannot find anything modern in it; it is history. It goes back to the early 1970s. I believe that it mentions someone from the 1950s. I am sad that some noble Lords who are anti-fluoride seem to denigrate the professional people, medical people of high standing, who happen to be in favour of fluoridation. Those noble Lords seem to rubbish them as though only those names they put forward—I have never heard of some of them—are the people of conscience.
The noble Earl calls for an independent review. I hope that he will not be a member of that review body, having heard the biased and unsubstantiated remarks that he made today. I have a document—other noble Lords may have received it—from the British Dental Association. It is fairly recent—2nd November. I did not ask for it. The document is available in the Library. It states:
"Figures published today by the National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health show that children in non-fluoridated areas of the UK are up to four times more likely to have teeth extracted due to tooth decay than those in fluoridated areas. However, over 60 health authorities are being prevented from implementing water fluoridation policies because current legislation is flawed. The
1412
Alliance is calling on the Government to take action and extend water fluoridation to reach 25 per cent. of the population where tooth decay rates are unacceptably high".
Within that organisation is the National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health. It consists of 39 national medical, dental and voluntary organisations, including the British Medical Association, the British Dental Association, the National Health Service Confederation, the Health Education Authority and Mencap. How dare anyone discount almost entirely, as the noble Earl tried to do today, evidence from such outstanding bodies?
I believe that we should move forward. It is certain that in non-fluoridated areas of the UK the decay in children's teeth is five times as high as in fluoridated areas. That statistic is no coincidence; it has been tested and tested again. That is one argument that needs to be put to rest.
My noble friend Lord Rea dealt with the argument concerning cancer, which is the latest scare. There is no definite evidence, but it is said that fluoridation causes a high incidence of cancer. My noble friend referred to a woman doctor who carried out the most recent research on that subject, which showed that it was a load of nonsense. That theme is carried through. They talked about India as if they were talking about the whole continent of nearly three-quarters of a billion people, but they were actually talking about one village which had become polluted not only with an overdose of fluoride gas but with other deadly chemicals which cause other illnesses.
When I was involved in Manchester, I asked our distinguished medical officer of health what he would do regarding his family. He said, "I have grandchildren and I hope that the area where we live will be fluoridated". I asked how much water must a person drink per day before becoming adversely affected by fluoride. He said, "Twice the amount of water which you would use for a bath". That is the volume of water we are talking about according to distinguished medical experts.
I shall not take any longer because all the statistics are evident. The noble Earl has made up his mind. Anyone who is agin him is talking rubbish and anybody who is on his side is brilliant and a genius. There are three of us on these Benches so the die is cast over here. The noble Earl is not going to persuade anyone to his point of view. I believe that it is an act of mischief, it is unnecessary and will affect an increasing number of children and adults. I hope that the Government will not give way on the issue. They have evidence from the most distinguished medical experts in this country and in other parts of the world who have been dealing with the problem for years.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, for initiating the debate. It has been interesting, lively and mostly good-natured. With a few exceptions, it has even been moderate in the claims of the opponents of fluoridation as compared with an earlier debate when the opponents seemed to blame fluoridation for almost every ailment, with the exception of housemaid's knee.

1413
I am not concerned to offer evidence or proof one way or another about the possible unintended effects of a fluoridated water supply. But I believe that the debate has already established that there is sufficient evidence of conscientious doubt about whether the private water companies should make themselves responsible for undertaking such a measure of compulsory indiscriminate mass medication. Anyone with doubts might ask the noble Earl for a paper written by a man with a Scots name which inspires confidence, Dr. John Colquhoun, first published by the University of Chicago Press, which tells a most impressive story of a former zealous enthusiast for fluoridation, an active professional advocate of the idea, who has gradually come round to see the opposite of the noble Lord, Lord Dean. He had been involved in a mischievous activity and wished to declare his guilt and to atone for it by joining the ranks of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin.
There are serious doubts about the issue. The Government may take refuge in saying that they have expert scientific advice. The trouble is that scientists do not necessarily agree on the matter. That has been exposed by several contributors today. I am impressed by the idea that tooth decay, which the noble Baroness told us was a painful and distressing condition, is not a lethal, life-threatening disease. On the whole, you would tend to take the prudent view and refrain from artificial fluoridation.
The problem with fluoridation is that it is one of those causes which busybodying interventionists are attracted to like moths to a candle. The single issue pressure groups, which are the curse of modern politics, pick it up as a holy crusade that all water should be fluoridated by government decree. If zealots persist in urging fluoridation, it may not be sufficient for the Government to shield behind their scientific advisers. After all, scientific advisers are not eunuchs; they are infected by irrational enthusiasm, especially when one particular view becomes established as received wisdom and then the voice of the establishment.
I apologise for raising the matter, but I have spent much of this year studying what I now regard as the pseudo-science of passive smoking in connection with a book I helped to write called Murder a Cigarette. I have absolutely no doubt whatever that the scientific committee on tobacco and health was so carried away by its initial antipathy to smoking that it has exceeded its brief by introducing into what should be a scientific discourse opinionated, biased, fraudulent surveys which are based on no acceptable scientific canons. Close scrutiny of the papers, the original research reports, and then the summary of those reports, demonstrates that there is absolutely nothing in the idea that second-hand tobacco smoke can cause non-smokers to die of cancer. And yet 11 academics, doctors and others on the scientific committee on tobacco and health unanimously signed an official report supporting the received wisdom of the establishment view of the matter.
I say to the Government: beware of official science; beware of politicised science; beware of secret science; beware of pressure group science; and beware of consensus science. If we are to have a review, which I very much favour, let it all be above board.
1414
I hope to bring an original note to the debate by recalling a paper published by my old firm, the Institute of Economic Affairs, back in 1960. It was by a name that some will recognise as APH, A.P. Herbert. It was called Anything But Action?. It was a marvellous, passionate but witty study of a whole range of Royal Commissions and committees of inquiry.
I wish that there were time to do full justice to APH, but I quote one topical extract from page 49 where he says:
"Somebody—I know not who—has decided to put something called fluorides in our water because it is good for the children's teeth. But I have seen it stated that the stuff is bad for old men's bones. No child specialist would care about that. This tale may be untrue. But, however abstruse the subject and wise the specialist, I should always like to see an ordinary watch-dog or two on guard".
That led APH to make some proposals, serious and gay, about the future government approach to committees of inquiry.
He examined the possibility of "committees of nobodies" to get away from,
"the quiet firm murmur of the Establishment".
He thought of having a "committees of everybody", selected almost at random, on the model of a jury, which would hear rival pleadings on fluoridation and everything else and then decide which was most to be trusted.
His devastating comment on committees of experts was:
"Left to themselves the specialists can get up to odious mischief".
They are, he suggests, flawed by a search for unanimity which stifles dissenting minority views which, in the long run, often turn out to be the most dependable.
In his final guidance, the wisdom of APH, he quotes someone saying:
"If a minister requires a considered judgement on a problem of public importance in which action is urgently needed, why not set up two committees, one of people known to favour one course, and one of people known to favour another? Then he would receive two reports, giving the best possible statements of each point of view, without any toning down by a mediating chairman and a tactful secretary. The minister could then decide—which is his job in life".
I close on that note. This would be an ideal subject on which to put to the test the suggestion made by A.P. Herbert almost 40 years ago. We should have two committees. We should allow the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, to appoint his team and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, to try to assemble a quorum to represent his view. We should then have two committees taking evidence. They would then present the matter in a way which would allow ordinary people, as well as the Government, to reach a better understanding and decision.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Dixon: My Lords, it is not my intention to cover the scientific points or the very strong case against fluoridation which has been put so ably by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. I congratulate him on successfully securing this debate this evening, and I pay tribute to him for all the work that he has carried out on this important issue.

1415
I am opposed to fluoridation and the more I read and hear about it—indeed, the more I have heard in this debate—the more I am opposed to it. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, was correct to talk about the civil and moral liberty argument. It is very important. The concept that fluoride can be added to drinking water supplies for entire populations constitutes a threat to people's individual rights. It is mass medication without consent. Once the state starts to say that it will enforce the addition of medicine to the water supply, we are in a very dangerous area. What right has anyone to compel another person to consume fluoride? That encroaches on individuals' rights to the extent that persons will be forced to drink water containing a substance which they do not want to drink.
If I—or anyone else—wish to use fluoride, there are many sources available—toothpaste, mouthwash, floss, fluoride tablets, to name just a few. If fluoride is good for health, why is it that Ireland is the only democracy in the world which forces fluoride on all its citizens by law? I am informed also that in Ireland, one tonne of fluoride is put into the drinking water every day. Of that, 99.5 per cent. is not drunk with the water so all that fluoride, which is toxic waste, is effectively dumped into the environment without any environmental audit or research into its effects.
If fluoride is good for health, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, why has continental Europe virtually none? Holland has banned it. Germany, Denmark and Sweden have stopped using it. Portugal, Greece, Belgium and Austria ended fluoride experiments long ago. France, Italy and Norway never even tried fluoridation and rejected it out of hand. No one is going to tell me that in the many European countries which do not add fluoride to the drinking water, their teeth are worse than those in Ireland which forces fluoride on all its citizens. The noble Lord mentioned parts of India. In parts of India now, attempts are being made to take fluoride out of the water by installing plants and equipment to carry out that task.
Doctor Peter Mansfield, president of the National Pure Water Association, said:
"No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person that he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice, 'Take as much as you like, you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay'".
A couple of weeks ago in the Mail on Sunday I was struck by a short letter by a John Graham of Romford, Essex. He wrote:
"I suffered from IBS [irritable bowel system] from 1975 to 1996 until I discovered that fluoride is more toxic than lead and only slightly less toxic than arsenic. I switched to non-fluoride toothpaste and the IBS stopped overnight, closely followed by my backache, stiff joints and chronic fatigue".
That proves what Dr. Mansfield said. Fluoride is more toxic than lead. In the other place, where I represented my constituency for many years, I fought against and heard representations about the amount of lead piping in the water supply which was affecting people's health. We were partly successful in relation to that.
1416
If fluoride is good for health, why do we see so much bottled water being used? Most local government officers, and even people in this building, use bottled water. I have never seen anyone in the dining rooms or the tea-room putting fluoride tablets into bottled water. If it is that good, why not?
I am a diabetic and was concerned to learn of the effects that fluoride has on people suffering from diabetic mellitus—they are at increased risk from fluoride. It is also important to point out that of the many national organisations in America who have withdrawn their endorsement of fluoride in recent years, the American Academy of Diabetics and the American Diabetics Association are but two.
The truth is that no one has yet proved that a low-level dosage of fluoride is safe. The one-part-per-million level enshrined in the pro-fluoridation propaganda has never been established and was not established in the debate this evening. As my noble friend Lord Stoddart said, the whole case for adding fluoride to drinking water is based on tooth decay and that is caused by poor dental hygiene and poor diet, especially one high in sugar.
I feel that the case has been made by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, for having a public inquiry before any further fluoridisation takes place in this country. I was pleased to hear that the Newcastle and North Tyneside health authorities' applications to force Northumbria Water to add fluoride to its water were turned down.
Lord Rea: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, he said that no case has been made for levels of one part per million. What about Hartlepool, which has natural levels of one part per million? Teeth there are very good, people are healthy and no harm has been done.
Lord Dixon: My Lords, that is one of the arguments that was put forward. There are arguments both ways. I have heard scientists and I have heard lawyers. In that regard I was once told that there are over 100,000 laws on the statute book and lawyers have not yet improved on the Ten Commandments. I feel that that probably applies in the case of some health scientists as well.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, this has been a difficult and hotly debated topic for over 30 years, as many noble Lords made clear. The passionate and powerful contributions to this debate testify to that. But this debate, instituted by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, is very timely in view of the White Paper on public health due in the New Year. I cannot pretend to have the extent of scientific and technical expertise which Members of this House displayed during the course of the debate, but one thing is clear; that is, that the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985—now consolidated in the Water Industry Act 1991—is not working. It was originally meant to settle the issue. I was interested in the note of slight exasperation in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, in that respect.

1417
Since then some 60 health authorities have made requests to water undertakers to fluoridate the supply. Each of those requests was preceded by a procedure laid down in the original Act which involves close consultation between health authorities and local authorities. Yet each request was refused. The water companies—no doubt we all received the briefing from them—say that they wish to be completely indemnified by the Department of Health for so doing. The worst case has been in the north west where over 20 local authorities made the request for fluoride but were refused. Ironically, the water company adopted what it believed to be the precautionary principle for fluoride but, as we have seen from recent reports, has been slow to accept the threat from cryptosporidium or deal with it. As a result, detailed publicity and consultation exercises carried out by health authorities prior to each request to fluoridate have been a waste of limited NHS resources.
Millions of young children, many of whom live in deprived areas, continue to suffer from painful, distressing, yet preventable dental disease. We heard the statistics tonight—figures released on 2nd November. One in five children living in the poorest districts of the UK can expect to have had a tooth extracted under general anaesthetic by the age of five. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, described the problems of delay that restrictions on general anaesthetics will create in the future.
Sir Donald Acheson recently pointed out that the differential between the better off social classes I, II and III and others in terms of dental health has grown over recent times. He strongly recommends fluoridation. The evidence of the beneficial effect of fluoride in the right dose is very clear. The most recent evidence shows that the rate of decay of young children's teeth in cities with fluoridated water such as Birmingham and Newcastle is four times lower than that of children in cities with non-fluoridated water such as Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester. A clear example is Sandwell in the West Midlands. Its water supply was fluoridated in 1986; 10 years later the rate of tooth decay in five year-olds has halved.
For many years now anti-fluoride campaigners have been fighting a rearguard action against fluoridisation. But what is the real evidence? The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, was kind enough to give me copies of his papers. I read them carefully and am prepared to accept that in high doses fluoride can cause skeletal fluorosis. I do not believe that there is any evidence to date that low doses of one part per million of fluoride is causing harm. I did not see evidence properly attested to in that regard in those papers.
Water fluoridisation has been endorsed as being safe and effective, as we heard from several noble Lords tonight, by every reputable scientific body in this country, and 39 organisations belong to the national alliance. We need to look at those credentials. The noble Lords, Lord Rea, and Lord Dean, were right to point to them.
I am not a great believer in medical orthodoxy but I am a lawyer. I do not believe that this is the same as MMR, organophosphates or the Gulf War syndrome. I
1418
want to see evidence of harm. Where are the legal cases? Where are the allegations of harm? Where are the litigants? This is not like organophosphates. We need to see a clearly defined group of victims and I have yet to see that. However, on these Benches we would not object to and indeed would support the Government commissioning further research or a review into aspects of fluoridation to lay to rest some of those fears. We would be interested to see evidence from other European countries and the reasons why they have either withdrawn fluoride from the water or would not wish to see it added.
In terms of the action we wish to see in the short term the Government must base their decision on existing evidence of the benefits and the extensive practical experience of this public health measure. They should act on behalf of the great majority of people who support this public health measure, and in particular on behalf of those children who continue to suffer unacceptable levels of tooth decay. Putting fluoride in toothpaste is simply not enough.
Some opponents of fluoridation raised the issue of human rights today and on other occasions. On that subject I cannot improve on the words of my noble friend Lord Avebury, who is a noted human rights campaigner when he said, in 1994,
"Fluoride is a natural constituent of water supplies, as it is indeed of many foods. The adjustment of the quantity to an optimum level cannot be compared with the addition to water of a substance not found there ordinarily".
I feel that that settles the matter in relation to human rights.
On these Benches our health team wishes to see action on this issue during this Parliament. We believe that the arguments on health inequalities carry the day. In their Green Paper—Our Healthier Nation—the Government supported making fluoridation mandatory once the proper procedures had been followed and a request had been made to water suppliers. I do not know what responses were forthcoming to that Green Paper, but we agree with that approach.
The Government must make a commitment on this issue in the public health White Paper, due in the New Year. If that involves an indemnity to the water companies, so be it. I do not believe that it will ever need to be invoked to any great extent. If we need to improve consultation procedures, let us do it. That should be the proper forum in which to air these doubts and fears. Above all, the Government need to grasp the nettle.
7.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, for initiating this short debate. Although I should declare my hand at the outset by saying that in common with my noble friend Lady Gardner and the noble Lords, Lord Dean of Beswick, Lord Rea and Lord Clement-Jones, I do not share the noble Earl's concerns, nevertheless, I have nothing but respect for his persistence and continuing questioning of the scientific and ethical issues associated with the fluoridation of water supplies.

1419
This evening the noble Earl has raised some issues which clearly merit a serious and considered response from the Minister. However, many of them seem to me to have been dealt with satisfactorily already in Written Answers in Hansard—notably those that appeared on 10th June, 3rd September and 11th November this year. I say to him, in all candour, that nothing that he has said tonight persuades me that there is a substantive case to answer. Nevertheless, on these Benches we are glad to have the opportunity of restating our views on the subject.
I know that my noble friend Lord Colwyn—a vice-president of the British Fluoridation Society—wanted to take part in the debate and to reiterate his own personal and professional support for fluoridation as a public health measure. He is unable to be here, but he has made it clear to me that he is well aware of the problem of tooth decay and the role that fluoridation can play in reducing it.
The previous government, in which I was proud to serve, were convinced of the safety and efficacy of adding fluoride to water at the level of one part of fluoride per million parts of water. Our position in opposition remains unchanged. Independent scientific advisers consistently endorsed fluoridation as safe, as I understand do the present Government's advisers. That confidence about the safety of fluoridation is based on well documented evidence, drawn from over 50 years of practical experience and extensive research. Nevertheless, the numerous and varied charges levelled against the safety of fluoridation have always been properly investigated. On each and every occasion, the charges have been found to be totally without scientific or medical foundation.
We need to be absolutely clear that there is no controversy within the scientific community about water fluoridation. Every reputable scientific body which has ever considered the issue has pronounced that this public health measure is safe. I have a list of the major authoritative reviews which I can pass later on to the noble Earl, if he wishes, although from what he has said I expect that he is already aware of most of them.
Tooth decay is a painful, distressing and disfiguring disease which all too often results in the removal of teeth under general anaesthetic. I am told that babies as young as two commonly undergo gas anaesthetics for the removal of rotten, infected teeth. That experience is not just extremely traumatic at the time, but there is also the inherent risk of undergoing an anaesthetic. In addition, it has been shown to undermine a child's ability to establish regular dental attendance patterns throughout life.
Fluoridation has led directly to a halving in the incidence of tooth decay. That is particularly welcome for the vulnerable in society; for example, very young children living in socially deprived areas. In fact, water fluoridation has been shown to benefit most those who have the greatest social and material deprivation. That is surely one of the key points to be made in answer to those who believe that fluoride toothpaste, for example, could achieve equivalent results on its own. Fluoridated
1420
water reaches those who seldom brush their teeth and seldom see a dentist. In addition, the benefits of fluoridation are not confined to young children. The evidence indicates that all age groups, including older adults, can benefit from a fluoridated water supply.
There are those who, although accepting overwhelming evidence of the safety and efficacy of fluoridation, oppose this public health measure on ethical grounds because they believe that it infringes civil liberties. The trouble with that argument, it seems to me, is that it seeks to belittle or trivialise a major public health problem; namely, dental caries.
As many noble Lords have pointed out, no individual is at liberty to drink water entirely free from fluoride, as fluoride is found to be present naturally, at varying levels, in all water supplies. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, so succinctly pointed out, fluoridation is simply the process of topping up the level of fluoride in the water to the optimum level for dental health, so, for example, the residents of Birmingham can enjoy the dental benefits that the residents of Hartlepool enjoy naturally. A recent survey by the British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry found that the residents of the West Midlands enjoyed the best dental health in England.
Anyone who is inclined to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in seriously doubting the evidence of the efficacy of fluoride would find it instructive to look not only at the examples of various inner cities, but also at Anglesey. That example was quoted in a Written Answer in another place on 1st December this year, which stated:
"The dental decay rate of children aged five years in Anglesey was reduced by 50 per cent. after fluoridation was introduced there in the mid-fifties. However, since withdrawal of the last of the Anglesey fluoridation schemes in 1991, there has been a 168 per cent. increase in tooth decay".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/12/98; WA 35.]
When we know, as certainly as we can know anything, that a public health measure is safe and that it can benefit millions of people, I think it can be argued that it is unethical not to implement that benefit. The charge that the general public do not want fluoridation is not supported by the evidence of properly conducted opinion polls, which have consistency shown overwhelming support for the measure. By all means, let questions be asked about fluoridation, but, in my view, it is quite wrong and highly regrettable that as a result of that process a key plank of public health policy should have unnecessary doubt cast upon it and thereby become undermined.
The previous government, in their determination to take practical steps to improve the health of the nation, introduced, as many noble Lords have mentioned, the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985 with cross-party support. Although that piece of legislation stands as a testimony to the real commitment to improve public health, it is clear that the Act has not worked in the way in which it was intended. When the Act was introduced, it was expected that technical feasibility would be the only grounds on which water undertakers would refuse to fluoridate. Regrettably, that has not always proved to be the case. The last Minister of State for Health in the

1421
previous government, Gerald Malone MP, consistently called for water suppliers to co-operate with health authorities so that the policy could be implemented. Despite those vehement efforts, over 60 health authority requests to fluoridate have been turned down by water companies and no new fluoridation scheme has been introduced since 1985.
The Opposition welcome Sir Donald Acheson's recent recommendation on water fluoridation. The Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health points out, with regard to oral health, that although overall dental health in children is improving, inequalities in dental health are widening. The report highlights the proven efficacy of water fluoridation in reducing those inequalities and recommends the fluoridation of the water supply.
In order for the Government to fulfil their promise to reduce inequalities in health, those recommendations must be acted upon. The Minister for Public Health stated that the conclusions of Sir Donald's report will,
"contribute to the development of a new strategy for health".
In the case of water fluoridation, the strategy required is not the commissioning of another review or inquiry at the taxpayers' expense, but amendment of existing legislation so that fluoridation schemes can be implemented at the request of health authorities. Under existing legislation the scope for dialogue has, I fear, been exhausted. The Opposition await, with eager anticipation, the arrival of the forthcoming public health White Paper and hope that it will contain a clear statement of policy which will take us beyond the current stalemate on the issue of water fluoridation.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps I may start by congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, on securing a debate on what I regard as an important issue. It also allows me to acknowledge his work in the field of complementary medicine, which I have long appreciated.
I should also like to acknowledge the contribution of other speakers to what has been an excellent and wide-ranging debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested, the subject is one which provokes forceful reaction. Certainly, in my 25 years in the health service before coming to your Lordships' House, fluoridation often played a part in my working life, first as a CHC Secretary in the 1970s; secondly, holding public meetings to discuss the issue as a member of the British Fluoridation Society Council and, thirdly, as director of the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts where many of our health authority members have been wrestling with those issues for well over 20 years.
In responding to the debate I want to start by discussing it in the broader context of public health. Indeed, I would argue that we should always see the oral health of the population as an integral part of its general health. We need to assess any scientific evidence for health problems caused by water fluoridation as carefully as we examine the evidence for oral health benefits.
1422
This country has seen dramatic improvements in health over the past 50 years, and oral health is no exception. In addition to the key role played by the dental profession, addition of fluoride to both toothpaste and water has made a significant contribution to reducing the level of dental decay, particularly in the teeth of children. That, of course, is in line with the first of the two key aims we put forward in our consultative Green Paper Our Healthier Nation. That was
"to improve the health of the population as a whole … ".
But we cannot be complacent. More than half of the country's 15 year-olds have still experienced decay in their permanent teeth. We also have very good evidence that significant inequalities remain in the oral health of the population. Even at regional level there are significant differences in the levels of tooth decay in children. For example, in 1995 five year-olds in the West Midlands had on average less than half the numbers of decayed, missing or filled primary teeth than those in the north west—a point forcefully made by my noble friend Lord Dean. Nineteen per cent. more five year-olds in the West Midlands had no tooth decay at all compared with their counterparts in the north west.
A similar picture emerges when you look at 12 year-olds and their permanent teeth. One further thing stands out when you consider smaller population groups, at health authority level: other things being equal, the worst off in society have the poorest oral health. Now, the Government are determined to change that and to narrow the health gap—the second key aim in Our Healthier Nation.
The challenge for health authorities is how to improve oral health generally and to tackle these inequalities in health status. I do not think that anyone suggests that will be easy. Some people have a history of sporadic dental attendance. As noble Lords have suggested, many people visit a dentist only when they are in pain, and they may have difficulty in maintaining a regular brushing routine with fluoride toothpaste.
There is, of course, the further option then of fluoridating the water supply in areas with high levels of dental decay. The evidence shows that fluoridation of the water supply to the optimum level of one part in a million can reduce the amount of tooth decay in children from similar backgrounds by one third to a half. About half a million people in this country receive water which is naturally fluoridated at or about the optimum level of one part of fluoride per million of water. A further one million people receive water which is naturally fluoridated at a lower level, but which still confers some dental benefit. These areas are generally found in a band running down the eastern side of the country, from Hartlepool in the north to parts of Essex. Some 5 million people receive water where the fluoride content has been artificially increased to a level of one part per million. Major schemes are in operation in Birmingham, throughout the West Midlands, and also in Tyneside.
The Government recognise that fluoridation is an important and effective method of protecting the population from tooth decay. It also has the advantage of benefitting the whole population. I make no apology for drawing your Lordships' attention to the example of

1423
fluoridation quoted in Our Healthier Nation. Other noble Lords have also referred to it. The example was Sandwell, in the West Midlands, where the water supply was fluoridated in 1986. Over the following 10 years the amount of tooth decay in children had more than halved. During the same period an area with a comparable population mix—Blackburn—saw little change in its children's oral health. That example has been replicated in many other places over the past 50 years. The point made by my noble friend Lord Rea and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the particular advantage this can give in deprived areas is very significant. It is also, sadly, true that where fluoridation schemes have been withdrawn—Anglesey and Kilmarnock have been quoted—levels of tooth decay in children have risen after having improved during the periods of fluoridation.
The noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, said that dental decay and dental problems are not life-threatening. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, made a significant point, as did the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the use of anaesthesia in young children and the pain which many children suffer as a result of dental problems.
As I have said, we must carefully examine any risks which may attach to fluoridation, as well as the benefits. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, talked about risks. Over the years, many health problems alleged to be linked to fluoridation have been investigated and no link has been found. There is yet to emerge any convincing evidence of harm to general health as a result of drinking artificially-fluoridated water at one part per million. Indeed, it is estimated that around the world some 210 million people drink artificially-fluoridated water.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, thought that I might pray in favour expert advice. Yes, I do. The view that fluoridation of water at this level is safe is based on medical and scientific opinion throughout the world. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, that is based on practical experience and research over the past 50 years. There is currently evidence of just one minor, cosmetic side-effect of optimal fluoridation-dental fluorosis or slight tooth mottling. Even where that happens, teeth are still endowed with extra resistance and I want to reassure the House that that is not a sign of any greater harm and is not significant at the optimal concentration of fluoride used in the water supply.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, raised a number of issues about the safety of fluoride. He has put down a number of questions on some of these matters. As he stated, he met with my noble friend Lady Jay and officials earlier in the year. Rather than respond specifically to every point raised by the noble Earl and other noble Lords on the scientific impact, I want to discuss them in more general terms. However, on the more specific detail, I am sure that discussions between the noble Earl, other noble Lords and the Department of Health will continue. I would encourage that. Certainly, the Department of Health would be happy to explore what kind of study Professor fain Chalmers at the Cochrane Centre has in mind.
1424
I respect the thoroughness of the scrutiny which the noble Earl made in relation to the scientific evidence on the safety of fluoride. However, I make two points on the question of safety. First, it is true that virtually all medical and public health intervention carries risks as well as benefits. It is for the scientific community to advise on the balance of those risks to the benefits and for the Government to decide what is acceptable. Secondly, it is impossible to prove a negative. However many studies attest to the safety of a procedure, it is still not possible to say categorically that it carries no risk.
However, within that context, the evidence I mentioned earlier is highly persuasive. Half a million people in this country receive water which contains fluoride naturally present at a level close to or above the optimal one part per million, and five million receive water supplemented to that level. The corresponding figures for the USA are 10 million and 135 million respectively. Before and during the past half-century of fluoridation, there have been extensive studies of the health of those populations and, apart from improved oral health, the health experience of those receiving the optimal concentration of fluoride is no different from that of the population at large. I thought that that point was very well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes.
I should also like to refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Given the readiness with which American citizens resort to litigation on health matters, it seems inconceivable to me that, as fluoridation could be harmful to health, no claim for compensation has gone through their courts.
Of course, too much fluoride can be harmful, just like too much oxygen, too much water, or too much of some vitamins. As has been mentioned, the experience on the Indian sub-continent, where much drinking water comes direct from wells dug locally, reinforces the need for the rigorous controls we have on water purity in the UK. It is impossible to say precisely how much fluoride is too much, but fluoride at the optimal concentration of one part per million has always been present in some water supplies. All of the evidence from here and other countries practising fluoridation indicates that the total intake from such water, together with that from food and beverages, such as tea, is harmless. Naturally, this is a matter which we will continue to keep under review; for instance, in assessing the forthcoming new estimates of dietary intakes in the UK.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, asked about major control studies which are relied on to support the effectiveness and safety of water fluoridation. Over 60 years of research into the effects of fluoride and fluoridation has resulted in tens of thousands of published scientific studies. That is the foundation for the overwhelming view of medical and scientific authorities that fluoridation of water supplies is effective and that no likelihood of harm has been demonstrated. In addition, many detailed and authoritative scientific reviews of the literature have been published. I am sure that the noble Earl is aware of several of the most prominent and most recent of those reviews.

1425
The noble Earl also mentioned the question of skeletal fluorosis. This is a condition in which accumulation of fluoride in the bones leads to thickening within the bone. In its early stages it may be found on X-ray but cause no symptoms and no harm. Excessive accumulation may result ultimately in hardening of ligaments, stiffness and pain in joints, weakening of the bones, muscle wasting and compression of nerves. The fact is that studies of the fluoride content and structure of bone, and radiological surveys, in communities in the UK and the US have not demonstrated clinical skeletal fluorosis, even when fluoride levels occurring naturally in drinking water were several times that used in optimal fluoridation.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to studies from Boston on the effect of fluoride on the central nervous system. These were studies which used very high levels of fluoride on rats. The author does not claim that fluoridation of water is harmful; indeed, she claims only that there are effects at much higher doses. There is epidemiological evidence available; for example, the 1986 paper from New Zealand in which seven years of study of more than a thousand children found no effect of fluoridation on child health and behaviour. That supports the conclusion that fluoridation is harmless.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, and the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, raised the issue of water fluoridation in Europe. In fact, many countries in Europe have opted for fluoridation of salt; namely, Switzerland, parts of France and Germany. The concern that we would have in following likewise is that this practice could convey a confusing message when it is the advice of many of our health and nutritional experts that we should eat less salt.
My noble friend Lord Dixon referred to the use of bottled water. He may not be aware, but many popular bottled waters are natural mineral waters and that, unlike drinking water, there is no limit on the concentration of fluoride in natural mineral waters. Indeed, some of them contain concentrations which are much higher than the one part per million used in fluoridation.
I should like to turn now to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, and my noble friends Lord Stoddart and Lord Dixon; namely, whether fluoridation can be described as "mass medication". I would say no. Almost all water contains some naturally occurring level of detectable fluoride. Even where that natural level reaches or exceeds the optimum level for dental benefit, it cannot be described as mass medication. Artificial fluoridation merely adjusts that level to the optimum level for dental health benefits and does not therefore add any substance or medication which is alien to the water supply. It is worth making the point that many substances, like chlorine, are added to the water to make it safe to drink without it being termed "mass medication".
1426
I move on now to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Rea about current legislation. He is right. The final decision on implementing fluoridation schemes rests with the water undertaker. The Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985 was consolidated in the Water Industry Act 1991. Section 87 (1) of that Act states:
"Where a Health Authority have applied in writing to a water undertaker for the water supplied within an area specified in the application to be fluoridated, that undertaker may, while the application remains in force, increase the fluoride content of the water supplied by the undertaker within that area."
I give way to my noble friend.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. Is he aware that the north west has a closer connection in this respect than the north east? For example, when Manchester ran the water authority it fluoridated the water in the north west for 17 other authorities, but that was cancelled when the industry was privatised with the results that have been quoted tonight.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that information. Certainly, in my own experience, I believe that Birmingham City Council, which fluoridated the water many years ago, showed a great deal of foresight which has reaped enormous public health benefits for those living in the city.
As my noble friend Lord Rea suggested, the operation of the Act has not been successful. Indeed, that was confirmed by yesterday's judgment in the judicial review, to which my noble friend Lord Dixon referred, in which the Tyneside Health Authority sought unsuccessfully to challenge Northumbrian Water's refusal to accede to its request to fluoridate its water. Since 1985, 55 health authorities in England—and that is nearly half of them, accounting for the mergers which have taken place in the past 12 years—have requested water companies to introduce water fluoridation. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested, none of those requests has been successful. So there have been no new fluoridation agreements since 1985. The reason for this is quite simply that none of the water companies has exercised its discretion to agree to a health authority's request.
It was noted in the Green paper, Our Healthier Nation, that this legislation needs to be reviewed. As my noble friend Lord Rea suggests, the key issue is whether the word "may" should become "should". We will be announcing our decision on any changes necessary in a policy statement on fluoridation in the public health White Paper planned for the new year.
The noble Lord, Lord Craigmyle, raised the issue of the public. I have two comments to make in that respect. First, opinion polls have quite clearly demonstrated public support for fluoridation. Secondly, in our response in the White Paper we shall be looking at ways in which the public consultation process can be strengthened. In the meantime, we are encouraged by the readiness with which the water industry has indicated that it is prepared to look again at the legal and practical problems surrounding fluoridation.

1427
In his Motion, the noble Earl asks for a public inquiry. Such inquiries are normally held where a case of major public maladministration is suspected which has resulted in harm to health, often significant loss of life and/or costly damage to property and the environment. These criteria do not apply to fluoridation, but we are not complacent. There has been, and continues to be, no shortage of authoritative scientific reviews of the safety and efficacy of fluoridation, and of the effects of fluoride. The Government will, of course, continue to review the latter and look sympathetically at soundly-based proposals for further UK-based research.
In conclusion, I again thank the noble Earl for the opportunity to hold this very important debate on the issue of fluoridation. I acknowledge the impassioned contributions of other noble Lords. The oral health of our nation is important and is part of a wider concern for the overall health of the nation. Despite reductions in the levels of dental decay, the instance of dental decay is still too high. Fluoridation is an important and effective method of protecting the population from tooth decay. The Government believe that there has not emerged any convincing evidence of harm to general health as a result of drinking artificially fluoridated water at one part per million. The Department of Health will continue to monitor the results of research on the effect of fluoridation, but fluoridation will remain one of our tools in improving oral health and fighting tooth decay.
8 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I think I have a few minutes and I will take only a very few minutes to wind up. First, I thank all those speakers, an encouraging number, who have come to take part this evening. I am very grateful for the debate that we have had. I do not intend to pick up the whole field and repeat everything that has been said. I just want to pull out a few key points. As regards the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, I am very sorry that I have exasperated her. I can quite understand that, as a dentist, she must feel exasperated when this particular matter is challenged. But I have to say that from what she said and from what the noble Lord on the Front Bench has said, all I have heard is just the assertions with which I started one year ago when trying to get at the evidence. I would urge any of your Lordships who want to find out what the truth is, to try your luck, as I have—and I hope you have better luck than I have had in actually getting the hard primary sources which can alone solve these questions.
With respect to our doctor who spoke earlier, and to someone else who mentioned credentials, it is not ultimately credentials that matter, but the quality of the science. It is on that point that I take my stand in this debate.
Passing to one point that the noble Baroness mentioned when she said that there was no evidence from Australia and that there were no known adverse effects, and researchers would have been aware if there had been, my mind went at once to smoking. How many years was it before people began to think that perhaps they ought to look? Unless you actually look—this is a
1428
fundamental thing in medical science—unless there is a culture of thinking there might be a problem, you can have all sorts of things, not necessarily Australian diseases, as was said, but the ordinary bone diseases which we all have, and of which there is a growing epidemic for causes unknown. It needs looking at to see what are the causes. So it is a question of saying, "there is no evidence". If you do not look you will not see evidence.
I understand—and it is obviously particularly dear, I suppose, to a Labour Government—the argument for the deprived and the poor. Do we not all feel that? I draw to your Lordships' attention the Chilean experience where they went specifically for the deprived and the poor. They stopped fluoridating because they found that the deprived were, by definition, less well nourished than the others and were less able to stand the toxic effects of fluoridation in the water supply. It was therefore discontinued. So it is no good starting with that argument, which everybody uses—and I quite understand it—in favour of the deprived unless you are quite, quite certain that you are doing good and that you are not doing harm.
I very much warm to what my noble friend Lord Harris of High Cross said about being beware of the consensus of science. He raised some of the slight worries that I also have about passive smoking and the other issues which can very rapidly become a crusade. I think that that is something that we need to be aware of and to beware of. Having studied these things for some time, I am forming a tentative law, which says that the quality of the science is in inverse proportion to the public profile of the issue. It is because these things come up and there is premature consensus that it becomes politically incorrect in the scientific community to oppose it. And anything which later contradicts it has great difficulty in being heard. The noble Lord had a very good point there and I am glad that he raised it.
I turn again to what I said in my opening remarks about optimum levels. It is not so; there is no good science supporting an optimal level here. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle is much quoted in this regard and I would like to read what he said. He said:
"There is no evidence"—
—this is in his many pages of judgment, to which the noble Baroness, I think, referred—
"that water with a natural fluoride content of 1 p.p.m. is normal by world standards".
And I skip a bit:
"Thus to suggest as do the respondents that they are merely replicating nature by increasing the fluoride content of surface water is inaccurate".
The point about Jauncey, who is prayed in aid by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, among others, is that, first, it was a long time ago, back in the early 1980s. Science, as I said in my opening remarks, has moved on since then. Secondly, I would submit—and I say this also to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—that a court of law is not the ideal forum in which to judge a scientific matter. It depends among other things, on whether all your

1429
witnesses can appear, and that did not happen in the Jauncey case. So whereas you can look to him for matters of definition, I think it is wrong to try and take courts of law as authorities in systematic scientific reviews, which is what Dr. Chalmers and I are calling for in this case.
We heard what could be described as, perhaps not unfairly, "party lines" from the Benches on this side. Perhaps, in the interests of time, I should skip them and move on to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Of course, I was disappointed, on the whole, by what he said, but I did welcome the encouragement that he gave and the fact that the department will look at what Dr. Chalmers is saying. I am grateful to him for that.
He echoed the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and said that it was inconceivable, that there were no legal claims. I wonder if they are not aware that Colgate has paid out £1,000 for somebody damaged by fluoridated toothpaste. Beyond that isolated point on toothpaste, I think that it is easily answered because how would people who have a disease—it may be a chronic bone disease or some other kind—know that it was to do with fluoride in the water? Their doctors would not tell them so if there is no culture of looking at this and understanding that it could cause problems? I think at present that there is no way that people are going to come forward and claim—unless they are clearly allergic, and there have been cases of this—that the water supply is to blame.
On the question of mass medication, again the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, is prayed in aid. Let me quote him. He talks about Section 130 of the Act defining "medicinal products". He said:
"I am satisfied that fluoride in whatever form it is ultimately purchased by the respondents"—
and he is talking here about the water supply—
"falls within the definition."
He had no doubt whatever.
There is one final question that I thought I would like to leave with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, because among all the cherry-picking of the areas, Birmingham is always quoted. There are worries in my mind about Birmingham. One of them is that the number of dentists has gone up by 84 per cent. while the population has decreased by 15 per cent. during fluoridation. The other—and I would be very surprised if this has been looked at quite as carefully as the noble Lord says—is quoted in the Cancer Control Journal, which noted a,
"marked rise in the cancer death rate after the introduction of fluoridation in Birmingham".
Birmingham is also known as an infant mortality blackspot. I should like to see the studies. I accept the noble Lord's point that you cannot prove a negative, but I would like to see some studies after a year to reassure me on that point. On the bone question, I wonder how Birmingham has tackled this. I have seen a letter, and I quote,
"Birmingham Health Authority has no facility to collect biological samples."
1430
And a letter from the House of Commons Library confirming:
"No Birmingham research on the uptake of fluoride in bone has been done."
I believe that there are still questions around that and I would leave that thought with you.
In conclusion, this issue reminds me of nothing more than one of those wild west stage sets, which look very impressive but, when you get closer, you find that it is only a façade and that behind there is in fact little but scrub and empty desert. I would remind your Lordships, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, emphasised, that it was not I who framed that initial wording but a doctor who is at the very heart of evidence-based medicine, Dr. lain Chalmers, who shares my concern that the case has not been fully made out.
My Lords, once again I thank everybody for taking part in this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Food Prices
8.9 p.m.
Lord Rowallan Lord Rowallan rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their view of the disparity between farm-gate and supermarket prices for food products; and what steps they intend to take to redress this imbalance.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is our third debate on agriculture and related subjects in recent weeks. That shows how important a subject agriculture has become and also the importance of the rural communities of Britain. Perhaps I may say how pleasant it is to see so many new faces attending the debate.
We know that farmers are in crisis. We know that the Government have agreed to inject a large sum of money into the agricultural industry to try to stave off the worst effects of that crisis. We know that BSE, E. coli, the high value of the pound and the green pound, cheap foreign imports and no export market have depressed farm product prices to uneconomic levels. Yet we see the prices of agricultural products in our supermarkets continue to rise in such a way as to rub salt into the wound of the depression at the farm gate. We must ask why. That is the reason I decided to ask this Question today.
Is it excess profiteering and greed to feed an ever-hungry shareholder or is it spiralling costs for the supermarkets which must be passed on? Two things are fact. First, the average British family pays £1,000 per year more to buy the same food as its European counterpart. Secondly, the average profits of supermarkets in the United Kingdom are three times those of their European equivalents. In the United Kingdom the food retail industry is dominated by the Big Four: Tesco, with annual profits of £866 million—I repeat that figure, £866 million; Sainsbury, with profits of £735 million; and Asda and Safeway with profits of £400 million. Those four control nearly 65 per cent. of UK food production and distribution. They have doubled their profits on food and soft drinks in the past 10 years.

1431
Lest it be thought otherwise, I am not against profit. "Profit" is not a dirty word. Profit is to a large extent what makes the world go round. Without profit there is no business. But profiteering at the expense of the agricultural industry and the housewife by not passing on market decreases is neither fair nor ethical. Profiteering is not the same as profit. Profiteering is wrong but making a profit is fair. What we must do in today's debate is distinguish between these two words.
The power of the Big Four supermarkets is enormous. They have virtually killed off the local butcher and greengrocer from our high streets. They have the financial clout to run loss-making promotions to entice more customers into their stores. The threat of delisting is enough to frighten any producer. All the supermarket has to suggest is, "If you won't sell to us at our price, we will remove you from our list of suppliers." That is a death threat to any business, large or small.
According to the Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation, in the past five years shelf prices in British supermarkets have increased by 16 per cent. at Tesco; by 15 per cent. at Sainsbury; by 9.5 per cent. at Safeway; and by 4 per cent. at Asda. That is a frightening statistic. How Tesco can go to 16 per cent. and Asda to only 4 per cent. leads one to wonder what is going on. Prices are often rounded up to the nearest 5p or 9p further to increase profits. The housewife very often does not notice. But if she does and complains, the supermarket can then refuse her custom. The supplier, too, cannot complain for fear of being delisted. So in fact what we now have in this country is a cartel, a monopoly over our food industry being run by the Big Four.
To be fair, the Office of Fair Trading is investigating at the moment, and yet nothing is seen to be happening. How long does it take to investigate such blatant profiteering? What are the powers when it has proved the case. And prove the case it must, as now we have the Meat and Livestock Commission reporting the facts. These facts were widely publicised recently in various newspapers, including the Daily Express, Daily Mail and the News of the World. They proved that huge profits are being made and that there are large add-ons from the farm gate to the supermarket shelf in all meat produce.
According to the MLC report, the supermarkets are making £81.50 more profit per beef steer than they did three years ago, £10 more on every lamb and £7 on every pig. While the farmer sells his beef for £515, having kept the animal for up to 18 months and from which he has to take his feed, grazing and veterinary costs, often leaving him with a very small return, if any, on his capital outlay, the supermarket makes a profit of £267.80 for cutting it up and putting it on the shelf. The story is the same for sheep. The farmer gets £35 gross and the supermarket makes a profit of £25 net. With pigs, the figures are £50.90 for the farmer and £30.20 for the supermarket. For chickens, the farmers get £1.12 and the supermarket makes a profit of £1.31. So, in the case of the humble chicken, the supermarket actually makes a bigger profit than the farmer receives for rearing the bird.
1432
Another way to look at the same statistics in the MLC survey is that lamb now selling in the markets at £1.40 per kilo sells in the supermarket for £12.99 per kilo for leg steaks, £10.49 for gigot chops, £8.69 for double loin chops and £5.49 for half legs. In every case the farmer is left with little or nothing after costs but the supermarket is making a healthy profit.
To be fair, Tesco has stated—I am sure the figures are correct—that the price of £1 paid for meat at the farm gate rises to £3.15 before it can be distributed to its stores as a result of weight loss in killing and curing. Nevertheless, profits are there for all to see and at a time when the farmer, the essential start of the food chain, is struggling to break even, let alone make a profit.
The story does not end with livestock. Fruit farmers, who have no choice about when to harvest, are told what the price is—take it or leave it. According to John Breach, chairman of the Independent Fruit Growers Federation, fruit growers are in dire straits, often having to sell at a loss in order to recoup any costs as the following week their crop is totally worthless, being over-ripe and unsaleable. David Nike, an agricultural business consultant, has stated that 60 per cent. profit margins are being added on to the price of the humble potato.
There is something seriously wrong with our food industry. Surely what we need is a supply chain which offers transparency, shared profits within the chain—in other words, each link in the chain being satisfied by the return, including the final consumer—and a long-term commitment from both supplier and buyer. There surely is no gain from reducing the cost of food to the consumer when farmers and growers cannot cover their production costs for in the end the supply will undoubtedly dry up as no one can carry on doing something at a loss for ever.
We urgently need to set up independent and verified farm assurance schemes with collaborative marketing to meet buyers' demand for consistency and quality of product. Then, and only then, would we have a sense of confidence in the food chain. The farmer could rear his meat and grow his vegetables and fruit knowing that there was a market for them at a profitable level; the buyer from the supermarket could find himself with a reliable and consistent supply of food; and the consumer could be assured of good, consistent quality at a steady and affordable price.
I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, to confirm that the Government will hurry along the Office of Fair Trading investigation and put a stop soon to the unfair way in which our farmers and producers are being held to ransom and our housewives' shopping bills are being increased in this cavalier fashion by the Big Four supermarkets. I should like him to confirm whether it is a fact that only four people from the Office of Fair Trading are looking into the problem. That seems very few people for a major problem. I also hope that pressure can be brought to bear, as we near the 21st century, for a completely new approach to the marketing of that vital commodity to human life, food. A fairer and more equitable system, as I have already described, to benefit everyone in the food chain and not just the

1433
strong and wealthy supermarket would be very useful. I should be grateful to hear from the noble Lord that the Government will consider such an idea already being actively promoted by the National Farmers Union as a way out of the current crisis.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, on asking this Unstarred Question. I am not a farmer, but I find the idea that there is a clear relationship between farm gate prices and supermarket prices both a little naïve and a little outdated. A management guru said recently,
"Companies used to compete on costs, but now they compete on knowledge".
Indeed my right honourable friend the Secretary of State virtually repeated this when he introduced the White Paper on competitiveness a little earlier today.
Let me explain what I mean. I am sure the noble Lord owns a camera. He will have a clever camera that does all kinds of clever things. But these wonderful things are possible because the producer has a knowledge of optics and electronics; they do not depend necessarily on the materials that are used. That is what adds the value. That is what enables a dealer to get a higher price for a camera. Surely it is the same with food. There is a long supply chain from farm gate to supermarket. The noble Lord told us all about it. It is this supply chain which adds the value. I refer to the preparation, the cleaning, the packaging, the transport and the organisation to get the food to the supermarket at the right time. The farm-gate prices have little relevance after all those operations.
The noble Lord may have a point if the supermarkets are using their buying power to force down prices at the farm gate, and then engaging in a scheme to maintain high prices in the shop. However, as the noble Lord has said, the Director General of Fair Trading is looking into this matter. Sadly, his inquiry will end before March 2000, when the new Competition Act comes into force. Under the present regulations, the director general has no powers to act in relation to prices as such. If he discovers anti-competitive behaviour, he can issue directions and rap naughty supermarkets over the knuckles. That is not really much of a deterrent. However, under the new Act, matters will be completely different. There will be complete freedom to compete, but not to abuse. Perhaps it is this abuse which the noble Lord calls profiteering. That is what he is concerned about.
Under the terms of the new Act, if there has been an abuse of market position, instead of getting a rap over the knuckles and being told not to be naughty, companies can be fined 10 per cent. of their turnover—£80 million in the case of Tesco. Injured third parties can sue for damages. In addition, if he thinks there has been abuse, the director general does not have to wait—therefore the patience of the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, will not be so greatly tested—he can impose interim measures pending the completion of his investigation. These are altogether much tougher rules.
1434
I might add that the new legislation makes the director general entirely independent of Ministers. His sole concern would be the anxieties of the noble Lord and of farmers. In all fairness, I think the noble Lord should congratulate my noble friend the Minister and the Government on getting the legislation through. Sadly it did not come into force on 7th November, when it received Royal Assent. If it had done, perhaps the farmers would be in a much stronger position.
The noble Lord is concerned about the profitability of supermarkets. Profitability is a difficult concept and I am not sure whether this is a useful line of argument. First of all, under present legislation, firms can charge whatever they like. Most prices are pitched at what the market will stand, both at the farm gate and in the supermarket. At present the Director General of Fair Trading can get prices reduced only if there is evidence of anti-competitive behaviour, because measures to combat the abuse of market power come into force only in March 2000. Until then firms will presumably continue to charge what the market will stand. However, this rule is already in force on the Continent. It could be one reason why, for some products, supermarket prices are lower there than here. Unlike on the Continent, our food prices are zero rated for VAT, and therefore our prices should be lower.
In addition there is the difference in accounting practice between here and other European countries. Indeed, if you calculate profitability based on return on capital employed, the returns are higher on the Continent than here. Therefore, as I say, I am not sure that profitability is a useful line of argument. There is also the confusing problem of the pricing of certain products, because some are priced as loss leaders, and therefore a selective shopping basket of priced goods can prove things either way. The noble Lord pointed out that there are four major supermarket groups, but there are also the discounters from the Continent, who are competing quite strongly with the supermarkets.
As regards farm-gate prices, obviously the CAP has an important impact. The prospect of lower support prices must be worrying for farmers, but other factors such as the welfare of animals and the use of chemicals enter into the value chain to justify higher prices. However, the reality is that, if market prices have decreased, businesses have to adapt. Oil companies, for instance, have had to adapt to the fact that oil prices have gone down from 18 dollars a barrel to nine dollars a barrel in the past 18 months. Those companies are having to adapt to that situation. That is one of the factors in business.
The supply chain is where the business happens, as the noble Lord pointed out. This is where the nub of his argument lies. If the farmers are being exploited, that is bad for business. Exploitation is bad for any business, including supermarkets. It is bad for a variety of reasons. First, the public will not want to shop at, nor indeed investors invest in, firms that exploit. Retailers are shunning products made with child labour or which are not environmentally friendly, because the public just do not want them. The public have become much more discerning in these matters. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, that it is bad for productivity if part of

1435
the supply chain is exploited because it is just not efficient to go from one source to another exploiting them. Like all businesses, supermarkets need the entire chain to be innovative and competitive. Indeed this factor is repeated in the White Paper on competitiveness which we discussed this afternoon.
This competitiveness is achieved by creating a common understanding and, at the same time, by having vigorous competition. Supermarkets need suppliers who can continually respond to the rising quality of demand because that is the way to the customer's wallet. Exploitation has no place in this: competition has. I say to my noble friend the Minister that by virtue of the Competition Act I think the Government have already taken steps to solve the noble Lord's problem.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am not as optimistic as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, about the effects of the Bill which will come into operation in 2000. I could not quite follow his speech but I gather that he was giving farmers a lecture about being competitive and producing what the supermarkets want. I gather that he compared the farming industry with the oil industry and generally taught us our business, as he is entitled to do. I believe he explained that the supermarkets have great costs as regards killing the beast, skinning it, throwing away bits and so on. He might consider that the farmer has to raise the calf to 18 months and then has to put it into calf—apply the bull, if the noble Lord understands that expression—and then has to rear the new calf. He has a three, four or five year period of preparation, which is slightly different to the mere killing of the beast and butchering of it. Therefore I think the noble Lord's argument loses a little of its virtue in the face of the difficulties experienced by the primary producer.
I am conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan—as he said himself—has raised a subject which has been much discussed. However, he looks to the future which I think is right and proper. I am glad that he has raised the matter. There is no question that for the first time for many years the public support the farmers because the figures produced are so horrendous that the public realise that the old myth that this is only farmers grumbling is no longer the case. They have a genuine grievance. In addition, the countryside as we know it is in danger as a result of the financial conditions. The promises for the future by the governments of all the large EU countries do not bode well for the countryside.
The figures I have are probably from the same source as those given by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, might look at the most telling. He said that in terms of capital the French make more money. But the simple shopping basket test carried out by the Sunday Times was horrifying. The same items cost in the UK £81.59; in Holland £49.55; in Belgium £50.67; and in Italy £60.90. Whatever is said about capital, the matter is straightforward: people are paying more in this country than in equivalent countries in the
1436
European Union. There must be some reason for that. It is an extraordinary thing that we have the four large supermarket companies.
I have nothing against Tesco; indeed I am all for it. In Forfar there is a Tesco store that is absolutely wonderful. You can buy virtually anything there. I can sometimes buy a bottle of Whyte & Mackays whisky, of which I am fond, for as little as £14 a litre—in which case I normally buy three or four bottles.
Of course the supermarkets are to a certain degree holding the country to ransom. Taking the figures that are available on farm produce, instead of prices falling in the stores, they have been held up simply because the supermarkets can do that. I dare say that they do not meet and decide to hold up prices, but they are holding them up. The four large stores sell some 67 per cent. of food in this country. It is ludicrous that they have all happily taken the extra profit and not one of the large stores has tried to grab the market. Without a shadow of a doubt, that is bad for business. We talk about competition in farming; but there must certainly be competition in retailing.
It is the old story. In most cases the primary producer gets it in the neck. Whether it be a matter of oil, tin or food, the primary producer is often hammered. The oil business can take care of itself. It has large profits. Those profits do not exist in farming. Farming needs to be looked after if we want to keep the countryside. If we want to let the countryside go, a large number of competent young men can buy big acreages and farm them purely for profit. They will not keep up hedges or ditches; they will simply grow as many crops as they can and pay as little as they can for the land, doing themselves a good deal of financial good but not doing the countryside any good.
Labour governments supported agriculture and did it a lot of good from 1947 onwards. If we take the case of the Milk Marketing Board, have the public benefited at all from its abolition? The farmers certainly have not. The price of milk has plummeted. It must be realised that if farming is to be kept as a stable industry, which is for the good of the country and what urban people want, the Government have to allow, and assist in, some organisation of the primary producer.
Many factors can help. I should like to think that we can help markets, as has been done in France. In many parts of France the supermarkets do not have a look in when it comes to food, because there are very good markets. One of the lessons we have learnt is that butchers—and in my part of the world fishmongers—can thrive as individuals because butchers hang their meat properly. The supermarkets do not hang meat. One of the tenets of shopping at a supermarket is that, once the customer has bought something, he or she gets out of the way as quickly as possible in order to assist the cash-flow. So there can be survival for certain individual concerns. But there is no question that the bulk of our food will be in the hands of the big organisations. The Government must keep them in their place. They cannot be allowed to merge further. Since only four of them handle the food that we buy, that would be a highly dangerous position. Matters would become a great deal worse.

1437
The Government are conscious of the problem. The new Act will not solve it. The Government have to look to organisation, and to helping any such organisation to produce a constant supply of good food. In that case protection would be needed from the flood of cheap food from overseas, which is produced under different conditions to those enforced on our farmers here. The Government have a case to answer. I thank the noble Lord for introducing the debate.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I declare an interest as a dairy farmer in Cheshire. While the debate has focused on the disparity between farm-gate and retail prices, there is a wider question; namely, the disparity in power between the farmer and the retailer, and whether that leads to abuse.
It is perhaps instructive to reflect that over the past 10 years the retail price index for all items represented by "a basket" of selected consumer goods has risen by 55 per cent. During this period the retail food price element of the index has risen by 40 per cent. In other words, the price of food has fallen in real terms—a fact for which no doubt the supermarkets can take some credit.
However, within that overall picture farm-gate prices have risen by only 7 per cent. The upward rise in the retail price index for all items and RPI food has been relatively smooth. By contrast, the rise in farm-gate prices has been characterised by alternative periods of sharp rises, often due to currency weakness as in the period 1993–95 following the devaluation of sterling in 1992, followed by severe declines. In 1997 farm-gate prices fell by 14 per cent. on 1996.
Should noble Lords believe that prices paid to farmers will rise as agriculture falls out of a low trough, perhaps I may remind the House that under Agenda 2000 proposals price cuts vary from 30 per cent. for beef, 20 per cent. cuts for cereals, to 15 per cent. for milk.
What will the demand for competitive agriculture mean for the likely price of foods to the consumer? Does the past lead us to believe that it will be anything other than a continuing rise, with the balance of the margin going to the retailer? Indeed, MAFF's own statistics pointed to the effect of Agenda 2000 in reducing the retail price index by a mere 0.3 per cent.
During this time, farmers have been left holding the short end of the income stick, while at the other end a small group of intensely efficient retailers have been pulling in profits of up to £850 million each. Between them, Tesco and Sainsbury turn over more money than the Republic of Ireland. In terms of relative size, the individual farmer is not a David to the supermarkets' Goliath; he is more like a microbe. Retailers are simple, ruthless machines which perform solely for profit and share price. Their scale gives them the opportunity to be mercilessly efficient in reducing unit costs.
The modern parlance that the consumer demands ever-improving quality at a reducing price can have no other outcome. Multiples demand more food, better food, to be put before more consumers at a faster rate and at a lower cost. For this to work, today's price must
1438
be undercut by tomorrow's and that of the day after, and so on. To do that and at the same time increase profits supermarkets apply continual downward pressure on their suppliers. Farmers must get less, abattoirs must be paid less, packaging costs must be reduced, and the supermarket will always get the same, or increased, slice, even if the overall income stream is smaller.
That is confirmed in the Meat and Livestock Commission report, which states that the gap between meat prices for producers and retailers has widened significantly in the past three years, suggesting that supermarkets have not shared in the overall decline in industry margins. In the summer of 1995, the gap between what the supermarket paid processors for packed retail cuts of beef and the retail shelf price was 15.5 per cent. of the total price. In the summer of 1998 it rose to 23.8 per cent. Between July and September 1998, the multiples took £267.80 for every £515 spent on the steer to pay for staff, building, shelf space, shareholders and expansion. In 1995 the multiples took £186.30 from a steer price of £743.
While other noble Lords have pointed out that it may not be of direct relevance, and claim and counterclaim rage in the press, one significant increase in costs that must be recognised is that relating to safety and welfare issues. It is not generally recognised that there is now, following safety and other increased legislation, a collection of inspectors in white coats, each with a clipboard, standing over each operator in the slaughterhouse. I trust that the Office of Fair Trading in its inquiry will analyse and report on all those aspects.
Following the food scares, the BSE crisis and the animal welfare issues, the consumer, through legislation, now imposes higher standards on agriculture. Farmers, in trying to take their produce out of the commodity bracket and to brand it, even if that is no more than "British", are confronted by a supermarket intent on imposing its own branding, whatever the supply. In that way, the supermarket maintains its creed to the consumer and its control over the income stream. It is a fair question to which the Government must respond, that labelling must be honest and correct. "British produce" must be British and produced to British standards. As consumers demand, through legislation, that farmers must meet certain production and welfare standards, should it be acceptable that foreign supplies can be sold that do not conform? This is a question that must be addressed in Europe by Ministers. Access to the market by supplies below indigenous standards should only be allowed provided it is clearly marked that they do not conform to home standards.
The Minister of Agriculture recently joined the British Retail Consortium to confirm that all supermarket branding and fresh pig produce will be to British standards. Will the Minister also insist that below standard produce from overseas will be labelled as such?
I should also like to draw attention to other issues targeted by the supermarkets in order to reduce farm-gate prices: namely, auction markets and cattle movements. In setting up producer clubs to source direct supplies, the supermarkets source entirely on a

1439
deadweight basis, to their quality standards. The price paid by the majority of deadweight operators is at some stage linked to the price obtained at the live auction. It is fair to say that most deadweight purchasers will pay a system of bonuses, some immediate and some at the end of the marketing season. However, this denudes the auction market of a high quality product and effectively lowers the average quality of the auction offering. This in turn lowers the average market price. Thus the deadweight producer lowers the average market price which is used to determine the price he or she is paid. The high quality deadweight product is also influenced in the average price by the bottom end product at the market.
It must be remembered that the auction market is not only an end market, it is flexible and provides an acceptable outlet for all standards. It allows the producer—maybe overstocked or low on feed—to sell an animal to be purchased and finished by another producer. It also provides an infinite variety of choice to suit all customer requirements.
One of the criticisms of auction markets concerns welfare. The Livestock Auctioneers Association is to be commended on developing new standards and systems, as markets are public places visited by all and sundry. There is not much by way of welfare in a large stock wagon going round farms, possibly incurring between 10 and 20 stops for a load before setting off on a long journey. It is far better for the farmer to take his consignment to an efficient market, with good loading and unloading facilities. The livestock industry must retain a broad geographical spread of markets. I trust the Minister will endorse that.
It is also important to understand the issue of livestock movements. Some slaughterers on contract to multiples are already offering a premium of at least 5 pence per deadweight for cattle that have been moved once only. Others have laid down a two-movement limit, and more anti-movement enticements will follow.
The claimed justification is that livestock are more easily traced, their welfare has not been compromised and they have been supposedly cheaply produced as sales commission by auction markets or by dealers is a non-essential expense. The drive is being helped by the cattle passport system which remorselessly clocks up a movement every time an animal changes hands, even if it was only held temporarily by a broker. If this justification is not quickly shown to be a falsehood, the flexibility of livestock finishing will be destroyed and efficiencies between upland and lowland farming jeopardised. Putting animals through an auction market does not automatically create welfare problems or impose a burden of unjustified expense. It is simply more efficient to move cattle to their bulky feed and bedding than the other way round.
In conclusion, I draw to noble Lords' attention that there are many issues to be addressed as well as the simple cost analysis, which must also bear careful scrutiny. I ask the Minister what is his reply to those who call for a supermarket regulator. I urge noble Lords
1440
to remember those issues when the subject of CAP reform returns and the much anticipated food standards agency legislation appears.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I apologise for the quality of my voice, I have a heavy cold. However, even if I breathe hard it will not cross the Floor of the House.
I join in the comments made by colleagues on how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, for having the energy to seek the debate. He did so in order to make a point and also to share his concerns with the House. He should be grateful, as I am, for the quality of the contributions. They have not been great in quantity but the quality has been there. It is a lesson on the topic that we are discussing. At the end of the day quality is all-important.
I have been impressed by the facts and knowledge displayed by colleagues. I have learnt a great deal on which I shall reflect. I must declare an interest, first, as a consumer who is interested in prices being as low as possible but fair. All farmers are consumers and so have an interest in the price they have to pay when they visit supermarkets.
I started my working life in the retail industry as an errand boy. That was a staggering 59 years ago in 1939 with the Newcastle Co-op. I became a director of other co-operative societies and my interest in retailing stems in part from my professional work with co-ops. I also declare an interest as honorary secretary of the All-Party Retail Industry Group. I remind the House that that receives much of its support and sustenance from the British Retail Consortium. In the context of this amicable debate we should recognise that the consortium represents retailers who sell more than 90 per cent. of the goods that pass over our counters. The body represents 320,000 shops and 30 per cent. of the commercial property floorspace. It provides employment for 2.9 million people, 11 per cent. of the total workforce.
I am also president of the Institute of Meat. My predecessor was the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, who followed the noble Lord, Lord Vestey. I throw that fact into the debate to demonstrate that those of us who are not farmers and do not come from an agricultural background nevertheless take an interest in these matters.
I have referred to my connections with the Co-op. The Co-op has large stores and very many small stores. Whether the supermarket chains have 25,000 square feet, 50,000 square feet or have hypermarket status, by and large their outlets are of the larger size. There are many other organisations apart from the Co-op that are community-based.
In this debate I am not prepared to throw either bouquets or brickbats because the position is not straightforward. I hope that noble Lords will not try to find a villain or a saint. In this story there are no villains or saints. The villain of today will be the saint of tomorrow. There was a time when the farming community was vilified because of some of its activities.

1441
The same applied to some of the larger stores. At one time the scapegoat was the European Community, but the scapegoat changes. If I were a farmer I would fully share the concern and anguish about the state of the industry. That is the livelihood and heritage of the farmer. The present state of the industry may drive many people not just to despair but, sadly, suicide, as we read in the newspapers. I have enormous sympathy for the farming community which is affected by the present situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, referred to an orderly state of affairs in which products were produced and marketed in a reasonable way. Robert Owen started the Co-op movement in 1844. He believed in co-operative communities in which people grew their own food and provided their own materials. I do not think that we should look at two ends of the chain, one being the farmer and the other the consumer, because each is dependent on the other.
Everyone is entitled to fight for his livelihood and that includes the supermarkets. Anyone who believes that the situation in retailing is hunky-dory has another think coming. My experience of these matters goes back 50 years. No industry has undergone a greater revolution than retailing. The biggest change came about four or five years ago with Sunday trading. That was a massive, traumatic change but change occurs all the time. Sometimes people will be on one side of the argument and sometimes on the other.
Life is becoming more complex as is retailing. The retail chain is also becoming more complex. I do not believe that the price to the consumer is the be-all and end-all. Sadly, in certain quarters there is a tendency to believe that all one must do is sell as cheaply as possible. Good sense tells one that quality and fairness to suppliers is a very good profit-maker. It makes sense to treat suppliers and employees fairly and charge the consumer a fair price, but that is not life.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. We appreciate the complexity and efficiency of the retail industry. What worries us in this case is that with an over-supply the price to the consumer is not falling. Therefore more is not being consumed and the natural process of recovery is not taking place.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. I am afraid that I am unable to speak to the detail because I am neither a practitioner nor a professional in this area. Reference was made earlier to the price of oil. It was said that oil was not strictly analogous to this case. It is not. However, when one hears the word "glut" one believes that automatically that should be reflected in lower prices. In the case of oil, for every 62 pence paid for a litre 50 pence is a tax that is imposed on the industry. We are all beneficiaries of that. We must be very careful about where we start and finish.
Over the past 10 years the price of goods in the shops has risen by 36.5 per cent. General inflation has risen by 50 per cent., but in real terms the price of retail goods has fallen by just under 14 per cent. Efficiency,
1442
innovation and competition all play a part. When one criticises the supermarket one must bear in mind that the consumer is not attracted solely by price but by the range of goods, their quality, the opening hours, the increased role of new or extra services and their quality and value for money.
I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has far greater experience of these matters. However, when one considers pigmeat, only parts such as the loin and the steak are particularly attractive. But the person who has produced it may feel that he is entitled to sell all of it at a premium price. That is not so. The imbalance is dealt with by the retailer selling at less profit. As a consequence today much goes abroad.
I see that my time is nearly up. As an ex-Whip I do as I am told—sometimes. I conclude by agreeing that there is need for a better system than one that drives farmers to despair, not through their own fault or by government action but by a combination of factors. This has been a very good debate. It is not in the interests of supermarkets to treat their suppliers badly. If they do, it will backfire on them. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, for allowing noble Lords to express their views.
8.59 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, any regular attender of this House over the past few months will realise that the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, has arisen in a number of different forms in at least three or four debates. Anyone who has listened to those debates will appreciate that there is a significant problem.
I do not wind up on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches as a farmer or with any farming background, but as a representative of the consumer interest. The case on behalf of the farming community has been well made and effective. Indeed, following the remarks of various speakers, there has been a remarkable achievement by major supermarkets. Three years ago the average consumer probably believed that most farmers were heavily subsidised, and battening on the consumer through tax subsidies and handouts from Brussels. Over that three-year period the behaviour of the supermarket chains seems to have succeeded in turning public opinion the other way round. The old adage that one never sees a poor farmer is turned the other way. The consumer now believes that one never sees a farmer who is not poor. That is a remarkable achievement on the part of the major supermarket chains over that period.
As various speakers have said during the course of the debate, we are talking about four major supermarket chains because they represent 66, 67 or 68 per cent. of the UK food market. Therefore if we are to have any serious debate on the issue, we must talk about the behaviour of those four supermarkets and the interrelationship of those four supermarkets with the farming industry.
I do not wish to go into the statistical points made effectively tonight and previously on behalf of the farming community. The case has been made strongly about the interrelationship between farm-gate prices and

1443
the prices for the consumer in the supermarket. I commend those who are not convinced to read from time to time the trade magazine Grower which is full of uncomfortable reminders of how multiples exercise their power over the farming community.
We have not yet heard the Minister's winding-up speech. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, put what I understand to be the Government's answer to the points made. While he did not speak on behalf of the Government, he gave what I understand to be the Government's response. I understand that the noble Lord spoke for himself. However, I anticipate what the Minister will say: that the Office of Fair Trading is currently looking at the issue as to whether supermarkets are charging excess prices and will be reporting early in 1999. The noble Lord made some comments about whether or not there was profiteering or overcharging. It would be entirely inappropriate to prejudge what the Office of Fair Trading will say.
However, I take issue with the noble Lord on the question which has been well trailed: that the four major supermarkets have margins well in excess of those prevalent in continental Europe. He made the point that the return on capital for the supermarket chains is lower than in continental Europe. One fundamental fact differentiates us from continental Europe as regards the property market. The high cost of land for the development even of out-of-town supermarket chains in the UK significantly reduces the return on capital for the UK supermarket chain compared with continental competitors. I do not think that that is a particularly satisfactory response.
The supermarkets' response is that nothing is wrong. Those of us who have raised the issue have been lobbied. Some of the lobbying which I and others have received from the supermarket chains would have us believe that supermarkets are beneficial organisations, almost charities, providing a service to the consumer almost on a free basis. The point is exaggerated in order to make the argument. However, there are some characteristics of the industry about which the Government should be concerned. One of the defences put forward by the major supermarkets is that the shopper typically nowadays has a choice of several supermarkets within a short drive. In reality that is not normally true. Although no one, single major supermarket has more than 25 per cent. of the market, that does not apply when one considers the matter on a city-by-city or region-by-region basis. For example, Sainsbury's and Tesco's combined share of the market is 57 per cent. in London and the south. Asda is based predominantly in the north.
In agriculture the relationship between the farming community and the buyer is changing significantly. Although this point was mentioned in previous debates, not many noble Lords have referred to it today. Supermarkets are seeking control over production. Some farmers have commented that they foresee the day when a Tesco or Sainsbury's farmer will produce only what his supermarket boss tells him, including for the beef farmer what bulls to use and on what day to sell his finished cattle. The fear is that supermarkets are
1444
beginning to dominate the farming community and to introduce a range of vertical agreements which will operate against the consumer interest.
What should the Government do? Clearly farmers are bleeding. It is simply not enough for the Government to say that the OFT is looking at pricing; that when they have seen its report they will decide what to do; and if that is not enough they will wait for the Competition Act which will come into force in May 2000. Bearing in mind the significant public concern on the issue, action clearly needs to be taken before the year 2000.
I have three recommendations. I welcome the Minister's response to them. First, I do not think that the Department of Trade and Industry can rely on the Office of Fair Trading to consider the pricing issue. There has to be significant consideration of whether or not there is market dominance by individual supermarkets in individual cities. For example, in Cambridge everyone shops in Sainsbury's. Does Sainsbury's have market dominance in Cambridge; and what is the effect of that market dominance on the pricing policy of food in Cambridge? That issue requires strong direction from the Government. It cannot simply be left to the Office of Fair Trading to consider.
The second issue is whether or not the vertical domination of the supermarkets within the farming process is a problem. When the Competition Bill was debated in your Lordships' House, significant attempts were made to increase the powers in the Competition Bill on that vertical domination issue. Those attempts did not succeed. Nevertheless, we believe that the Department of Trade and Industry has a responsibility, in particular in the light of allegations in relation to the major supermarkets and the farming community, to look at that vertical domination.
Finally, I do not believe that it will be sufficient simply to rely on the powers of the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Act to deal with the problem. All the evidence of the past shows that where cartels, or potential cartels, exist they will always circumvent the powers that the law will impose upon them. The Government need to take the initiative—I do not know which ministry or Minister it should be—to get together the farming unions, the farmers and the supermarkets to agree what can be done to solve the problem. The fact is that housewives go into supermarkets to buy products at this price. There would be no point in housewives doing so if the pricing policies of the supermarkets drive so many farmers out of business. Prices then have to rise.
9.9 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Rowallan for bringing forward this important and timely debate. As we heard last week, farmers are indeed going through a particularly difficult time. Some are going out of business, some are struggling and others are looking with concern to the

1445
future of their industry. My noble friend Lord Rowallan, spoke about that issue again tonight. He asks the Government:
"what is their view of the disparity between farm-gate and supermarket prices for food products; and what steps they intend to take to redress this imbalance".
A few weeks ago, at a time when some Welsh farmers were getting only 25 pence for a whole lamb and some were taking their stock to the RSPCA and dumping them, I bought four Welsh lamb chops in a local supermarket. Those four lamb chops cost me £3.50.
I mention this as it highlights the agony being experienced by farmers. They see their local supermarket price and they compare it with the price they are obtaining at the farm-gate. So where does the blame lie, or, to put it less aggressively, why are the prices at the farm-gate so low? My noble friend has linked his Question from farm to supermarket.
It is true that the top five supermarkets, Asda, Somerfield, Kwik Save, Safeway, Sainsbury and Tesco, dominate food retailing in Britain. Between them they control half the grocery market. The remainder is split between the Co-op, Iceland, Marks and Spencer, William Morrison, discounters such as Aldi and smaller independents. Does this dominance help or hinder consumer interests? I think that most people would agree that the supermarkets have given the customer better value over recent years. But some consider that the process may have gone too far and that food quality and customer choice is being compromised for the sake of profit.
Some say that supermarkets are the consumers' best friend. They have kept prices low while dramatically expanding the range of goods offered. But that does not tell the whole story. While supermarket prices for pork, beef and lamb have stayed about the same over the past three years, farm-gate prices have plummeted.
The NFU compared prices for August 1996 with August 1998 and found that, while the farmers' share for beef had risen from 31 per cent. to 34 per cent. as consumer confidence rose following BSE, the share for everything else had dropped dramatically. Lamb went from 39 per cent. to 24 per cent., poultry and milk from 46 per cent. to 30 per cent. and pork from 42 per cent. to a mere 24 per cent.
The rapid growth of supermarkets and the closure of traditional bakeries, independent butchers and local corner shops, all add to the reduction of choice in some areas. But, from the customer's perspective, how much more convenient to be able to do your shopping in one store, usually with ample car parking space, a crèche to leave your children to play in, someone to help you load your goods into the car or to provide a home delivery service. So far, the poor farmer has paid a heavy price in falling income.
Furthermore, in the past 10 years, 50,000 retail businesses have disappeared from our towns; village shops are on the verge of extinction and local producers are unable to distribute their goods or are forbidden to do so by increasingly arbitrary measures. The powers of the health department and the agriculture ministry have
1446
already damaged organic farmers, traders in unpasteurised milk and cheese, high street butchers and small producers of every kind.
However much we may lay the blame at the door of the supermarket, we have to accept that we also bear the responsibility for the sea change in our shopping habits. Those of us who have local shops but do not support them on a regular basis, should not be surprised if they are unable to make an adequate living. Before too long they will be forced to close, unable to compete with the supermarkets.
In the short term, when the pound is strong, cheap imports may be seen as an attractive substitute for domestically produced food which is temporarily more expensive. But, in the longer term, it will be disastrous if a significant number of domestic producers are forced out of business. Both supermarkets and customers should be aware that, as my noble friend Lord Rowallan pointed out, this scenario is not in their long-term interest.
The message to farmers must be that, since supermarkets are and will remain their largest customers in the foreseeable future, it is important that they work closely together. Farmers can strengthen their hand by closer co-operation; many have already started along this path.
For their part, supermarkets must recognise that they carry great responsibility, to customers and farmers alike. They can be a positive influence on Britain's agriculture. As the noble Lords, Lord Mackie and Lord Grantchester, said, they must accept that farmers need to achieve a proper living; that consumers expect quality and good value products, clearly labelled, from which to make their choice of purchase. Supermarkets on the whole do not buy directly from the farmer but through their suppliers and meat processors.
Sainsbury's has formed partnership arrangements with 10,000 livestock farmers. Those farmers produce animals of agreed specification for sale to their meat suppliers. The benefit to the farmers of partnership includes a guaranteed outlet for 52 weeks a year, giving them greater long-term security.
Tesco has pioneered a major initiative in partnership with its producers and is funding research to raise welfare standards in its meat and livestock products. It also commissioned an independent report to analyse the supply chain for beef and lamb. Tesco welcomed, in public, the establishment of a food standards agency.
The British Retail Consortium conducted a recent MORI survey undertaken between 6th–10th November to ascertain customers' attitude to shops and shopping in Great Britain. They considered range of goods, quality of goods, opening hours, range of extra or new services, quality of services and value for money. Their findings support customer satisfaction in all areas ranging from 88 per cent. to 61 per cent. and reaffirm that customers are continuing and will continue to shop at supermarkets.
If customers continue to demand the "better cuts" rather than using some of the cheaper meats, if demand from the Eastern countries and from Russia remains depressed and if the pound continues to be strong, there

1447
appears to be little that can be achieved as regards raising the price to the farmer while lowering prices on the shelves.
So what should the Government do? I have some questions and suggestions. First, will the Government push ahead and establish the food standards agency, which should have been included in the Queen's Speech? Secondly, will the Government give greater direction to the labelling of products to make sure that UK labelling is applied only to products grown and processed in this country, rather than to those grown elsewhere but processed here, to which the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, referred? Thirdly, will the Government give more thought to the whole question of packaging, some of which is not necessary and causes additional environmental problems? Fourthly, will the Government make some commitment to ensuring that animal welfare standards set by our country and our farmers do not jeopardize our farmers to the extent that they become uncompetitive? Fifthly, as other noble Lords have mentioned, we await the response from the Office of Fair Trading, to which we look forward urgently.
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. Again, I thank my noble friend for making it possible. I look forward to hearing the response of the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle. I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, is unwell. From these Benches we wish him a speedy recovery and look forward to debating with him in the near future.
9.19 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments in relation to my noble friend's speedy recovery. He asked me to apologise for not being present tonight. He wanted to be here. As everybody knows, he takes a great interest in agriculture, but I am sure he will be cheered by those words of encouragement. I am sure that everyone hopes he will soon be up and about and enjoying a drink at Christmas.
This has been a good debate and we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, for raising it. It raises many issues of specific concern to farmers at the moment and draws attention to the inquiry being conducted by the OFT. I do not know whether there are four or more people examining this issue, but I shall investigate what the noble Lord said and write to him on the matter. However, I can tell him that the OFT is due to report early next year. It has been said that I cannot anticipate what it is going to say, but we all look to receiving an early reply and studying it at great length.
Everybody who spoke tonight mentioned the powers of the supermarkets and what might be done in that regard. I hope to answer many of the points raised in the course of my response. First, I agree with everyone who spoke that there is no denying the power of the big four supermarkets. We know how successful they are and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, there is no turning back the shopping habits of the British people. The supermarkets drive a hard bargain, not only
1448
with suppliers here, but also with those abroad. They also demand high quality products at competitive prices and benefits come to the suppliers from that. Guaranteed access leads to large markets. It is therefore a matter of benefit for both sides.
The concern expressed in this House and wider in the media is that supermarkets are in some way "ripping off" the consumer. I must emphasise that there is no clear evidence one way or the other and that is why it is important that we receive the report from the OFT. It is fair to say—my noble friend Lord Haskel made a good point—that if the Competition Act had been in force (it is not the Government's fault that it is not in force; industry, including the farming industry, requested a delay of two years) it would have helped considerably in relation to some of the matters discussed this evening. Having said that, we have been keen to discuss the problems of the farming community with all parts of the food chain, including the retailers. Given their share of the market, they are extremely important to the producers.
It is important that supermarkets understand that it is not in their interests to drive British producers out of business. That is why we, as a government, have been seeking a way forward and why my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recently met senior members of the British Retail Consortium not only to discuss how the present market conditions affect BRC members, but also to consider whether anything more can reasonably and properly be done to alleviate the difficulties that farmers are presently experiencing.
In addition, my right honourable friend made many contacts with retailers in the course of his duties. They are aware of the problems of the farming industry. They are making efforts to ensure that their sourcing practices meet or exceed consumer expectations in areas such as quality, traceability and local supply. However, as has been said, they must also have concern for the higher standards in relation to animal welfare and the environment, which are a cost to our farmers. They have given us some assurances that, from the beginning of next year, they will demand the same high welfare standards from imported pigmeat as our own producers have to meet. They will also not accept meat from pigs that have been fed meat and bonemeal. As has been said, in addition they have given an undertaking not to sell imported meat, processed or packaged in the UK, under a British label. I believe that everyone will agree that those are valuable commitments which will benefit both producers and consumers alike.
However, retailers are but one part of the food chain. It is important that all involved in the food chain recognise their interdependence. The Government need, and are determined, to do that. We want to bring together all parts of the food chain and encourage them to discuss how they can work together because that is in everyone's interests, from producers and others in the food chain right through to retailers.
The whole supply chain would benefit from working more closely. The benefits of collaboration are urgently required for our primary producers. That is the reason

1449
for this debate. As we have heard, the primary producers are critical of the multiple retailers and other major buyers. We must accept that the big customers are important and that it is right that in many instances they dominate and set the trends in the market. In additions, they provide access to many millions of consumers. It has been admitted that that is a fact of business life. It is inevitable that small businesses, such as farmers, will encounter difficulties when dealing with major companies if they are not well organised. They need better collaboration. Another aim of the Government is to bring them together.
Like many noble Lords, I was particularly pleased to see the launch at the Royal Smithfield Show by my noble friend Lord Donoughue—it is unfortunate that he cannot be present—and the president of the National Farmers' Union of a joint MAFF/NFU initiative to highlight the benefits of collaborative marketing to our primary producers. Through that approach and better marketing our producers can offer the scale, quality and consistency of supply required by major buyers. Collaborative marketing means producers achieving economies of scale, having recourse to professional marketing, technical and administrative assistance, strengthening their negotiating ability, which is important given the forces against them, and improving supply chain communication. The Government fully agree with the NFU that that is the best way forward for many of our farmers. They must come together and market their produce better. They have a very good story to tell.
1450
I advise my noble friend Lord Grantchester that we must ensure that the labelling indicates whether something really is British. While indicating that a product is British, we must tell the story behind that and say that being British means that it is of better quality and is superior. Retailers, as well as consumers, ought to pay more for that because they are getting a better bargain.
If we can bring this together, it is the kind of initiative that will not only help the producers but everybody in the food chain including the consumer. I am delighted at the initiative of the National Farmers Union in that respect. This can only be of tremendous benefit to producers and consumers alike. I believe this is the way forward. We must wait for the report. I cannot anticipate what it will say—nor indeed would noble Lords wish me to—but I think it is right that we have this initiative.
It is also right, as has been recognised tonight in different reports, that the supermarkets do not agree with what is being said. They say, rightly, that they have to pay not only the price to the producer but other charges, including cutting of meats, transport and so forth. We are not entering into the argument here, but we say that the producers should have a fair bargain in return for all their hard work. Bringing the two together is a good thing. Better marketing must lead forward. That will benefit us, not only in this country but overseas.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, once again for initiating the debate. It is taking place at the right time. I hope that all sides of the industry—producers and retailers—will take note of it and that it is also noted by the OFT which is preparing the report. It can have done nothing but good.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before ten o'clock.