Lords Sitting of 14 January 1998

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

Aircraft Safety: Passageway Width
Lord Gainford Lord Gainford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will implement the proposal made by the Civil Aviation Authority in 1989 that the gap width in aircraft bulkheads leading to floor level exits be increased from the present minimum of twenty inches to thirty inches minimum.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman):My Lords, following the accident at Manchester Airport in 1985, the Civil Aviation Authority commissioned a study into the effect of cabin configuration on aircraft evacuation. This study concluded, among other things, that the minimum width for passageways between floor to ceiling rigid structures, such as galleys, should be 30 inches.
The Joint Aviation Authorities developed proposals based on this study and published an advance notice of proposed amendment in October 1996, inviting comments on the economic impact of a proposal to increase the minimum bulkhead width to 30 inches. These comments are now being assessed and we expect a decision from the JAA later this year.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that most encouraging Answer. As regards the Written Question which the noble Baroness answered last year, which was reported in Hansard, about Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome and the necessity for safety in transport, should there be any difficulty following these recommendations is it not possible for the British aviation industry to act unilaterally to make British airliners the safest in the world, as I hope they always are?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as regards unilateral action, I understand the frustration experienced while the JAA has been making progress on this particular recommendation. However, the advantages of having European-wide standards are so great that it is important that we take this issue forward, if at all possible, at a European level. As I said in my original Answer, some progress is being made. The broader issue of aviation safety is one of the factors on which we hope to take action during the UK presidency. We hope to strengthen the structure at European level for dealing with safety issues.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the European dimension. Is there
1048
anything that Ministers can do in the European Civil Aviation Conference—which, unlike the JAA, is a government-level conference—to promote the endeavours of the Civil Aviation Authority in the JAA'? Some people regard this as very important.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, some issues are being dealt with in the approach that is being developed in adopting joint aviation requirements through the JAA process. The activities during the UK presidency to which I alluded include looking at the suggestion that the JAA should be replaced by a stronger treaty-based European aviation safety agency, which in due course would cover all aspects of aviation safety, including ATS and aerodromes. I hope that we can make some progress on that.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, first, can the Minister say what reaction, if any, there has been from the Federal Aviation Administration to this proposal? Obviously, with America at the forefront of civil aviation, it is very important that we should be aware of their views on this. Secondly, I was pleased to hear what the noble Baroness said about aviation safety. Can she confirm that, although aviation is very safe, it is far more dangerous than eating beef on the bone? Therefore, can we be assured that the Government have no plans to ban civil aviation?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I believe that there will be opportunities for pursuing that particular line of argument later in the day in your Lordships' House. As regards the FAA, the noble Lord is right to point out that aviation is not only a European but an international issue. The FAA of the United States has no current proposals to increase the width of its aircraft's passageways. However, the JAA will ask the FAA to consider the adoption of its proposals as part of the general harmonisation process on this issue.

Genetically Modified Crops
2.41 p.m.
Lord Evans of Parkside Lord Evans of Parkside asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to allow genetically modified crops to be grown in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, genetically modified crops are currently being grown on a small scale for experimental purposes and for seed production. They are controlled by a strict regulatory regime. They may only be planted with the explicit consent of the Secretary of State or if marketing approval has been granted by another member state in accordance with the European Community directive on releases of genetically modified organisms. Some genetically modified crops are currently undergoing official testing before they can be placed on the UK national list of seed varieties.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does she agree that,

1049
following recent bad experiences which consumers have had with such things as BSE, E-coli and salmonella, there is considerable doubt and confusion in the public mind as regards which modern foodstuffs are safe to consume? Does she further accept that multinational companies like Monsanto, which is demanding the right to produce commercially genetically modified crops, are adding to that confusion? Does the Minister also agree that no licences to grow genetically modified crops in the United Kingdom on a commercial scale should be granted until there has been a full, scientific and public inquiry into all possible aspects of this particular phenomenon?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is absolutely right that we take a very strict and considered regulatory approach to this issue. The regime in place ensures that that is done and that releases take place only if there has been very strict assessment of the scientific effects. There is some confusion in the minds of consumers, however, and obviously a great deal of anxiety, some of which will, I hope, be allayed by proposals about which your Lordships will hear later in the day. The use of foods from genetically modified crops is strictly controlled by the EU novel foods regulation which came into force last year. It specifies mandatory controls on the pre-market safety assessment of all novel foods and includes an examination of labelling requirements. I believe that better labelling and better transparency will both reassure and give more choice to consumers.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the cat has already been let out of the bag in that vast quantities of soya products are imported from the United States of America and we cannot prevent genetically modified materials being incorporated in such products?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Earl is absolutely right that applications for marketing of genetically modified soya and maize have been approved through the EU regulatory framework, the view of member states being that safety was not compromised. As the noble Earl is aware, the US is far in advance of the United Kingdom and Europe in this area. We recognise the concern, but the assessment was carried out on the grounds of safety. We are also looking at how monitoring and labelling can be improved in the future.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, am I correct in thinking that there is still no test which can prove whether or not a crop has been genetically modified?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am not sure that I am totally confident about giving a "yes" or a "no" answer to the noble Baroness. However, I know that before any genetically modified crop can be tested, developed, released or marketed in this country, it has
1050
to go through the approval process. I am sure that the noble Baroness will forgive me if I undertake to write to her on her direct and specific question.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is another side to this question? Does she agree that the genetic modification of crops may be extremely important to certain third-world countries where starvation is often rampant? Would it not be ill-advised to start placing restrictions upon such research until we are sure that the ill effects outweigh the advantages?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord points out—rightly, I believe—the basis on which the Government and Europe have taken the position they have. There has to be scrutiny on safety grounds and there has to be regulation. However, we must also recognise that there are potentially enormous benefits from the development of such technology, including effective pest control with a reduced use of insecticides, an improved crop yield and in terms of the production of pharmaceuticals and other products which may save lives. They could have applications in both the developing world and the developed world and it would be wrong to rule them out completely.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's earlier comment about labouring—I mean "labelling"; indeed, I am not sure whether "labouring" is a word much known on the Benches opposite at the moment—does the noble Baroness believe that it is realistic to require food processors and producers to segregate genetically modified and non-genetically modified crops? If so, what advice has the Government been given to make them believe that it is realistic to make such a requirement in relation to, for example, soya beans?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as I said earlier, food labelling is important so that people can be well aware of exactly what they are buying. As the noble Baroness pointed out, it is important that we recognise that large percentages of crops in America come from genetically modified seed. It is therefore difficult to ensure that something is completely free of genetically modified material. In those circumstances, we must ensure that the labelling reflects that position. During our presidency of the European Union we shall be looking at ways to improve European directives on the issue. Our proposals are likely to include a requirement for mandatory monitoring and labelling, and increased transparency, for consumers.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that those genetically modified products which are being imported at the moment are completely harmless?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, that is certainly the scientific advice on which the consents for importation were based.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, can the Minister give any indication of the experiences in America with genetically modified foods, since presumably they are consuming the very stuff that they send to us?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I have asked myself the same question and, as I understand it, there have

1051
been no adverse consequences to lead the Americans to retreat from the course they have taken in developing such products for growth and for use in food production. Indeed, some of the evidence from the experience in America fed into the decisions taken by the European Union on the issue.

"Marchioness" Sinking: Public Inquiry Proposal
2.50 p.m.
Lord Spens Lord Spens asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why there has not been an independent public inquiry into the "Marchioness"/"Bowbelle" disaster, contrary to the undertaking given by the Deputy Prime Minister in August 1991, when in opposition.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Baroness said on the previous Question that we were not labouring on this side of the House. We are reviewing the case for ordering a public inquiry into the disaster very carefully. Under the terms of the merchant shipping Acts we have to justify the case for a formal investigation on the grounds that there is new and important evidence which calls into question the conclusions of previous investigations. In addition we are considering the suggestion of the Marchioness Action Group that a wider public inquiry should be held to look at all aspects of the incident, including procedures at inquests and criminal prosecutions.
Lord Spens: My Lords, this is a bit of a nonsense, is it not? On the one hand, there is an unconditional, unequivocal undertaking and on the other hand a number of hurdles keep being put up in front of the Marchioness Action Group. Is the Minister aware that the latest request from the Department of Transport is that witnesses who have already given copious witness statements should come along and be interviewed personally by departmental officials? Is she aware that the witnesses are not prepared to do that because they are concerned about their jobs and what the officials will do to their witness statements? Can the Government provide an unequivocal response that they will hold an inquiry in accordance with their original undertaking?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I believe that those who look at the position carefully will recognise that it has changed considerably from 1991 when that particular statement was made. Since the undertaking several important developments have taken place. In December 1991 the Hayes Inquiry into river safety was commissioned. Its report was published in 1992. Twenty-two recommendations were made, all but one of which have been implemented. In 1994 the Court of Appeal ordered that inquests into the deaths of the victims should be remitted to a different coroner for a fresh decision. That happened. In April 1995 the jury returned its verdict of unlawful killing and further safety recommendations were made.
We are assessing very carefully the case for a public inquiry but it must be done on the basis of what we know now. It is important, given that fresh evidence
1052
must be shown, that witnesses come forward and give evidence that has not been considered previously. In trying to move the process forward we have agreed to meet the reasonable costs of the group's solicitors in helping to contact those witnesses and get statements. This is not a matter of unreasonable barriers being put up but of a proper assessment being made of whether a further investigation or inquiry would he in the public interest.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, in the aftermath of this tragic accident a number of suggestions were made that alcohol among the crew members was a contributory factor. Can my noble friend comment on why the regulations governing alcohol consumption among commercial vessel crews may be different from those governing air crews or road and rail drivers'? Is there an argument for harmonisation across all modes of transport?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I said that 21 of the 22 Hayes recommendations had been acted upon. The 22nd recommendation related to alcohol abuse. That was also a matter to which the inquest jury referred. We intend to address the issue. There are already offences relating to drunkenness on the part of the master or member of the crew of a ship. Under existing by-laws to be drunk in charge of a ship or boat is an offence. PLA launch crews are equipped with breathalyser kits and are authorised to carry out breath tests under the current by-laws. However, the Government intend to issue a consultation document shortly on applying alcohol limits and post-accident testing to mariners.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that it is rather difficult for witnesses, who have already made substantial statements in places where they have been legally recorded and received, to be asked once again, many years after the event, to search their memories for an exact account of what happened. or what they think happened, on a particular day? I am not surprised that if that is to be done in a place without legal protection—the offices of a civil servant—certain witnesses may well feel some reluctance to do so, even if it can rationally be assumed that their evidence is better today than it was all those years ago. I believe that lawyers would have certain doubts about that. When does the Minister believe that her department will reach a conclusion on the matter?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, there is a difficulty here. Under the merchant shipping Acts we must be rigorous in our assessment of whether there are justifiable grounds for opening a formal investigation. To do that we must establish that new and important evidence has been submitted to justify the opening of a formal investigation and that there are still safety lessons to be learned and applied, or that there are grounds for suspecting that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. We shall put to the Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents the evidence, when complete, for his advice as to whether it justifies reopening the MAIB's accident investigation. His recommendation will be considered

1053
by the Secretary of State before an announcement is made. I recognise what the noble Baroness says about the difficulties, but those difficulties are inherent in the length of time that this matter has taken. I believe that, to take forward the issue constructively and to make a proper assessment, witnesses should be encouraged to come forward and make their statements.

Beef on the Bone: Government Ban
2.56 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing I declare an interest as a partner in a farm with a minor involvement in beef production.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why they consider that the public, having received a suitable health warning, can make their own decisions on the danger of smoking but, given an equivalent warning, cannot make their own decisions on the alleged dangers of eating beef on the bone.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount. He asks a very relevant question about that rather aggravating feature of modern life, which I believe can be called comparative risk assessment. It seems to dog decisions about everything—decisions about how to deal with freak weather, whether we take a forward position on the World Cup and about what we drink or eat.
On serious questions of public health, this Government and others before them have taken the view that where the consumption risks are well known, or where risky activity or a substance which is risky is obvious, individuals are able to choose whether to take that risk, for example whether or not to smoke. The link between nvCJD—a really terrible disease—and bone in beef is a new and potentially extremely dangerous threat. Consumers cannot tell whether a piece of meat may be infected and the infective agent is not destroyed either by being sterilised or in the cooking process. Less than one gram of infected meat may be a fatal risk if it is eaten. Taking account of the advice of the specialist advisory committee in this area, before Christmas the Chief Medical Officer took the view that this was an unacceptable risk beyond individual choice. The Government have accepted that advice and acted to protect public health.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Does she accept that it is highly illogical? Are the Government saying that where it is known for certain that something has substantial and proven risk and the consumption of it has no benefit whatever the public shall make up its mind, but that where there is a possibility of a slight unproven risk and the substance being consumed is admirable protein necessary for human health the public cannot make up its mind? Surely, on the standards of the chief health
1054
officer he would have banned cigarettes ages ago. Therefore, why do the Government blindly follow his advice on beef and allow people to go on smoking? Does it have anything to do with the income derived by the Government and the Labour Party from smoking rather than farming?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I hesitate to reply to the final part of the noble Viscount's point. I hoped that I had made it clear, although perhaps I had not, that this was about comparative risk assessment, and that logic is difficult in that context. Many of us would agree—I certainly would—that if tobacco were introduced today it would almost certainly not have the remotest chance of being a legal product. We are talking about comparative risks over a length of time. The noble Viscount declared an interest as a meat producer. I would say to him that one of the factors has not so much to do with the area of concern with which I am primarily involved in public health, but more to do with those delicate negotiations that my right honourable and noble friends are undertaking in Europe. Had we allowed the sale of beef which was technically described as unsafe, it is unlikely that we would have made any progress in Brussels towards lifting the beef ban. That decision was made on the basis and with the support of farmers as being their top agricultural priority. Today we have seen some movement which may indicate that there is a changed position in Europe. I should not be at all surprised if the decision we made about beef on the bone were not relevant.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Minister mentioned the unacceptable risk which is beyond individual choice, does she agree that the premise upon which the Question is based is wrong in that people are inhaling other people's smoke all the time? What advice have the Government given to employers and the proprietors and operators of buildings in which people work, including the Palace of Westminster, on the dangers of the 25 per cent. increase in systemic heart disease, resulting from inhaling other people's smoke?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, we are concerned about it. It is part of the project on which my honourable friend the Minister for Public Health is engaged. She is formulating widespread action on the whole issue of smoking and public places. We are looking closely at the costs, both in human and NHS terms, of passive smoking. The White Paper which will be forthcoming with the broad anti-smoking strategy which the Government will be promoting later in the year will cover all those issues.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House and the public what is the different between a T-bone steak bought in the butchers, from which the butcher removes the bone on his counter, which the consumer takes home, and the

1055
T-bone steak which, until recently, the customer bought with the bone in it and perhaps removed in her own kitchen?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the point is the one that I tried to explain in the original Answer: we do not know how these dangerous new prions—as they are described—are transmitted, and in which part of the dorsal ganglia—again to use an elaborate technical expression—they live. The noble Baroness asked that the point be made known more widely. One of the difficulties is that we are not talking just about T-bone steaks, which, as she rightly said, are obvious and identifiable, but about bones in general. One of the points which has not been so widely understood is that when one is talking, for example, about eating in a restaurant or preparing in one's kitchen one's own stew or sauce out of bones, that might equally be a source of the infectivity which can be so fatal.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that many beef producers seem to be unaware of the fact that if the Minister of Agriculture had not taken his responsible decision, after receiving the highest level of medical advice, then the chances of the ban being removed would be slight? Does she further agree that if people wish to see beef and tobacco treated the same, then, just like every packet of cigarettes or tobacco, every piece of beef sold over the counter would have to bear the words that beef, "seriously damages your health"?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful for that advice. That may be taking the risk assessment too far. I take my noble friend's point about the way in which the decision taken before Christmas by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has made an impact in Europe. I shall re-emphasise what I said in answer to the previous question: the lifting of the ban by Europe was regarded as a top priority by farmers. Therefore it is plain that they need to make a clear assessment about where their best interests lie.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I speak as a smoker, which, alas, has not stunted my growth. Am I to understand that if I put bonemeal on my garden, and then eat the vegetables that I have grown in that bit of land, I risk getting BSE, or whatever the other awful disease is? Will the Minister please tell me what action the Government intend to take about bonemeal?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I understand that there is no risk.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the number of cases of CJD related to BSE has been only 22 since the scare began? Does she understand and realise that the public, whether she applies logic or not, does itself apply logic? It will not see the logic of banning beef on the bone, where there is virtually no risk and where no deaths have been
1056
proved, but of not banning homosexual activity between males as a result of which 9,116 people have died since 1983?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I raise again the subject of comparative risk. As my noble friend will know, because we have had both written and oral debates on this subject, what we learnt from the early stages of the HIV period of infection is relevant to today. At that stage we were widely told that far too many hysterical, over-the-top pieces of advice were being given to the public. On the basis of the full public education campaign conducted by the previous government, we now have one of the lowest rates of HIV infection in the Western world. It is certainly much lower than that of our immediate neighbours in France and Belgium. If we adopt the same position about the relative risks of CJD and eating beef on the hone, we may be equally impressive in protecting our public. There is nothing in the present regulations to suggest that, if we are successful in eliminating BSE from the British herd—that may take a number of years—this ban should be permanent.

Business
3.8 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, between today's two short debates, my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the food standards agency White Paper. I should like to take the opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined:
"to brief comments and questions for clarification".
There is a mandatory limit of 20 minutes from the end of the Minister's initial reply to the Opposition spokesmen.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, I beg to introduce a Bill to make new provision for the regulation of the processing of information relating to individuals, including the obtaining, holding, use or disclosure of such information. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Consolidation Bills: Joint Committee
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

1057
Moved, That pursuant to Standing Order 49, the following Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills:

Alexander of Tunis, E.,

Clyde, L.,

Colville of Culross, V.,

Dilhorne, V.,

Hacking, L.,

Janner of Braunstone, L.,

Mallalieu, B.,

Meston, L.,

Saville of Newdigate, L.,

Strabolgi, L.,

Wigoder, L.;

That the Committee have the power to agree with the Committee of the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out; and
That a Message be sent to the Commons to propose that the Joint Committee do meet on Wednesday 21st January at half-past four o'clock.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Press Complaints
3.9 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden rose to call attention to the case for instituting a statutory means by which complaints against abuses by the press can be resolved, possibly through an independent ombudsman service; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is not a further contribution to the debate about whether there should be a privacy law. It is about power and the misuse of that unrestricted power.
I share the widespread feeling that in recent years the amount of press intrusion into private lives has reached an unacceptable level. I am sure that I am not alone in feeling disgust at the use of bugged, intimate telephone conversations to hold up individuals to scorn and ridicule. I refer particularly to the use made of the so called "Squidgy" and "Camillagate" tapes affecting members of the Royal Family. It is revolting, but it is believed to sell newspapers.
Since the tragic death of Princess Diana, there has been some indication of an intention not to misbehave, and in that connection I commend the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, who I am pleased to see is participating in the debate, in introducing a new and tougher press code. The problem is that these admirable provisions are likely to count for little once a sensational story has been sensed. My Motion was drafted and
1058
published before the Christmas Recess. I really do wonder what the press has learnt. Would the press have bothered to entrap a young teenager in an alleged cannabis deal had his father not been a prominent politician? I believe that there was an entrapment, otherwise why were tapes used? We have to remember that the 1993 Act was introduced to protect children and young people. It is surely part of the code that the law should be upheld. If that protection does not exist when the parent or guardian is well known, because there is then a "public interest" justification, one has to ask what the code or Act are worth.
It is of course fashionable in some quarters to blame the decline in press standards on the tabloids, but in many ways "respectable" broadsheets are just as culpable; perhaps more so, because of the "holier than thou" attitude some of them adopt. Some of them, in what they claim to be investigative journalism, adopt tactics which certainly appear to breach the code and in some respects resemble those of a private KGB. There is the "demonisation" of individuals who are targeted, reliance on informers—sometimes paid, sometimes simply activated by malice—attempted entrapment, sometimes including "honey traps", surveillance, bugging, people are followed and harassed and neighbours are encouraged to gossip. And all in pursuit of "stories", the more scandalous the better.
All those tactics have been used against individuals in recent years, the excuse being that it is in the public interest. Some journalists are honest enough to admit that there are problems for individuals. In a recent article which appeared after the death of Princess Diana, when many in the media were feeling unusually contrite, a journalist writing in the Independent stated:
"The libel laws in the country are stringent, thorough and powerful…but for all practical purposes they arc not available to royals or commoners. Princesses do not stoop to sue for libel—commoners cannot afford to do so".
The article then outlines the type of costs a plaintiff is likely to be on risk for; perhaps as much as £500,000 in a defended case, which could continue for some time. The article goes on:
"Faced with these figures, which spell ruin, most ordinary people who are mistreated, misrepresented and mangled in the papers realise that they are powerless to get recompense and they creep away…Newspaper proprietors, editors, journalists and their house lawyers understand the reality of that in their bones…It is an unwritten law of much newspaper life that you can say anything you like about a person who has no money—what are they going to do about it?—but you must check every word and dilute every criticism you print about such men as Robert Maxwell, Sir James Goldsmith and Mohammed Al Fayed".
Of course, that is clearly true. Nothing was printed to the discredit of Robert Maxwell until he was dead. And as for Mohammed Al Fayed, one cannot help but contrast the press treatment of him—at least until recently—with the demonisation of the parliamentarians he is alleged to have bribed. If they were guilty, so was he, but you would not have thought so from the press reports.
It so happens that I have some knowledge of and therefore an interest in this latter affair, which became known as "Cash for Questions". I believe that it was largely a media stunt, but it had a devastating effect

1059
upon a number of people innocently caught up in it. I was, as many Members of your Lordships' House will know, a non-executive director of the lobbying and public relations firm, Ian Greer Associates, between 1991 and 1996. That was the firm at the centre of the affair. At the time I joined the board, IGA had a good reputation and a prestigious client list. Of course, my interest was properly declared. The company had members of all political parties and of none among its directors and staff.
However, in 1994 a campaign initiated by the Guardian newspaper began. It included an attempted entrapment operation and culminated in the allegation, printed on 20th October 1994, that IGA paid two named Members of the other place £2,000 a time to ask Questions in a campaign on behalf of Mr. Al Fayed. The details are well known, I believe. Proceedings for libel were commenced and then, I think unwisely, discontinued for a complex series of reasons, but certainly not because there was truth in the allegations. It was a mistake to commence proceedings and then discontinue because this gave rise to a veritable media frenzy.
It was that media frenzy in which I was caught up. It occurred during the conference of my party in 1996 when the media decided to concentrate upon me. I denied that I had been a party to any decision to bribe MPs and called for an independent inquiry. Even if there had been substance in the allegations—which there was not—they all related to a time a number of years before I became a director.
It was clear, however, that the media frenzy was an embarrassment to my party and I was therefore not surprised when I was asked to stand down from the Front Bench, which I accordingly did. The party issued a statement to the effect that I had done absolutely nothing wrong in my capacity as an IGA director, but that was not good enough for the press. What was wanted was a scandalous story and they therefore proceeded to hound me. As I left the train at Euston, I was almost knocked down by a mob of journalists and they were also laying seige to the offices of IGA where I took refuge because I did not want to go home.
The press frenzy lasted a few days. The stories were awful. I was everywhere described as "disgraced". The party's statement on my behalf was totally disregarded. Headlines screamed, "Disgraced Baroness slinks out of Blackpool under cover of darkness", as though I 'had been detected in doing something fraudulent. I went off to stay with relatives in the country to get out of the way. I was advised to say nothing; not to give interviews or to respond because that would simply prolong the story.
Friends and relatives were supportive, but some of the mud sticks: "There's no smoke without fire". People may not remember just what you are supposed to have done; simply that you have been involved in something unsavoury for which you had some responsibility. And of course it was all untrue.
We then had the inquiry under Sir Gordon Downey. He had no alternative, in the light of the documentary evidence, but to conclude that the two named Members
1060
of the other place did not receive cash from Mr. Al Fayed indirectly through IGA. So, no cash for Questions, but by that time the company had been hounded out of existence, Ian Greer had been ruined and all the staff lost their jobs. Was it in the public interest? I do not think so. It was in pursuit of a sensational story—and it did not matter what happened to the people caught up in it.
The firm was a legitimate one and had done absolutely nothing wrong and certainly nothing fraudulent. Much of the material published about it was preposterously untrue, but the "killer" allegation was "Cash for Questions" and that was shown to be false, but too late.
It was fortunate for me that I was at the end of my career rather than at the beginning. I am sure that otherwise I would have had difficulty in sustaining employment. And of course it is the modern version of the medieval stocks when alleged miscreants were put in the stocks for the populace to throw rubbish at them. There are the usual anonymous letters, and I was subjected to a rather peculiar form of continuous anonymous harassment which caused me to make a report to the police.
Those are the unlooked-for side-effects of such publicity. I was perhaps more fortunate than the two young women recently wrongly identified in the AIDS scare. One of them is reported to have had her windows broken and rubbish put through her letterbox. As I say, being pilloried in the press is the modern equivalent of the medieval stocks.
I know that nothing can be done about my case and I refer to it simply because it is based on direct personal experience. I know that there are no doubt other Members of your Lordships' House who have had hatchet jobs performed on them. I now believe that it would be very much better if alleged bribery of parliamentarians was an offence involving prosecution. That would be a great deal more fair than trial by media.
I was reminded of that just before Christmas when the Sunday newspaper I normally take ran a poll of its readership to ascertain the man and woman of the year and also the villain of the year. In view of the bad press he has had, I was not surprised that the former MP for Tatton, Neil Hamilton, featured among the villains, but it really made me wonder whether a section of the British reading public had lost its marbles to see that he apparently out-distanced in villainy none other than Saddam Hussein! Saddam Hussein was simply a runner-up in the villainy stakes. Then I realised that that helped to make my case about the extraordinary power of the media to manipulate the way in which we perceive events and people.
It would not be appropriate for me to comment much further on the Hamilton affair as it has been a matter for the other place. But I am concerned about the role of the press and there is no doubt in my mind that Hamilton was tried and found guilty by the media long before there was any inquiry. Moreover, one newspaper produced a book during the course of the inquiry with the quite specific intention of influencing the result. That confirms my view that a judicial process would be

1061
much fairer for everyone concerned, a judicial process in which all witnesses—I emphasise all witnesses—could be subjected to examination under oath and rigorous cross-examination.
To my mind at least the issue remains unresolved. I believe that others take a similar view. I was recently approached by two young television journalists who have become interested in the case. They have been working on an extremely detailed and comprehensive account which casts doubt on much of the so-called evidence and particularly calls into question the role of the Guardian newspaper in the affair; and I have a copy of the report here. It demonstrates conclusively that there are still investigative journalists who have the courage, occasionally, to challenge received opinion. I do not believe that we have heard the last of the matter.
As I said at the commencement of my speech, this is a debate about power. I do not seek to interfere with the rights of the press and, as I have indicated, I am not against investigative journalism. It has a great deal to its credit in the past. But I am concerned to achieve some form of independent redress for individuals who feel that they have been unfairly treated and consequently damaged.
I should like also to make the point very strongly that one does not sacrifice one's human rights—the right to privacy and the right not to be traduced and lied about—simply because one has opted to play a role at whatever level in public life. That should not of itself give the press the right to say what it likes in the name of public interest. Nor, as I have already made clear, is recourse to libel action a real possibility for everyone, even for someone with a public role. In many areas of life—the provision of financial services is one example, and there are others—an independent ombudsman service exists to deal with complaints. I am aware that the Press Complaints Commission exists but the presence of representatives of the press on it does not necessarily give the impression to the public of total independence.
Moreover, it seems to me that it sees its role as one of conciliation and, most importantly, it does not have the power. as some ombudsman schemes have, to award compensation. The idea of an ombudsman with powers to compensate is not new. It arose from the Calcutt Commission which reported in 1993 when there was also concern about the abuses of press power. I do not believe that there has been much, if any, improvement; quite the reverse. It is time to revisit the recommendations of Calcutt. My Lords, I beg to move For Papers.
3.22 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the whole House will he most grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this subject today. The noble Baroness has very strong views on the subject which I greatly respect. She speaks with conviction and knowledge from her experiences. I hope that she will understand why it would be somewhat difficult for me to comment in any detail on what she said in view of the position that I hold.
1062
However, I believe that there are some grave dangers associated with the ideas which she has put before your Lordships this afternoon, although they are perhaps not quite as serious as some of the dangers in relation to the proposals contained in the Human Rights Bill which is currently before the House.
There is already a body which is independent of the press and which seeks to resolve complaints; that is, the Press Complaints Commission of which I have been the independent chairman for three years. It does not rely on any statutory basis because in my view that would make it inaccessible for ordinary people. Statutory systems are legal systems and legal systems cannot produce redress without cost to ordinary people.
Cost is the crucial factor. Cost limits access, and it is easy access for ordinary people which is the greatest advantage of a voluntary system. But there are many more advantages of a voluntary system over a statutory one. To begin with, a voluntary body is not a regulatory body in the true sense of that word. Its main aim is not to punish offenders but to conciliate amicably and quickly disputes between a newspaper and an aggrieved individual. That is what is wanted by most people who complain and that simply would not happen under a legal system.
Of course, some disputes cannot be conciliated and in those circumstances there must be an adjudication. But that happens in only a handful of cases which come before the PCC each year. Most complaints can be and are resolved. Indeed, last year more were resolved than ever. Of those where there was a complaint to answer, nearly nine in 10 were resolved directly to the satisfaction of the person complaining. That is a very important and significant point.
I shall give your Lordships some further advantages of a voluntary system. In particular. it has produced a tough and effective code of practice which is framed for editors by editors and is supported by the entire newspaper industry. Again, that is an important point because it means that no editor will lightly ignore the code. That code seeks to raise standards in a number of areas—not just privacy and accuracy—and to give special protection to particularly vulnerable groups of people. Those include children, where there are very tough provisions, people being treated in hospitals, innocent friends of convicted criminals, those suffering at a time of grief or shock, victims of sexual assault, children in sex cases and intrusion into the privacy of the children of those in the public eye.
As I have already pointed out about the recent coverage of the son of the Home Secretary, the new code's rules in relation to the children of public figures worked fairly well until the law intervened. That made it impossible for self-regulation and the code to work. Obviously I must not comment on the substance of the case, but it was known widely that the identity of the boy was freely available up and down the country on the Internet. It was available also in many foreign publications. And so, not surprisingly, a judge very quickly allowed newspapers to join in. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, said at the time of the Spycatcher case in 1987:

1063
"In the contemporary world of electronics and jumbo jets, news anywhere is news everywhere".
That is even more so today, 10 years on, and underlines to me the importance of voluntary self-restraint in these matters.
The simple position is that a statutory system will not be able to protect people but it is possible—and I say possible—that a self-regulatory system might. In that recent case, the newspapers did just that until the law intervened.
The voluntary code also contains rules on the ways in which news is gathered including harassment, witness payments, long-lens photography and subterfuge. There is more to a system based on co-operation than just the code. For example, it was a voluntary agreement which produced guidelines when the National Lottery was introduced in relation to the identification of winners wishing to remain anonymous, and because the guidelines were voluntary they have not been breached. It was self-regulation which, when Prince William started school at Eton, was able to give him the same protection at school as any other child in the land. Again, it is an arrangement which has worked extremely well and no unauthorised photographs of him have, to my knowledge, appeared in the British press.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether it is true that in order to have a complaint considered seriously by the Press Complaints Commission it has to be submitted under a clause in the code which, of course, is not available to a vast number of the population?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, at the Press Complaints Commission we are required to operate under a code. Indeed, that is the only way that I believe we can seriously operate. We are only able to deal with those matters included in the code. However, that is usually not a constraint that affects people. I know that the noble Earl follows such matters very closely. I believe that he may be concerned in cases where a complaint may be made many months after the event occurred. In such cases, the commission does consider the explanation as to why the complaint was made so long after the event. In cases where the commission is satisfied that it is reasonable, it will waive the rule which states that a complaint must normally be made within one month of the publication of the offending piece of journalism. That is the procedure in such a case: and, indeed, we have adopted it on many occasions.
The voluntary agreement has also established specific guidelines in a number of special areas, such as the reporting of patients suffering from mental illness and the reporting of court cases. Each of these helps to raise standards in the press, but has only been achieved because the commission works through the co-operation of all newspapers and magazines. It is that co-operation which allows us to deal effectively with cases of harassment. Where someone is at the centre of a news story and a media scrum forms, we can act to break it up by asking editors to remove their reporters in line with the code. That is what happened in a high profile way at Dunblane. It happened at Balmoral over the
1064
summer and it frequently works for ordinary people who suddenly find themselves at the centre of a media storm. No statutory system could do that, because the actions that I take in such cases would immediately compromise me if it were a statutory proceeding where I subsequently had to adjudicate.
All that would go if there were no code and no Press Complaints Commission, and losing it is not as far fetched as it might seem. In my view, the PCC and the code would not survive the imposition of statute, which might happen if the current Human Rights Bill is made law.
There is another point. Apart from practical reasons why a self-regulatory system is preferable to statute, there is also a sound philosophical reason. The freedom of the press has been a cornerstone of our democracy since 1689. A press subjected to a legal regime would no longer be a free press, but one subject to control of courts and government. I profoundly do not want that to happen—nor. I believe, does any democrat.
But the press can be free and responsible without the need for statute through effective self-regulation based on a tough code and the commitment of all newspapers. That is what we are seeking to achieve now. It is certainly not perfect—and there is more to do—but it does work. It works to resolve disputes: nearly nine in 10 of those where there is a case to answer. It works to raise standards through its adjudications and guidelines on special issues. It works for the benefit of ordinary people, thousands of whom use our service every year without cost to them. It also works in a whole range of areas to give special protection to the vulnerable. Statute could never replace that, and its future is in real danger.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I have one point to raise with him. He has not told us what his objection is to an independent ombudsman service to which everyone could appeal whether rich or poor and which would have nothing to do with the covenant which we are now discussing. Can he enlighten us in that respect?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am very happy to give the noble Lord an explanation on that point. If we set up a statutory ombudsman, his decisions are bound to be the subject of appeal to the courts. I can assure the noble Lord that, if they want to, newspapers will run any complaint through the courts of this land. As a result, many ordinary people will not risk the chances of that happening. If I may say so, it is perhaps not very easy for those in this House who are articulate, who are able to travel the world saying what they think and are listened to, to realise that many ordinary people believe that they may lose something like a quarter of a million pounds if they are taken to the High Court as the result of an appeal by a newspaper to a statutory decision by a statutory ombudsman, and so they simply will not complain. In my judgment, that is the danger that we would face with a statutory system. I do not believe that ordinary people in this country would find that acceptable.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, why cannot the newspapers have a self-denying ordinance on

1065
themselves; namely, that if an independent ombudsman reaches a conclusion they would be willing to accept it as any ordinary individual would be?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, where there is a procedure brought before Parliament and approved by it giving newspapers the right to pursue such matters in the courts, I do not believe that it is either sensible or reasonable that they should be asked voluntarily to give up such rights just because some people believe that that would be more convenient for everyone. If this House is going to give people the right to pursue such matters through the courts then, in the appropriate circumstances, I believe that they will wish to do so. I do not believe that they should be criticised in that respect. I want to create a system where that does not happen.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I hesitate to badger the noble Lord at this stage, but can he say whether the PCC procedure depends entirely on a complaint being made? If there is a blatant case—of which there have been many—of invasion of privacy and those involved are too ignorant or too frightened to complain, does the commission just sit and do nothing?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, that is the kind of issue that I had to face when I first took up the position. In my view, if an individual does not wish to complain there is a limited amount of investigation that one can, or should, undertake against his wishes in exposing the intrusion into his privacy. Therefore, where appropriate, we certainly talk to such people and invite them to complain. Indeed, I have made a whole range of public speeches encouraging people to exercise their right to complain.
However, I initially took the view that the situation was not satisfactory. Therefore, I pointed out to members of the commission—and they agreed—that there were certain issues of public concern which should be investigated which did not necessarily involve an individual who must have a right as to whether or not he or she wished to pursue the matter through the courts. I can give your Lordships examples galore of people who publicly say, "I want to complain". However, I have then talked privately to the newspapers and I know perfectly well that they have made their public statements but that they have no intention of complaining, for very good reasons. So it is not always the fault of the newspapers.
Before I sit down I should point out to the House that I did make a change in the rules in relation to matters of public interest; for example, as regards the National Lottery. The case of the gentleman who won the lottery the first time and went off to India with his £18 million, seemed to me to be an absurd position. In that instance I was not able to give any adjudication as to whether or not the newspapers would be right to publish his name.
1066
I took the view that I should. Therefore, in certain limited cases, we do investigate matters which are not the subject of an individual complaint.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, as a former chairman of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, perhaps I may just raise a tiny matter of fact which relates to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. That commission was a statutory body. We were subject to the courts. However, at no point were we taken to the courts with the plaintiff having to bear the costs; it was taken to judicial review and the commission bore the costs. As regards a statutory body—and I served on one for five years—I should point out that there is no danger of a plaintiff facing costs in the order of a quarter of a million pounds; indeed, in my experience it never happened.
3.40 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, at long last I submit myself to the House. It is pleasant to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. She is one of the most respected Members of the House and one of the best speakers, if I am allowed to say so. Naturally, I feel tremendous sympathy with what she has been saying. She has been treated wickedly; so, incidentally, has Mr. Neil Hamilton whom I have recently come to know and like. However, that is not my immediate issue, and it is not the immediate issue today. Any sufferings I have had at the hands of the press in the past or recently, which I shall describe, are trivial compared with what the noble Baroness has been through.
It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, who is struggling to do the best he can with a hopeless case. Our enormous sympathy must go out to him. I have special sympathy for him because I read in the newspapers today that he has resigned on honourable grounds from some different body. If I may say so—I hope he does not mind—he joins a small club of those who have resigned from important positions. He may not like them all; some have resigned in rather unfavourable circumstances. When I resigned from the Cabinet, someone said, "Oh, they have shot our fox." However, I do not say that is the reason in this case with the noble Lord. I feel a great deal of sympathy for him.
When I was young I entertained journalistic ambitions. I did not last long in the world of what the late Lord Beaverbrook called the black art. I was an assistant leader writer in the 30s on the Daily Mail. I was greeted by the main leader writer, who was not anxious for me to succeed, with the words, "You must know the policy of this paper. We regard the Germans as the cruellest people in the world except the Chinese and of course the Irish", looking at me. That was my reception at the Daily Mail. I did not survive long there. I did not last much longer on the Spectator. The editor again was not keen for me to succeed for various reasons. He greeted me with the words, "Oh, we have a nice little job for you. You were at Eton, were you not? There is a story here about drunkenness at Eton. We want you to go down and investigate." I did my best but my revered headmaster greeted me with the words, "If you are being employed to blackguard your old school,

1067
that is where you and I part company." The Spectator and I soon parted company. I am not presenting myself as one who has succeeded in journalism. More recently I am bound to boast of the fact that the late Lord Beaverbrook asked me to be a leader writer on the Evening Standard. But by that time I was an Oxford don and I knew a secure job when I saw it. Therefore I did not proceed with journalism.
However, I have had enormous pleasure—as have most of us—from reading the newspapers over the years. In that sense I am a friend of theirs. However, I have come to the conclusion that something along the lines of that mentioned by the noble Baroness must be adopted. The papers are unkind about politicians, but certainly in any house of parliament we are unkind—and rightly severe at the moment—about them. Speaking generally, there is no doubt that in the eyes of most people the standard of journalism—for whatever reason—has gone down. Yet I continue to read the papers. I read the Sun every day. I do not know how many other Members of the House of Lords read it every day. I have not seen any doing so, but still. Therefore I was quick to notice a short leading article about me headed "Wrongford". That is a pretty feeble pun on my name. The article stated that I had been talking rot about Myra Hindley for 20 years. At any rate that was the gist of the article. I am not saying that it is alone in expressing that view, but that is what appeared in the Sun. I should have thought most of us would agree that one is entitled to reply to a leading article in which one is named and concentrated upon. The Sun allowed a right of reply to one of the most esteemed Members of this House, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, who had been described as one of the dirty dozen. I think most people would say that in principle if a leading article in a national paper is devoted to a person, that person is entitled to a right of reply. One may say that it should not be an absolute right because in the last resort the editor is entitled to say that the reply is unsuitable. Nevertheless the editor should give a reasoned reply as to why he cannot publish a letter.
An article appeared in the Sun one Saturday and I rang up on the Sunday. A very helpful secretary spoke to me. She was kind enough to take down over the telephone my fairly short reply. Two days later, after several attempts, I contacted the editor. I was greeted with the words, "We are not going to have you abusing our staff." I wondered what that was all about as I had had nothing but courtesy from the lady on the telephone and I could not think that I had been rude to her. I thought afterwards that perhaps something in my letter had upset him. I had said that to my certain knowledge the leader writer was a good Christian person like Myra Hindley. That may have got under his skin a little. However, if one dishes it out, one has to take it, as they say. I wrote in my letter that I would have assumed he would pay attention to the testimony of the Reverend Peter Timms, a former governor of Maidstone, and then a Methodist clergyman for many years, who had spoken up for her character more than once, and also to the testimonies of a whole series of Catholic priests,
1068
including one who had ministered to her for four years at Cookham Wood. In the letter I said I assumed that he would pay attention to those testimonies.
As the conversation went on, the editor became more and more angry. He said, "I shall not print a single word you ever write." Other people have refused to print words that I have written but they have not said that they would never do so. The editor finished with the words, "You are a pompous idiot, OK?" My reply is unsuitable for your Lordships' delicate ears as it was quite blunt. That is my experience of trying to reply to a leading article about myself in a national newspaper.
Noble Lords may wonder why I do not approach the Press Complaints Commission. The noble Lord. Lord Wakeham, will know what I am going to say now; namely, that I have had an unhappy experience of that body. That is not because of any lack of kindness on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, who has done his best to help me. However, there are great difficulties for those in a weak position. A prisoner whom I have visited regularly for a long time was grossly libelled in the News of the World. That was not due to any dishonesty on the part of the editor whom I know to he an honest man. However, he had been grossly misinformed by some journalist who has since left the paper and, I believe, is suffering some kind of breakdown. It was a total libel.
I took the matter up but it took some time to reach the Press Complaints Commission. I must be careful here as I do not wish to incriminate the noble Lord. Lord Wakeham, by suggesting that he was too friendly to me as that might be unhelpful to him. He was anxious to help but the complaint was judged to be out of time. I went to great trouble to build up the case. I was dealing with a man in custody who is not that easy to get hold of. The complaint was ruled out of time as it had not been put before the commission within a month. Therefore I do not have much confidence in the Press Complaints Commission. However, I believe that I am just about within the month and I shall send the commission a copy of Hansard tomorrow as something that I hope will be accepted as an official complaint. I shall be pleasantly surprised, however, if that is enough. One needs something stronger and firmer. I am entirely on the side of the noble Baroness in calling for firmer action to bring the worst features of the press under control.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the whole House will be exceedingly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for introducing this debate. I am sorry that there are not more speakers with experience of the press—of whom we have many in your Lordships' Chamber—who will join us in discussing this question.
It is of course conventional to thank the introducer of such a debate for what he or she has done. That may be the convention. It is particularly relevant as regards the noble Baroness. It is fairly rare, I believe, that the person introducing the debate has been so affected by the subject matter. We must all have the deepest sympathy with the noble Baroness for what she suffered from the

1069
press. She was not even accused of being guilty of some of the crimes alleged against Members of another place. But it must have been an extremely painful and difficult time for her.
A large number of Members of your Lordships' House may have suffered in a similar way from the press. On one occasion I was well and truly pilloried by Private Eye. I happened to be seeing the then Prime Minister, Sir Edward Heath, and was weeping on his shoulder. He just looked at me and said, "Once". I appreciate that many people in this House, another place and elsewhere have suffered on many occasions.
I would criticise very slightly the noble Baroness for restricting the debate to the press only. The television and other media are almost equally as guilty of intrusion and invasion of privacy as are newspapers. I speak as a journalist with 35 years on a newspaper. I come from a family which has had 142 years' service on a newspaper. It is true to say that while the newspapers have undoubtedly changed, and the emphasis of what they write has changed enormously, nevertheless there has always been concentration on scandal. In the 19th century there were many scandals which, in the terms of those days, were as hateful and opprobrious as those we see today. Certainly in the earlier part of this century, until the change of the divorce laws, many suffered deeply from reports in the newspapers.
Many innocent people are pilloried in the newspapers for their part in events where, even if they are accurately reported, the punishment does not fit the crime. In years gone by, I do not believe that the Foreign Secretary would have been blasted by dozens of newspaper pages of fact, fiction and comment about his marital and extra-marital affairs. I am sure the majority of your Lordships will sympathise with him for the way in which he has been treated, even if they do not sympathise with him for having got himself into that position in the first place.
The Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary may have problems but they do not deserve the way in which they have been treated. Numbers of more ordinary people have suffered the same, some of it deserved, much of it not. They are to be commiserated with because in most cases they did not deserve it.
That is the downside of the British press as we know it. I agree totally with my noble friend Lord Wakeham. Even with an ombudsman, there is statutory interference in the background which cannot be ignored. Statutory regulation of the press and other media has to be enforced in black and white. "Black and white and read all over" is no longer a pun relevant to modern newspapers. We are aware of many cases where the freedom of the press has been democracy's most powerful weapon. Can such and such an event be reported or not? It either can or cannot. The issue is black or white; there is no grey area where one can say, "I might or might not get away with this one".
I do not believe that Chappaquiddick or Watergate would have been reported had they occurred in France. I do not believe that the scandal of the Belgian paedophile cases would not have been exposed had they
1070
occurred in this country or the United States. Whether or not you are in government, you cannot get away with it. The newspapers and their investigative journalists will find out sooner or later. I think that most of us disapprove of leaking from government and business. Nevertheless, it has some benefit from time to time.
My noble friend Lord Wakeham has had a distinguished career as chairman of the Press Complaints Commission. There has been enormous improvements as a result of his activities. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, mentioned complaints. I congratulate him on his performance in that role. I am sorry that all his other activities do not seem to have received the same support.
The Press Complaints Commission has a code of conduct, as the noble Lord made clear. I do not know how many noble Lords have read the code of conduct. I have read it carefully to see how it could be improved. but I can see no way in which it can be improved. The problem is enforcing the code. Here I believe that there has been a change. The hysteria which accompanied the death of the Princess of Wales has had one good result: it has drawn the actions of the paparazzi and others who have offended against privacy to the attention of newspaper editors. The lack of privacy has shocked many people, including editors. As a result, I believe that newspapers will enforce their own code of conduct so that journalists do not print items such as they have in the past. This has nothing to do with the PCC's code of conduct. It is the editors who put the items in the newspapers.
However, one should not blame entirely the newspapers. So much of this activity—to some of us it is inexcusable—is what the public want to read. It is not only the tabloids which are guilty. As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, mentioned, the Guardian has been particularly guilty in some cases as regards Mr. Fayed. But the tabloids print only what the public want. If the public did not want to read about such activity they would not buy the newspapers and the papers would not print it. So the blame must not be put only on the papers—the phrase "lowest common denominator" comes frequently to mind. If, as I believe, the work of newspapers has been essential, vital and important for democracy and for straightforwardness in public and private life, it cannot be restricted by statutory activity. We must rely on self-regulation and on the adjudications of the Press Complaints Commission; and we must hope that the editors themselves will "cool it" and not print some of the terrible things which we all know they do print in the interests of their right to publish so many articles that are absolutely vital.
4 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for giving the House an opportunity to discuss the role of the press in a free society. As her powerful and deeply felt speech made clear, it is a topic of high importance, but also one of great perplexity. I think that there is general agreement, both in this House and outside, that the intrusion of the press into private lives has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished. But it is damned

1071
difficult to know how. We have to balance the need for a free press with the protection of the right to individual privacy. How that balance is struck, and how privacy is protected without interfering with the necessary functions of the press in a free society, is extremely difficult. Intrusion into the private lives of individuals, harassment and misrepresentation can cause great anguish. Private lives should remain private. On the other hand, as my noble friend Lord Burnham pointed out, investigative journalism is an essential safeguard against abuse of public power.
We on this side of the House are unconvinced of the need for or desirability of a privacy law, which is one of the remedies canvassed for this situation. Such a law would be available only to the rich and powerful (and not necessarily righteous), who would be able to pursue newspapers through the courts. Ordinary members of the public who had suffered unfair treatment at the hands of the press would be no better off. Privacy laws are quite general on the Continent of Europe, but they have very little effect. Moreover, it might be difficult to frame such a law so as to distinguish between unwarranted press intrusion and the legitimate rights and necessary inquiries of a free press.
I agree that the defamation laws are the most powerful remedies available in this country against misrepresentation. However, they are generally available only to the rich and powerful. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, mentioned a number of names. She might have included that of Sir Elton John, whom the press will now be very careful about pursuing after he was awarded £1 million. But those remedies are not readily available to most people.
So we are driven to the conclusion that a voluntary code of self-regulation, policed by a body such as the Press Complaints Commission, should be the most workable solution to the problem. My noble friend Lord Wakeham has made a powerful case for such a non-statutory body. He pointed out that it provides easy access for ordinary people; that nine out of 10 complaints are satisfactorily resolved; that it is raising standards by co-operation; and that there is a tough and effective new code of practice that has been put in place. I have examined that code, and on paper it is extremely impressive. It states that all members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest ethical and professional standards. It is designed to balance the protection of the rights of individuals with the public's right to know. But how the conduct of the press will evolve under the new, and supposedly tougher, code remains to be seen—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. I wish to repeat a question which I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, with the best will in the world, did not answer. Is it the case that if anybody wishes to make a complaint, he or she has to do so under some clause of the code? If that is the case, how on earth does the ordinary citizen know what the code is?
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. That is my understanding.
1072
Obviously, the code ought to be as widely known as possible. If an individual wants to make a complaint, as I understand it, he has to make the complaint under that code. But that is a matter of the dissemination of information. The more widely known the code is, the better it will be.
To return to my earlier remarks, the code seems to offer ample scope for interpretation. For example, subsection (i) of Clause 11, on misrepresentation, states that,
"Journalists must not generally obtain or seek to obtain information … through misrepresentation or subterfuge".
I suppose that the Daily Mirror could justify its entrapment of the Home Secretary's son by reference to Clause 11, subsection (iii):
"Subterfuge can he justified only in the public interest".
So there are escape clauses from responsible journalism which are slightly worrying.
For example, what is "a significant inaccuracy"? When is an apology "appropriate"? What is "a fair opportunity to reply"? When is a reply "reasonably called for"? Such fuzzy language is necessarily part of the system, but it makes one slightly sceptical as to the efficacy of such sanction as the new code makes available. And of course one sanction that is not included is any power of financial compensation. So we shall have to see how matters develop.
Despite the introduction of the new Press Complaints Commission code, there is a danger that we shall see the introduction of a new privacy law by the back door because of the Government's determination to incorporate into English and Scottish law the European Convention on Human Rights. Such a development would make the proposal for a statutory ombudsman irrelevant, because since Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights gives a right to privacy, the Bill providing for the incorporation of the convention, which has now reached its Committee stage in the Lords, will give anyone who is not happy with a judgment from the Press Complaints Commission a right to take his or her case to court, where it will be decided according to European law. If we go down that route, it makes a statutory ombudsman superfluous. However, I am not at all sure that we should be going down that route. Self-regulation is the best method available—though I accept that it is very leaky.
My Lords, in conclusion, we probably have to put up with a rough press. I believe it is the necessary price that has to be paid for a free society. I should not so much mind a rough press, if it were not such a trivial press. That is the main change that has taken place over my lifetime. It has become more and more trivial. It is all very well to say that this is what people want, but we do not always believe in giving people what they want. They want many things that we do not give them because of the bad effects it might have.
When I read the lead story in last Saturday's Times.
"Blair trip clouded by Cook's love life",
my reaction was: "This is a world adrift". I wondered what people would have felt had they read in The Times in 1919, "Treaty of Versailles clouded by Lloyd

1073
George's love-life", or "Cuban missile crisis derailed by Kennedy's love-life". In the past there was a convention that such matters were not discussed; that it was not the ability of leaders to lead effectively that was being impaired by their love-lives, it was press intrusion that would impair their ability to lead effectively. That convention has entirely gone. I cannot rid myself of the feeling that Mr. Blair's trip was news and Mr. Cook's love life is not news. Perhaps I am wrong; maybe Mr. Blair's trip was of no importance whatsoever and Mr. Cook's love-life is very important. I hope that I am not wrong.
I am sure that this issue will not go away. We, for our part, shall keep it under constant scrutiny.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may ask leave of the House to say to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that the code of conduct is a published document, which is very easily obtainable. It is in all public libraries and is on the Internet. No one need have any fear of being unable to know what is in it.
4.10 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is conventional to thank the proposer of a Motion for a debate of this kind for the timeliness and importance of the debate. I yield to none in paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Turner with regard to the importance of the debate. I have some problems with regard to the timeliness, to which I shall refer later, in that there has been considerable reference in the debate to the Human Rights Bill, which will have its Report stage in this House next Monday, and also to the Data Protection Bill, which was given its First Reading only an hour or so ago and will not be printed until tomorrow and is therefore not available for discussion. That is no fault of my noble friend's; she is fully entitled to have raised the issue. I pay tribute to her both for doing so and for the way in which she did so. Clearly her speech was the result of profound conviction and personal experience. I think she knows that, in a much smaller way, I have had comparable personal experiences which make me sympathise with her that much more.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Longford knows that a couple of years ago I introduced a debate in this House on the regime in prison for those sentenced to whole life imprisonment—in other words, who will never be released. I suggested that, if they were to spend their old age in prison, there should be a different regime for them. I was telephoned while I was on holiday by a journalist from the Sunday Express, who questioned me about the issue and whose questions I answered. As I heard the questions, it appeared to me that what the newspaper was interested in, above all, was Myra Hindley. I said to the journalist, on the telephone from France: "You will not say that I am arguing in favour of the release of Myra Hindley; the debate was about the regime".
What happened, my Lords? The entire front page of the Sunday Express was taken up by the headline "Labour Peer bids to free evil Hindley". When
1074
I protested, the Deputy Editor said: "Yes, of course, you are entitled to protest. We will print a reply". Three weeks later a reply appeared at the bottom of a page, somewhere between pages 16 and 19—I cannot remember exactly where—not in any way apologising for that gross misrepresentation but simply reporting that I had protested about it rather than admitting that the newspaper had done anything wrong. If anyone thinks I have no sympathy with my noble friends, they should think again, because I have.
As to the importance of the issue, the centrality of it to the existence of a democratic society has been made clear in the debate. The problem is that there are conflicting interests in a democratic society, as is made clear in the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 of the European convention says:
"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence".
Article 10 of the convention says:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression".
I shall not give the whole of the text of the European convention; that is for debate on another day. It must be clear to your Lordships that the potential for conflict between freedom of expression and privacy is what this debate and this part of the European Convention are all about. As noble Lords have said, it is central to a democratic society.
I say from the outset that this Government believe, as did the previous Government, that self-regulation is the preferable solution to the resolution of that conflict. Such conflicts will never be entirely resolved, but we must look to resolution of them. We believe that an effective self-regulation of the kind operated by the Press Complaints Commission is the right way ahead to resolve the difficulties which have been expressed this afternoon. We do so because the Press Complaints Commission's code of conduct makes it clear that its interest is in conciliation—in other words, in resolving problems—rather than in confrontation. The code covers the issue of intrusion into privacy in considerable detail, talking about the problems of persistent pursuit, defining what is meant by "private premises" and "private life"; paying particular attention to the restrictions on the press in reporting about children; being concerned with issues regarding intrusion on individuals experiencing grief and shock. The code is concerned with the issue of inaccuracy. Complaints of inaccuracy are a major part of the complaints to the Press Complaints Commission but are not covered by the European Convention on Human Rights and it would be very difficult for the issue to be covered by any law on privacy or the statutory regulation which my noble friend Lady Turner asks for. The Press Complaints Commission is concerned with the right of reply. although specifically not with compensation.
After the tragic death of Diana, Princess of Wales the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, published proposals, on 25th September last year, for a very much strengthened code. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, publicly welcomed the proposals. On the 19th December the Commission published a revised code, which unfortunately in some

1075
ways weakens some of the improvements contained in the proposals published on the 25th September. We have some difficulties with the revised code and my right honourable friend will be writing to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, about the outstanding problems.
Fundamentally, whatever the defects may be—and none of these things will ever be perfect—we believe that self-regulation is preferable to statutory regulation because it is more likely to go into the detail which is necessary to protect individuals and, above all, because it is free to the complainant, a claim which can never be made about the courts.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Government's policy of self-regulation for the industry include any penalties?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, we do not believe that if penalties or the payment of compensation were imposed, the virtues of a self-regulatory system could be maintained. If penalties were imposed and compensation were available, the freedom with which the press accepts the Press Complaints Commission and its code would be damaged, as would the ability of individuals to have their complaints considered.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for giving way. Further to what he has said, can he say whether it is a criminal offence, as opposed to a civil offence, to bug people's houses or flats? I believe that is very important.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are moving into the complicated discussions which we had on the Police Bill last year, where the power of anybody to bug people's houses or flats was very much in question. The issue is one on which I am not qualified to give a definitive answer. Though bugging of itself may not be an offence, the intrusion into a person's home to place the bugs almost certainly would be.
Why do we not believe in statutory regulation of the kind proposed by both my noble friends? This is a history which goes back more than 300 years. In peacetime there has been no executive control of the press in this country since 1696. It has been a principle of the freedom of the press on which so many of our liberties have depended that there should be no such control. Of course, that does not mean that under no circumstances and at no time there could not be any supplement to self-regulation. We had to introduce statutory controls in war time. If it were shown that self-regulation did not work, then we would have to reconsider the position. I do not believe that to be the case and I do not believe that even the dramatic examples given in the course of this debate lead to that conclusion.
One of the major problems is practicality. How would statutory regulation work? In practice it would replace self-regulation rather than complement it. As I have said, a large part of self-regulation is about problems of inaccuracy and those would be unregulated if statutory regulation were introduced. How would statutory
1076
regulation deal with the right of reply? Would it say that a full front page in the Sunday Express which was inaccurate had to be replied to by another full front page in the newspaper? Though I have complaints about the way in which my response was treated, that would not be a reasonable proposition. Above all, the problem with a statutory regulation would be that it would depend on access to the courts, and with the best will in the world neither this Government nor any other government have achieved free access to the courts for all those who wish to make use of it. That above all is why statutory regulation would be a major problem.
It is also very much a blunt instrument. Access to the courts is easier for the powerful and the rich, as has been said on a number of occasions. Statutory regulation would be much wider than a privacy law in itself, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, recognised. It would be more likely to result in the cover up of matters of great public interest, such as those referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Burnham and Lord Skidelsky. rather than in an improvement in the protection of the public.
We will be and have been accused of introducing statutory regulation by the back door through the Human Rights Bill and possibly the Data Protection Bill, though there is nothing as yet to comment on. The answer to that is given clearly by the Lord Chancellor in his speech in the Committee stage of the Human Rights Bill and in the press release which he issued after that Committee stage. He said that he had been persuaded by counsel to the Press Complaints Commission that the Press Complaints Commission was in fact a public authority within the meaning of the Bill. He went on to say,
"But, if so, this is good news for the press, because the courts will regard the Press Complaints Commission as the primary body to provide effective protection to people who suffer from press abuses. Provided, therefore, that self regulation is strong and effective the courts will not intervene with injunctions … other than in the most extreme circumstances it is consistent with the Convention to leave these difficult questions of judgment to the relevant specialist body"—
and that, in this case, is the Press Complaints Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in the Committee stage debate, said,
"I believe that the press has nothing to fear in the development of a common law right of personal privacy whether under this Bill or at common law".—[Official Report, 24/11/97; col. 778.]
I know that there will be debates next week on the Human Rights Bill and it is not competent for me to anticipate what will be said in those debates and what conclusion will result. The Government's position on this is clear. Even if, as we believe, the Press Complaints Commission is a public authority and therefore within the scope of the Bill, this is a good thing for press freedom and a good thing for self-regulation of the press.
I want to refer to one final issue before I sit down—that is, the issue of prior restraint which has not been much referred to in this debate but is still of considerable importance. If we were to introduce a system whereby it would be possible—and worse, easy—for anybody to go to the courts and obtain an injunction to prevent publication by the press, in certain circumstances that could be a restriction of the freedom

1077
of the press which would be undesirable. All I am able to say about that at this time is that the Government are aware of those dangers; they are discussing those dangers with the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his colleagues on the Press Complaints Commission. I hope that a mutually satisfactory result will be available from them.
It would have been impossible for me, in concluding this debate, to satisfy both my noble friend Lady Turner and the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. Their views on what should be done are virtually diametrically opposed. In repeating the often expressed view of the Government, I hope that I have shown that self-regulation is the better alternative; that our support for self-regulation in no way diminishes our support for strong and effective self-regulation and for the protection of individuals in our society.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—I must declare an interest as a member of the Press Complaints Commission—one matter has not been touched on and perhaps the noble Lord will comment. It arises out of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford; that is, that neither self-regulation nor statutory regulation should or can affect opinion or taste in newspaper matters.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not follow the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, in his attack on the triviality of the press, though I have sympathy with it. That is not a matter for government.
4.28 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who contributed to the debate, which has been a most interesting one. Perhaps I may say from the outset that I believe I made it clear that I was not advocating a privacy law, nor was I advocating an end to investigative journalism. On the contrary. I am in favour of investigative journalism, which has had a great deal to contribute to improvements in social reform and so forth.
I very much believe in freedom of the press. I am simply seeking redress for individuals who have been damaged as a result of the exercise of those freedoms. I was attempting to say that I did not believe, despite what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, that self-regulation had effectively provided sufficient redress and sufficient protection for people who are damaged as a result of those press freedoms. I recommended that there should be an independent ombudsman mainly because access to an independent ombudsman is free.
I was involved with ombudsman schemes through the Financial Services Act. It is true that they were part of self regulation, but that will change as a result of changes in the financial services provisions. The ombudsman schemes in those situations were able to provide compensation to people who felt they had been damaged, and they were free. It is true that an appeal against an ombudsman's decision was to the
1078
courts, but that rarely took place. Generally speaking, the ombudsman's decisions were accepted and people were satisfied that they had had justice. I was seeking a similar arrangement to apply to the press. I note that this is not likely to secure very much support from our Front Bench and therefore from the Government. However, this is by no means the end of the argument.
As I indicated in my opening speech, this is an ongoing issue. There will continue to be people who are damaged as a result of stories in the press. There will continue to be individuals who have been damaged as a result of intrusions into privacy and who will claim that they have been bugged and have suffered surveillance. They will feel that they are not getting sufficient redress under the provisions applied by the Press Complaints Commission.
As I said in my opening remarks, I think that the press complaints code is excellent, and I commended the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, because I know that he has had a great deal to do with the introduction of the code. I was glad to note from his statement that this is by no means the end of the road and that he is continuing to watch the situation. There may be changes; there may be improvements; there may even be a provision by the PCC to introduce a compensation scheme. That would be excellent. However, in the meantime, it seems to me that problems will continue to arise. Problems have arisen since I drafted my Motion before the Christmas Recess.
I emphasise once again that I do not want to interfere with the right of journalists to do their job and to perform the function which in a democratic society we wish them to perform. I accept that we have honourable and ethically minded journalists. I am reminded that when James Cameron, a journalist of shining integrity, was very young he had just secured his first job on a major daily, the Daily Mail. It was soon after the war. That newspaper ran a continuing story against a Labour Government Minister, John Strachey. Cameron knew that what the newspaper was saying was not true. He had no other job to go to and he had a young family to support. After some heart searching, he resigned his job on the Daily Mail and wrote a letter to The Times to explain why he had done so. That had the effect of scuppering that campaign of personal harassment and defamation.
One of the most important things Cameron said in his autobiography—this really made an impression on me—was that his attitude would have been the same had the newspaper for which he worked targeted Winston Churchill or Eden in the same way; in other words, people for whom he did not have political sympathy. He believed that that kind of journalism was wrong. I believe that it is wrong too, and it was because I believe it is wrong that I introduced this Motion today. I thank all those who contributed to what has been a very good debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Food Standards Agency
4.35 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Statement is as follows:
"I should like to make a Statement about our plans for a Food Standards Agency. Copies of this Statement and the White Paper will be available when I sit down. Public consultation on Professor Philip James's report on how such a body should operate demonstrated an overwhelming consensus on the need to reform the way in which food safety and standards are handled in government. There is widespread support for the principle of separating responsibility for promoting food safety from responsibility for sponsoring the food and farming industries.
"The Government have drawn up detailed proposals for the Food Standards Agency in the light of the responses to Professor James's recommendations. Those recommendations provided an excellent foundation for this White Paper. I pay tribute to Professor James for his work. Today, I am delighted to be able to present our proposals to the House, on behalf of all the UK agriculture and health Ministers, in a government White Paper, The Food Standards Agency: A Force For Change. I particularly appreciate the support of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health during the drafting of the White Paper. Thanks are also due to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who chaired the Committee.
"These proposals are genuinely radical and modernising. They are part of the wider process of reform which we are driving forward across the whole spectrum of government. They are very much in tune with our core objective of making government more open and accountable as the basis for public trust in public services and institutions.
"Every family and individual in the land has a direct interest in food safety and food standards. It has long been clear that thorough-going reform of the government machinery for handling these issues is needed if public confidence is to be properly restored. We have quickly grasped this challenge. We have already made important changes to the way in which food safety and standards are tackled during the eight months since we took office. We have ensured that my department and that of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health work effectively as a team together with our colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We have significantly increased the amount and quality of information which we make public.
"Our proposals for the Food Standards Agency highlight our plans to strengthen and make transparent how government deal with these vital matters. They represent a radical approach in which
1080
the clear priority is to protect public health. The agency will be a powerful new body, able to publish its advice to Ministers, free of vested interests and able to act clearly and decisively at all stages of the food chain. It will be directed by a group of independent commissioners, who will provide an authoritative and wide range of expertise. They will work together in the public interest to lead an agency which promotes the supply of food that meets the standards consumers expect and ensures that people have the information they need to make proper choices for themselves about the food they eat. Consumers will rightly always decide for themselves about their diet. The agency will aim to help people who want to be healthier to choose a suitable diet; it will not tell people what they must eat.
"Every business from the farm, the small shopkeeper to the largest supermarket has a direct interest, too, in ensuring confidence in food. They will gain from an agency which, because it is able to deal effectively with genuine food safety problems in order to protect consumers, will also have the credibility to reassure consumers when risks have been misrepresented or overblown.
"The agency's functions will include formulation of policy advice, preparation of draft legislation, negotiation in the EU and other international bodies. research, surveillance, public information and the monitoring of food law enforcement. Its remit will extend across the whole food chain. Where it does not have full operational responsibility, in aspects of farming practices, it will have powers to intervene if it considers that the action taken by other bodies, including the Ministry of Agriculture, does not provide sufficient safeguards for the human food chain. The Meat Hygiene Service will report to the agency rather than to agriculture Ministers.
"The agency will be able to draw on the expertise of the network of independent scientific advisory committees, including a new advisory committee on animal feedingstuffs—recommended as long ago as 1992—which will advise both the agency and agriculture departments.
"By eliminating the confusion and uncertainty that have for too long surrounded the arrangements for dealing with food safety and standards issues, the agency will be able to deliver real benefits to consumers, retailers and the food industry alike. In doing so, it will need to command the confidence of all those who have an interest in its work. The agency will achieve this by adopting the best available authoritative scientific advice; by acting in a way that is open, consultative and transparent, and by ensuring that the public has access to intelligible and consistent information about risk. The guiding principles which will govern the agency's actions are set out in the White Paper and will be enshrined in the legislation that brings it into being. They will provide the framework to ensure that the agency will act responsibly and proportionately in the public interest.
"The Food Standards Agency will be fully accountable for its actions to the public and to Parliament. It will report to Parliament through health

1081
Ministers but will also work closely with the other departments of government that have an interest in its work. This will include the Ministry of Agriculture, which will retain responsibility for sponsorship of the food industry. The agency will routinely publish the basis for its advice. This will ensure that the public interest is clearly being served when policy decisions are taken and regulations proposed. The appropriate Select Committees of both Houses would of course be able to call the chair of the commission and the agency's chief executive to give evidence.
"The particular interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be fully covered. The Food Standards Agency will be responsible for advising the Government on the UK policy framework on food standards and safety matters. However, we recognise that issues of particular interest to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland arise. We therefore propose that new, independent advisory committees will be formed in each of these countries to provide a focus for Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish interests in food standards, and to advise the agency's commission and the respective Secretaries of State, or their successors from a devolved parliament or assembly. We will also establish Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish executives within the UK agency to take responsibility for the existing food safety and standards functions carried out by the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices.
"The agency will need to be properly resourced. The White Paper makes clear that the Government intend to pursue new methods of raising some of the necessary expenditure from the food sector. We intend to consult closely with all those who would be affected, including, of course, the small business sector, in drawing up our detailed proposals.
"The publication of this White Paper is the commencement of the next phase of public debate. Establishing an agency with such important, wide-ranging responsibilities is a complex process. We will again be consulting with interested parties across the food chain, to ensure that the Food Standards Agency will work effectively in practice and command respect from all those who have an interest in its work. The White Paper is being circulated widely for comment today. My right honourable friends and I look forward to discussing the way forward with all stakeholders over the coming weeks.
"The responses to this consultation will inform the drafting of the Bill to establish the agency. The draft Bill will be circulated for consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny later this year. The Bill will be brought before Parliament as soon as the legislative programme permits. In the meantime, the Government are already putting the principles by which the agency will operate into practice. We will continue to ensure that the period of transition is managed successfully. We propose in particular to begin to put into place the agency's governing body on a shadow basis at an appropriate stage in the passage of the legislation through Parliament.
1082
"Today's White Paper contains a radical, coherent, responsible set of proposals for delivering one of our most important manifesto commitments. The Food Standards Agency will constitute a force that is dedicated to working systematically and constructively with all who are involved with the supply of food to the consumer to ensure better food safety standards. The time for change is long overdue. I commend our proposals to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.44 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement which announces these important proposals for establishing a new Food Standards Agency. Let me begin by saying that we very much welcome the emphasis which the Government are placing on safeguarding the interests of consumers. There is absolutely no doubt that shortcomings in food safety, originating from all stages of the food chain, have become a source of increasing concern in recent years as is evidenced by the rising trend in reported cases of food poisoning.
The irony is that that trend has occurred at a time when technology has greatly assisted the food industry in improving standards of food hygiene and at a time when both food production and food retailing have been subject to ever-tighter regimes of regulation. As a former MAFF Minister, I know from my dealings with the food industry and the major UK retailers that for them food quality is of paramount importance. At the same time, both MAFF and the Department of Health have never been more active in promoting food safety to the consumer. Yet despite all that, throughout the UK food pathogens and in particular the prime culprits salmonella, campylobacter and e-coli 157 are continuing to cause an unacceptable incidence of human illness and even in the worst cases of death.
That is the broad background against which the Government have published their proposals. It would be quite wrong of me not to wish the new agency well in its work once it is up and running. I certainly do so. But I believe that unless the right safeguards are put in place the agency will start off with a number of serious handicaps. The first of these relates to its remit and accountability.
We are told that the agency will put consumers first. As a guiding objective that is fine, but we all know that in setting standards a balance always needs to be struck between the interests of consumers and those of the industry; between regulation and the cost of regulation; between enforcement and common sense. Where will responsibility lie for striking that balance? If it is to lie with the agency, what assurance do we have that the agency's judgment will not be unreasonably skewed towards the consumer? Yet if in the most significant areas of policy on food safety responsibility is to lie, as it has done hitherto, with Ministers, how will that situation differ from current practice? If Ministers are still to be responsible for such decision-making, what are we to make of the agency's policy of openness in being free to publish the advice that it gives to

1083
government? We are all aware that there is nothing so damaging to the food industry as a food scare, and the worst type of food scare is one which is unfounded both in science and in fact.
Openness is to he encouraged, but there is a danger in allowing an unfettered freedom to publish advice to Ministers on matters which are, in the sense I have indicated, of high public sensitivity and which bear closely on policy-making. It may well inhibit commercial organisations from disclosing information that is classified as commercial and in confidence. Can the Minister clarify that point?
Can she also clarify a related area of uncertainty; namely, the way in which the agency is to be made accountable to Parliament? If it is really to be an independent agency in much of what it does from day to day, to whom is it ultimately answerable and in what way, particularly if, as the Statement makes explicit, it has the power to overrule the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it so chooses?
The Statement makes an interesting comment at page 2 where it says that the agency will ensure,
"that people have the information they need to make proper choices for themselves about the food they eat".
I wonder what is the significance of that passage. Can the Minister say how that principle would have applied to the decision as to whether to ban beef on the bone? Who would have taken that decision? If the decision had been left to the agency it appears that an outright ban would not have occurred, but rather that consumers would have been given the information to make the necessary choices for themselves. Can the Minister comment on that?
I also believe that the agency is likely to be handicapped by public expectation. There will be a gap between what it is able to achieve and what the public expect of it. We know that approximately 44 per cent. of outbreaks of food poisoning originate from meals bought in restaurants, hotels and similar catering establishments. What control will the agency exercise over environmental health officers who are at present employed by local authorities, or will the agency's enforcement role run parallel to that of the EHOs?
By contrast, domestic catering accounts for some 17 per cent. of food poisoning outbreaks. The messages which inform consumers how to prevent food poisoning in the home cannot be repeated too often, but ultimately these are matters to which consumers themselves must attend. Despite the best efforts of MAFF and the Department of Health in running campaigns to educate the public, the incidence of food poisoning arising from inadequate storage, handling and cooking remains persistently high. Is the agency to take over that educational function from central departments? In other words, will its advisory role be an active one rather than simply reactive? In particular, will it take over the task of disseminating food hygiene education in schools?
We are told that the agency will be charged with the responsibility of giving the public information on the nutrient content of food. The Department of Health will give advice on diet and health. The Government may say that that will not in any way impinge on an
1084
individual's freedom to choose what food to eat, but the risk is that such advice may be taken in isolation; for example, advice on individual foods as opposed to on diet in the round. Nutrition is not an exact science. There is a body of scientific knowledge on nutrition, but it is not by any means comprehensive. I am worried about any proposal which extends the "nanny state". My impression is that that aspect of the White Paper does not command the support of the food industry or the retailers. I wonder whether the Minister could confirm that impression.
Finally, there is the important question of cost. There must be a doubt, in the light of what seems to me to be an inherent difficulty in separating the agency's responsibilities from those of Ministers, about whether the benefits of establishing the FSA really will outweigh the costs of doing so. What are the annual costs likely to be? Can the Minister confirm the Government's determination to maximise value for money by ensuring that the costs of administering the agency are low in relation to its overall budget? Are we to understand that, on enforcement, the agency will have the power to channel additional resources to environmental health officers? More generally, how much of the bill for the agency will industry, and hence consumers, be expected to pay? If licensing and fees are to be the order of the day, what is to stop this becoming an open-ended system of funding whatever the agency chooses to spend money on from year to year? I do not see how the system can be seen as anything other than a tax on food by the back-door. That being so, how will Parliament have control of the level of such a tax?
No doubt there is much discussion ahead of us on these important issues and I welcome the Government's decision to lay them open to wide consultation. I look forward to the Minister's reply and to our further debates on the White Paper in the months ahead.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's Statement repeating that made by her colleague in another place. Those concerned with food and its effect on health 50 or 100 years ago would have been concerned about food availability. It is a measure of how things have changed for the better in our part of the world that we can now be concerned about food safety.
It seems to my colleagues and I that there are three important elements to this matter: the questions of standards, of confidence and of responsibility. First, on the question of standards, there is a balance to be struck. There sometimes seems to be a sense in the community that standards in such matters can be absolute and that there can be complete protection from all possible vagaries. But that is not the case. One could suggest that one could protect oneself from all the vagaries of life by refusing to go outside the front-door of one's home, but the adverse consequences on one's social and intellectual development would be considerable, to say the least. We must accept that, particularly when one is a little venturesome in the matter of food, various problems may arise.

1085
Nevertheless, standards must be maintained and developed, and as things change, the existing standards may have to be made more stringent. Therefore, we welcome the notion that there should be an agency to address the question of standards. We also welcome the fact that it is to be removed from the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food because there is a sense of anxiety that there might be some temptation on the part of those who have responsibility for agriculture as an industry and for the food industry more generally to ignore some safety matters when they come to the fore.
I say that that is how people sometimes see things, but that does not necessarily mean that that is the case. In my part of the world, for example, the stringent requirements on which the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland has insisted have ensured that once the European Union accepts that a certified herd scheme will ensure that the exporting of British beef can begin again—we hope that that will be soon—it will be the farmers of Northern Ireland who will benefit most quickly. That will be exactly because our Department of Agriculture has always been so stringent with regard to the tracing of herds. That is why the public assumption that the agriculture industry and the food industry in general will be soft on the question of standards is often unfair, but people do see it in that way.
That leads me to the question of confidence, which has been so much lacking recently. That lack of confidence is not simply because there is sometimes a suspicion that people are too reticent to speak about the dangers; it arises sometimes because we are too quick to speak of the dangers. I believe that in the recent past Ministers have sometimes been so fearful of it being said that they kept things secret that they have immediately jumped to publish the latest speculation on a possible theoretical scare before there has been any demonstrable evidence. That has led to all manner of difficulties—not only to difficulties for the industry. but also to difficulties for consumers who do not know exactly how they should respond.
The idea of having independent commissioners is very welcome, as is the fact that they will not simply be moved from one ministerial department (such as agriculture) to another (such as health) because there is to be a degree of independence. That means that we shall not move simply from one pillar to another post, and it should create a degree of independence of thought.
Thirdly, there is the question of responsibility. People sometimes come to believe that the Government should solve every problem in their lives. They can come to believe that whenever a problem arises, it is because the Government or someone in responsibility has failed to do something. With regard to the incidence of food poisoning to which the noble Earl referred, the truth is that the responsibility sometimes rests with others (whether the standards agencies or those producing the food for the public), but I believe that that problem sometimes arises because people are not attentive enough to the way in which they prepare and keep food. That is why I welcome the notion that a relatively
1086
independent agency might be able not only to respond to the concerns of the agriculture and food industries, but that it may also be able to meet the health requirements. However, I hope that the Minister will agree that education has an important part to play and that the new degree of independence might help us to build relationships with that ministry.
Finally, I commend the Government on recognising that there are, and are likely to continue to be, differences in the different component parts of the United Kingdom. That has been properly recognised both in terms of the membership of the board of commissioners and in the advisory committees that are to be set up.
I strongly suggest that the Government consider whether the new body should he regarded simply as a "food standards agency" as opposed to a "food safety agency". It is not a question only of standards in terms of what the Government require and what the public agencies and the industry will observe; it is also a matter of all of us in the community being aware of food safety. We do not do the public a service if we suggest to them that the food produced for them is so safe that they do not need to pay any attention to the way in which they handle it after purchase. In that sense to say. "Ours is a 100 per cent. standard". sometimes removes from people the belief that they need to be careful how they deal with it and ensure that their food is safe not just when they get it but when they eat it.
In general terms, however, we on these Benches very much welcome and are supportive of the propositions that have come forward. We look forward to further consultation before we come to legislation.
5 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am very grateful to both the noble Lord and the noble Earl who have spoken for their broad welcome for the White Paper and its aims. I particularly welcome the points made by both speakers about the need to establish general public confidence in any arrangements flowing from the next stage of the consultation, the whole problem of openness and the points about which we had a lengthy discussion at Question Time—I do not believe that either of the speakers was present at that time—concerning the balance of risks and the need for what is colloquially called risk literacy on the part of the general public so that everyone is able to make responsible choices on the basis of balanced and good information rather than simply always relying on what they may he told or potentially instructed, which is certainly not the intention of these proposals.
I should like to address the specific points made by the noble Earl, particularly the question of accountability. If I elaborate slightly on the suggested arrangements in the White Paper I hope that that will reassure the noble Earl. Formally, the chair of the commission, who will be an independent appointee—it is clear from the White Paper that members of the commission will not be representative of any part of the food industry or any consumer group but will be appointed as individuals—will be accountable to health

1087
Ministers who in turn will be accountable to Parliament for the agency as a whole. We hope that the chairman or chairwoman of the commission will have a high public profile and take a large public role in doing precisely the kind of education and confidence building to which both speakers have referred. He or she will be responsible for answering to the public for the agency's actions, but clearly parliamentary responsibility will be through the health Minister. The agency's chief executive will be the accounting officer rather like the chief executive of the National Health Service and therefore will be accountable to Parliament for its expenditure.
The public response to the report of Professor James showed strong support for an agency that reported to democratically elected Ministers. The Government agree that it should not sit outside the boundaries of government but should have some arm's length relationship to it. I hope that noble Lords will be assured that by the nature of the appointments to the commission the agency will have a high degree of operational autonomy in its day-to-day responsibilities. I believe that that will provide a powerful guarantee of the agency's independence so that it will not become susceptible to a particularly strong lobby from one particular group of consumers or part of the industry.
The noble Earl was concerned about whether the structures as they develop would have resulted in the same decision about the ban on beef on the bone. I do not wish to repeat precisely what I said to the House at Question Time this afternoon. However, the information and advice which was given through SEAC and the Chief Medical Officer to health Ministers would follow a similar route to that followed before Christmas, but with the agency being involved. I believe that it would be somewhat theoretical to try retrospectively to forecast what the agency position might have been. Nonetheless, the arguments about relative risk and safety, or even the small degree of potential danger to the consumer which we believe results from beef on the bone, together with the other political arguments that I have advanced would have led to roughly the same decision being made, even though it might have been reached by a slightly different route.
The noble Earl asked about the role of environmental health officers under the new arrangements. They will continue to be the front line troops of enforcement, but we believe that the agency will have a very important role in enabling their work to be co-ordinated and perhaps systematised throughout the whole country. As to communications, we see the agency having an active role. There will be a communications unit within the agency with responsibility for the types of public education to which both speakers have referred. They quite rightly saw that as a major responsibility for the new agency.
The noble Earl was concerned that perhaps some of the openness about this information might be of concern particularly to retailers and other members of the food industry who might see some of that information as prejudicial to their commercial position. Although they may already be on the tapes which I have not seen, we do not yet have the precise responses of individual
1088
members of the industry to the White Paper. However. it is worth reflecting that most of the major retailers and many of those involved in industry were very enthusiastic in their response to the James Report on which so much of the White Paper is based. I hope and expect that we will see very much the same response today.
The costs are an issue. The Government believe that that is a matter on which there should be more precise consultation both during the consultation on the White Paper and in the period between the draft Bill and legislation. As I said when repeating the Statement, there will be a need for the closest possible consultation with all of the stakeholders involved.
Perhaps I may preview possible questions from noble Lords. It has been suggested in some of the media discussion prior to this White Paper that there may be an unfair burden placed on the industry if it is asked to contribute to some of the costs of regulation. It is worth looking at some of the other regulatory bodies such as Ofwat, Oftel or Ofgas. They have contributions from the industries involved to the regulatory process. Whether or not that is best established under the licensing scheme, which is one of the ideas suggested in the White Paper, is a matter that the Government hope will be very closely considered during the consultation period.
The noble Earl suggested that this might become a tax on food because costs would almost certainly be passed on. One should think of some of the reductions in cost over the past few years. As an example, one thinks of British Telecom where presumably the regulatory costs have not proved to be an intolerable burden. On a more modest scale, if one considers the costs of the licensing scheme under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, one understands that the income from fees for licensing covers 70 per cent. of the costs of that authority. I do not believe that this is a novel idea or one designed particularly to prejudice the food industry.
All of these matters are legitimate ones for further consultation. They are certainly ones on which the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture hope to work very closely with colleagues in the other departments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, for drawing attention to the proposed arrangements in the White Paper for the diversity of interests reflected in those countries. Some of this may need to be looked at again after any possible devolution legislation is passed. For the moment, I hope that both he and other noble Lords feel that the different responsibilities are adequately taken care of.
As I said at the beginning, I am grateful to both the noble Lord and the noble Earl for their general welcome for the White Paper. We believe that it represents a major step forward both in the maintenance of food safety and the greater growth in food standards throughout the country. We very much welcome the general response that has been given to it so far.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that any steps that improve food safety standards are to be very much welcomed? Does she also agree that in the past there have been far too many sensational and often unfounded stories about the dangers, and sometimes the advantages, of certain types of food? Does she accept that so often this happens because food safety is a fertile subject for certain individuals who appear to be more interested in self-publicity than the dangers of unnecessarily frightening the public? With regard to the agency and the commission, does the Minister accept that it is vital that there are people on the commission and involved with the agency who are skilled communicators and are in a position quickly—the imperative word is "quickly"—to refute some of the sillier stories about food which appear far too often'?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making those points, which are well taken. I agree with him that a far higher standard of information and safety is needed. One of the primary responsibilities, as I hope I made clear in my response to the noble Earl, is the communication strategy which the new agency will develop. There is clearly a need for responsible information to be spread widely. I hope that in the appointment of independent commissioners those skills will be some of the ones looked for. They will be there in the professionals who will staff the new communications unit which will form an important part of the work. It is also true to say that what comes out clearly from some of the evidence which has been produced recently from the Consumers' Association's survey, for example, is that at the moment the vast majority of people feel that there is inadequate sensible information upon which they can make their personal judgments and take their personal risks. That will be an important role.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I join in congratulating the Minister and her department on moving towards what I would regard is an authoritative body which may, if used rightly, do much to reduce the opportunities for creating scares and mass hysteria. We all accept that there will be a price to be paid. I share the noble Earl's view that the costs should be spread widely and not imposed solely on the producers. Is the Minister aware that there will be a warm welcome for what I shall call the ancillary bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? I hope that they will enable the Minister of Agriculture to continue to do all that he can to advance the claims of Northern Ireland, not on territorial or political grounds, but on the uniquely high standard of animal health and traceability of animals in Northern Ireland, which is not matched anywhere else in Europe.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am aware of the points made by the noble Lord. We have seen today some public indications from Brussels that there is a recognition of the high standards of hygiene in Northern Ireland, which will be addressed in the detailed regulations which are to be drawn up under the agency's
1090
provisions. As I said in repeating the Statement, we are aware that there is a diversity of interests in relation to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and that the needs of consumers and the industry within the different countries are different. That will be recognised in the organisation.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as chairman of the Parliamentary Food and Health Forum, and as a member of the National Heart Forum, I greatly welcome my noble friend's words when repeating the Statement made in another place. A body such as the FSA is something that many of us involved in public health have been suggesting and for which we have been pleading for many years. I realise that food safety. in terms of protection from the various forms of food poisoning, is high on the public agenda.
Will my noble friend reassure me that the agency will not shy away from the issue of the poor nutritional rather than the microbiological quality of the nation's diet, which is also seriously at fault? We eat too much fat, too much sugar, too much salt and too few vegetables and fruit. Careful recent research can now demonstrate that about one-third of the deaths from heart disease and cancer in the UK and many other countries is diet related. Those two diseases are the top two causes of death. Attention to the quality of our nutrition could save many more lives than could the elimination of food poisoning, which claimed only 74 lives last year, although it caused a great deal of nuisance as well. That compares with the 275,000 deaths caused by heart disease and cancer. I hope that my noble friend can assure me that the Government will stand firm against those powerful sections of the food industry which have already tried to persuade them to emasculate, if not eliminate, the important advisory role of the FSA on nutrition and nutritional standards, in addition to its food safety role from plough to plate.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, first I pay tribute to my noble friend's long and distinguished record in promoting these issues within the Palace of Westminster and outside in his role as a public health doctor. Many of the matters to which he referred are primarily still for my honourable friend and colleague the Minister for Public Health, not specifically for the FSA. The agency's job is clearly to provide authoritative information about healthy food so that consumers can make informed choices about their own consumption. It will not be charged—I must repeat this, because the noble Earl referred to the spectre of the "nanny state"—with telling people what they should eat, although it will, I hope, be able to give clear and authoritative information about what a healthy diet is.
It should be made clear that the broader responsibilities—for example, those for coronary heart disease and cancer, to which my noble friend referred—will remain the responsibility of the Department of Health. We recognise clearly the responsibility of diet within those major health problems. My noble friend will agree that nutrition is not the sole cause of cancer or coronary heart disease. So, although we need to pay

1091
great attention to nutrition when considering how to deal with them, we could not possibly say that nutrition was the sole factor contributing to those diseases.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I join in the general welcome for the new agency. The Minister said that the Meat Hygiene Service would be taken over by it. Since that service took over from the local authorities, costs have rocketed. Abattoirs and slaughterhouses are having great difficulties in surviving. Will she give some assurance that that problem will be looked at carefully by the agency and that some balance will be found between costs to the new agency and to the producers? Otherwise slaughterhouses will continue to close, jobs will he lost and inevitably the price to the consumer will rise.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct that the agency will be responsible for licensing meat plants and will take over the responsibility for the Meat Hygiene Service. It will also take responsibility for dairy hygiene enforcement work which is at the moment carried out by the agriculture departments in England and Wales.
As to the point about rising costs, one of the reasons for that is that since the Meat Hygiene Service took over the supervision and organisation of that service much more stringent, detailed and specific regulation has been supplied systematically. Those around the House who have welcomed the introduction of an overarching agency to improve standards would hope to maintain those high standards which we hope are beginning to reduce, for example, the BSE element in the human food chain.
As to the overall question of the cost of the agency, in my response to the noble Earl I did, I hope, make it clear that that is something which is still open to consultation. We do not feel that there is theoretically any reason to suppose that the industry should not make a contribution, but what that contribution should be and how it should be arranged is something which is genuinely still open for discussion.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have had a glance at the White Paper. I was pleased to see that the preparation of animal feed is to come under the new agency. There is little doubt, from the latest evidence that I have seen, that the change from batch preparation of bloodmeal and that sort of thing to a lower temperature and cheaper continuous operation has been responsible for the enormous expansion to 170,000 cases of BSE in our cattle in this country. So I welcome that.
Why is it that in this time of greatly improved hygiene people seem to be more susceptible to food poisoning? Some years ago I was in Mexico visiting farms with a Mexican government vet. After a long day, we came to a roadside stall. My mouth watered at what I saw, but he stopped me, saying, "It's all right for me; but it's all wrong for you". It appears that we should examine people's susceptibility to food poisoning.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments about the
1092
organisation of animal feedstuffs under the new arrangements. Extensive rules on the composition and labelling of animal foods already exist, many under EC legislation. The agency will have direct responsibility for developing and continuing that work. It will also have reserve powers to take action to protect the human food chain in relation to controls which are primarily related to animal health and husbandry. However, some of that will remain the responsibility of the agriculture department in the direct organisation.
The noble Lord asked about the human immune system and spoke of his experience in Mexico. Earlier this week the British Medical Association published extraordinary figures, suggesting 1 million cases of food poisoning. I speak largely anecdotally and from personal experience rather than with enormous general authority. I think food poisoning is attributable to a number of causes. Often, there is concern about the temperature level at which people keep their domestic refrigerators. There is also concern about the public's lack of ability to understand information about proper preparation. For example, I and I am sure other Members of your Lordships' House often use fast food. One must read the label carefully to know exactly how long it needs to be defrosted and cooked in order to ensure that it is safe. Incorrect use can often lead to food poisoning, even in the most organised household.
Furthermore, there is some truth in the noble Lord's example about Mexico, which I know from experience. I am sure that Mexico would not care to he called a third-world country; but in countries where domestic refrigerators and fast food are less widespread people appear to have greater immunity to some of the problems we confront, even if we go on holiday and drink the water in the hotel bathroom in a well organised city which has normal standards of hygiene. I am in no position, certainly not as an immunologist, to discuss why the human immune system appears to becomes less resistant as we become more civilised, but there must be an element of truth in that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement. I welcome the discussion that health Ministers will he accountable to Parliament for the agency, thus providing a visible sign of its independence from food producing and retailing interests. Will the agency operate in the public domain? Will its decisions and its reasons for them be made public, together with the issues raised in this House as regards health safety interests?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my noble friend is right in saying that it was a deliberate decision to make the agency accountable to Parliament through health Ministers. That will illustrate in the most public way possible its independence from some of the interests which might be more directly related to MAFF.
As regards openness, I cannot tell my noble friend because it has not been decided whether, for example, the commission will hold its meetings in public. However, its evidence and advice to Ministers will be publicly available. We must then strike a balance between information which enables and helps

1093
individuals and consumers to take responsible decisions about their own diets and behaviour and issues which might create an inappropriate food scare, such as that suggested by a noble Lord opposite. The idea that the role of the agency is to raise the level of information and public understanding about food standards is central to its function.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, the Statement refers to a coherent set of proposals. That will prove to be correct or overwise depending on how effective are the Department of Health and MAFF in working together. However, will the Minister accept that it is important that other departments are seen to work with them, too; for example, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions? We in our wisdom made it illegal to dump raw sewage into the sea and now more comes back to the land and into the food chain. That is a consequence of lack of thought for the food chain. Does the Minister agree that all departments take an interest in the affairs of the agency?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, yes. The noble Lord will find that when the Department of Health's Green Paper on the country's future public health policy is published in a few weeks precisely that integration of the different interests will be made clear. The necessity for the level of co-operation and collaboration which he describes will be set out exclusively. It is not only at Whitehall level but also at local level that we need to see cross-agency collaboration and co-operation if we are to have a general understanding of the potential risks and the action which different parts of government, both nationally and locally, can take.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, as patron of the Restaurateurs Association of Great Britain—an honorary position—perhaps I may say that the association welcomes the establishment of a food standards agency. Anything which can bring back confidence in food will be welcome by restaurateurs in this country. They have suffered more than most from the number of scares during the past few years.
The Minister will be aware that the restaurant trade and the whole of the catering industry comprises a vast number of small businesses and employs an enormous number of people. Therefore, the imposition of regulations and costs could be damaging to an industry which creates a great deal of employment. I hope that that will be recognised in the procedures.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his general welcome from the position from which he speaks. As the Statement made clear, the interests and concerns of small businesses will be explicitly addressed during the next period of consultation. We are concerned to ensure that those interests are heard.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I rise to underline the support of LACOS, of which I am the first
1094
president, for today's announcement. Perhaps I may encourage the Minister to ensure adequate consultation with the local authority associations on the issues set out in the White Paper. I wish to underline and reinforce the importance of ensuring that we use our position to encourage and foster co-operation and, more particularly, consistency of enforcement in the local authority sector.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving his authoritative support to the proposals, in particular for emphasising the role which local authorities will continue to play. Local authorities will remain the front line troops in much of the organisation. We hope that working with the new agency will provide consistent and coherent standards across the whole country. The local authorities will be involved in all consultations, which will take place in the next few months.

Environmental Technology and Services
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol rose to call attention to the need to promote Britain's environmental technology and services industry; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I must first declare a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the political advisory committee of the Environmental Industries Commission, which I have recently joined.
The term "environmental technology and services", which I shall call ETS for short, covers all those industries which deal with activities which could harm the environment; for example, air pollution control, water and waste water treatment, waste treatment, contaminated land remediation, marine pollution, energy management, noise control and many other areas. Those industries will provide one of the biggest opportunities for enterprises and technical innovation that the industrial world has yet seen.
With increasing levels of public concern about environmental quality and with an ever-increasing need for environmental protection legislation, there is plainly a considerable market for environmental technologies, and the market is expanding rapidly. That market was valued at 280 billion dollars in 1997. It is forecast to grow to 335 billion dollars by the year 2000 and to almost double again by the year 2010.
If British industry is to gain its fair share, action must be taken. Some governments, such as the German, Japanese and United States governments, now see the ETS industry as being of crucial strategic importance in the next century. They already dominate the market and have developed supportive policies on research and development funding, export promotion, tax incentives and regulation to enable them to achieve the lion's share of an increasing world market, estimated to have average growth rates of 5.5 per cent. and 8 per cent. Few business sectors can hope to achieve that rate of growth except, perhaps, those involved in information technology.
The ETS industry is already a significant generator of jobs with obvious potential for increases as markets develop. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—OECD—estimates suggest that 1,780,000 people were being employed in that field in 1995 in the United States alone and 1 million in Germany—based on German government figures.
We are competing with highly developed industries in the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Austria and the Scandinavian countries which have all benefited from a strong regulatory environment in their home markets to exploit opportunities overseas. The same is true for the United States and Japan. In world terms, the industrial countries—that is Western Europe, North America and Japan—accounted for 90 per cent. of the market in 1992 and will account for 80 per cent. of it in 2010. Clearly the potential size of the business opportunity is very substantial indeed. It is, worldwide, already bigger than the aerospace industry and the pharmaceutical industry.
At present the United Kingdom position is not satisfactory. If we examine the criteria identified in a recent European Union study, we find that the ownership of ETS patents leaves the United Kingdom only sixth in the world league with 6 per cent. as against 29 per cent. in Germany, 22 per cent. in the United States, 12 per cent. in Japan and even 7 per cent. in France.
We are a country with a proud history of scientific and engineering innovation and there is no reason to doubt the continuing abilities of our engineers and scientists. The reasons for our poor performance must lie elsewhere and I propose to spend my remaining time trying to identify those reasons and to offer possible solutions.
The United Kingdom market is moderate but significant and employs about 100,000 people. From a figure of 11 billion dollars in 1990—I use OECD figures—it is expected to rise to 28 billion dollars by the year 2000. Our markets for air pollution control equipment, water and waste water treatment equipment and land remediation services are growing steadily. We have well recognised expertise in instrumentation, marine pollution control and environmental consultancy, to name but three. But despite that, we are not achieving our share of world markets. Last year, the United States exported 14 billion dollars worth and we exported just 1 billion dollars worth and imported 500 million dollars worth. The latest Department of Trade and Industry report in 1997 states:
"While UK export growth over the period (1989-1995) appears satisfactory, the UK's main competitors have demonstrated an even stronger export performance, implying that the UK is losing ground".
Indeed, that point was made by the then Shadow Secretary of State, Mrs. Beckett, in a speech to a business and environment conference last February when she said:
"Britain's place in these growing markets is small and getting smaller. British exporters should break into these new markets and reap the economic benefits for our companies".
What is needed is joint industry/government effort to ensure that British industries are not operating at a disadvantage compared with their competitors. For example, the German Government have a foreign aid programme with environmental aid accounting for more than 25 per cent., on 1993 figures, and I understand that it has risen since then, and in 1994, they offered 4.3 billion deutschmarks in low-interest loans for environmental investments. In 1994, the Japanese Government had a 52 billion yen R&D programme and 18 per cent. tax incentives for investment in pollution abatement equipment. The United States Government had similar financial incentives for R&D and export and a strategy to support export for environmental industries.
But until recently, the United Kingdom Government have shown little interest in our ETS industry and little support for R&D. There have been no fiscal incentives and we have a regulatory and enforcement system which it is commonly agreed is badly in need of overhaul. There appears to have been a belief that environmental regulation costs jobs. But that view is not supported by the OECD report in 1997 which concluded that there was no such case.
There is evidence elsewhere that a strong regulatory system, properly enforced, promotes innovation and eventually employment. Therefore, our Government could stimulate the development and adoption of innovative technologies within their regulatory and enforcement regimes and should seek to identify and remove unnecessary barriers to innovation.
The Government could tackle the failure of many local authorities to enforce the local authority air pollution control regime. I know that some local authorities are doing that, and I am happy to say that my authority of Cambridge is one of them, but many others have not taken any action. Moreover, the Government could stiffen the resolve of the Environment Agency to enforce industrial water pollution control discharge consents.
I have been particularly disappointed by further delays in establishing a regulatory regime to deal with contaminated land. That is something in which I have taken a particular interest. It seems that we delay constantly on any action on contaminated land. I have been disappointed too by the postponement of deadlines for volatile organic compound emissions.
Recently I received a letter from B&Q, which your Lordships will know is a retailer of some size, which is introducing its own policy to label its products which contain VOCs in order to guide customers on their use. It seems to me rather sad that that initiative should be taken by a retailer but is not followed up by the Government.
I believe that the wrong signals are being sent, not only to polluters but also to would-be investors and innovators in the ETS industry. It is important to encourage mainstream industries to invest in environmental technologies. Such investment can lead to actual savings for some industries where pollution is often the result of inefficient processing and wasteful resource management. There is of course a need to

1097
establish credible performance data, to acquire venues to test pilot-scale and demonstration scale innovative techniques. The most effective way of encouraging industrial involvement at the beginning is probably by tax allowances. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether any thought has been given to this particular incentive, which seems to have worked so well in other countries?
Perhaps, above all, there is a need for a supportive research and development policy. ETS-related R&D must become a central mission of the research councils. Private investors, particularly in this country, are reluctant to back environmental technologies until quite late in the development phase. Government should be prepared to increase funding for selective technologies which are relevant to critical environment needs, but which require financial support for timely success. Obviously there will be a need for a verification programme to evaluate claims and a suitable regime will need to be established, but with a sense of urgency.
Finally, exports must be vigorously encouraged. There are hopeful signs. The Joint Environmental Markets Unit (JEMU), about which I understand the noble Lord, Lord Wade, who is to speak next, knows a great deal—and no doubt he will tell us more in that respect—has published a draft action plan for green industries. Although it does not match the strategies of some other countries, it is a major step forward.
I am encouraged, too, by the support of government Ministers for the establishment of the Export Services Company of the Environmental Industries Commission, which was recently launched. Many of our environment technology companies are small enterprises which, by themselves, have difficulty in collecting information or making an impact either nationally or internationally.
The Environmental Industries Commission represents a considerable number of such companies—well over 200 making it the largest umbrella organisation in the industry. The initiative is a valuable tool for disseminating information and expertise. But it could operate even more effectively against a more positive and sympathetic background of government support and encouragement for the commission itself.
I look forward to hearing a positive response from my noble friend the Minister. In terms of economic benefits, employment targets and environmental commitments, this must be one of the most important and urgent subjects for the Government to address. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for raising the issue today. Like her, I believe that there are enormous opportunities for the environmental technology industry to improve business in this country, particularly in the export field. Indeed, I very much support what the noble Baroness said.
Like the noble Baroness, I should declare an interest in two respects. First, I am chairman of a non-profit-making organisation called NIMTECH in the
1098
north-west of England which, among other projects, operates one which is involved specifically in developing environmental technology and techniques in a number of companies to which I shall refer later. Secondly, as the noble Baroness said, I recently led a delegation of UK environmental technology industries to Singapore for JEMU—that is, the Joint Environmental Markets Unit of the DTI. We were able to take some 30 companies from this country to a special exhibition with a range of technologies, but especially environmental technologies.
At that event we were able to meet a number of major Singaporean companies. We were able to make a presentation to many smaller companies and organisations which had come from the whole of South-East Asia to see us and listen to us; and, we hope, we were able to promote very strongly the enormous skills of and benefits of using companies from the UK.
I should like to take this opportunity to say that I was enormously impressed by the people who run JEMU from the DTI. They are obviously enthusiastic and efficient in what they do; indeed, they are doing a great job for industry in this country.
I should like to follow on from that by referring to the project in which I am involved in the north-west. Under objective 1 and objective 2 funding we have developed a project which will affect about 80 companies. We have divided them into various sectors as regards the various parts of industry. Through that project support we have been able to undertake an investigation into those organisations—that is. each company—and advise them on how they might improve their environmental techniques. That advice may concern their surroundings, the product that they make or even the technique that they use in its making. Alternatively it may relate to the services that they provide to their employees. However, it is in some way related to improving environmental techniques for those companies.
We have not as yet reached the result stage in that process hut, when asked to examine closely their environmental techniques, it is quite fascinating and interesting to note just how many companies, even very successful ones, will know a great deal about the cost of their services and raw materials and the utilities that they use in that respect, while knowing hardly anything about the quantities involved. It is difficult to manage something if you have not measured it. There is a tremendous opportunity for many UK companies to look much more closely at the use of such services and their various inputs and form a clear view on how they can reduce them.
Once companies start to review such matters and certain issues come to light as a result of such advice—this does not apply just to companies in the UK but to those throughout Europe—it is clear that tremendous savings can be made. That leads me to the point with which the noble Baroness began her speech; namely. that we should focus on the drivers who are creating the opportunities for industry and those which develop around the world. The noble Baroness is quite right to say that the first main driver has been government

1099
regulation. Indeed, that has forced companies to move in a certain direction as regards the technologies and industrial support which enable them to achieve those standards.
It is interesting to observe how even consumer pressure is now making companies think about the environmental issues which they must address in their own companies so as to make their products more attractive. Quite clearly, the discussion that we had earlier on the Food Standards Agency revealed the fact that that will be another body through which consumers may again bring pressure on suppliers to look more closely at the quality and standards of the goods that they are offering to the public. Therefore, certainly in the Western world, the consumer has now become a major driver in making companies look more closely at the quality and the environmental techniques of their products.
The next interesting stage is the fact that business itself is now becoming a driver in improving its environmental approach. It is starting to realise the commercial benefits which can come from looking much more closely at how the job is done. I suppose that it is very much a factor of having to become more efficient in a more competitive world and of bringing down prices, while improving quality on a continuous basis. Therefore, you have to ensure that all aspects of your business are being run as efficiently as possible. Quite clearly, many matters relating to environmental technology make a big impact; for example, the savings as regards pollution. If you can remove from products that which is just going up into the sky, you can save money. Moreover, if cleaner water can be used, the cost of piping, and so on, will be reduced.
One of the companies with which we are involved in the north-west, under the project to which I referred earlier, is a sweet manufacturer. When we considered the environmental issues which surrounded it, it emerged that there was an enormous build-up of sugar on the pipes as the malt and sugar were driven round the machinery which eventually produced the sweets. It was discovered that the build-up was costing that company some £20,000 per annum. The environmental solution that kept the pipes cleaner saved the company some £20,000 a year in lost sugar. That is one of the many examples of direct benefits that business is now experiencing.
In Singapore we met representatives from a number of South-East Asian countries. The social and economic position of those countries is different to that of the West. We must bear in mind that some 1.2 billion people in the world today are poor and undernourished. A large proportion of them are starving to death at this moment. Clearly the leaders of certain countries in South America, Africa, the Far East and South-East Asia are dedicated to improving their economies to bring more wealth and prosperity to those extremely poor people. I believe that is the right thing for them to do. However, their attitudes towards economic growth, development and the use of energy resources now engender great criticism in the West. We argue that if we can make savings in this area, those countries should also do so. I believe that we should take a much more balanced view of this matter. The use of environmental
1100
technology can satisfy the development of those countries and the need to conserve energy. We now have ways of developing economies quite quickly and at the same time avoiding the pollution which we experienced in this country in the previous century. We can avoid the situation in central and eastern Europe and other parts of the world where high levels of economic growth have resulted in high levels of pollution.
A number of the company representatives who went to Singapore had expertise in the area of air filtering techniques. Techniques are now available which can remove some 99.9 per cent. of the polluting elements of gases which are produced as a result of certain processes. That will make an enormous difference to the environment. There are improved techniques for purifying water. Such techniques could enable many areas of the world to have clean, fresh water. Many areas of the world desperately need such clean water. I must declare an interest as I am president of the Combined Heat and Power Association. The use of energy from waste to develop combined heat and power processes is of enormous benefit. Instead of having an electricity and heat producing engine that works at 35 to 38 per cent. efficiency, one can now have an engine that works at 85 or 90 per cent. efficiency. The benefits of that are enormous. We can now offer technology to the developing world which will enable developing countries to make a great leap forward. They can develop their economies as they need to do but at the same time they can maintain environmental standards. Both UK industry and government must grasp the opportunities that will present themselves as industry in the developing world becomes more economically viable.
I refer to another hat that I wear. I apologise for referring to so many different hats. I act as part of an international business advisory council to the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation whose role it is to stimulate economies and create more economic opportunity in developing countries. UNIDO was established to work with governments of developing countries. However, governments are no longer the key to economic success in those countries. Over a period of a relatively few years economic power has shifted from governments to businesses, even in developing countries. That has created a different kind of opportunity for exporters. Now one talks business to business. Businessmen used to have to approach governments and hope that they could be persuaded to adopt projects. Now one can do business directly with other businesses in developing countries which can draw on the resources of the World Bank and other organisations and can contact those organisations in a much more direct way. Our businessmen must "get on their bikes" and get out there. If they do not get out there and make contact with people who require our products they will miss opportunities. I am delighted that JEMU and the organisation the noble Baroness is involved with are acting positively to ensure that that happens. I ask the Government to encourage such action in every possible way.
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Nicol is right to raise the issue of support for our environmental technology and services industry as we run the risk—as she pointed out—of lagging behind other countries in developing this vital business and export sector.
Two old chestnuts have rather dogged the process of improving our performance in this area. One is the thinking that environmental regulation is bad for business and the second is the thinking that environmental standards are bad news for jobs. It has been demonstrated by several countries which are ahead of us in the export race in this area that clean technology is a means of economic expansion and employment creation, and a way of saving costs which helps us to compete internationally.
As regards environmental regulation, there is international evidence that it stimulates environmental technology and services. The largest and most technologically advanced environmental markets in the world have developed in those countries which have the most comprehensive and effective environmental regulations. I refer to Germany, Japan, some of the Scandinavian countries and, in some respects, the United States of America. Wise regulation, which I shall discuss later, has driven that.
As I have said, it is an old chestnut that environmental standards get in the way of jobs and that compliance with environmental regulations creates additional costs that are bad for employment. I believe that the opposite is true. Compliance with environmental regulations constitutes only a small proportion of overall costs even in the most polluting industries such as chemicals, petroleum, pulp and paper and metals. Those costs as a proportion are too small by far to cause job losses. As I have said, the opposite is true. There is considerable scope for job creation in the growing environmental technology and services industry. However, environmental standards and regulations have undoubtedly had an impact on some of the extremely outmoded and dirty industries. I believe that the Government have a role to play in the economy in managing the transition from those industries to the more modern industries that will create growth and employment.
I do not believe one can make the case that maintaining environmental standards increases costs. In many cases they cut costs. Clean technologies and process modifications can reduce the costs of pollution control and of waste disposal. They reduce the risk of environmental liability—that is an important and expanding area—and they enable the conservation and re-use of materials.
I conclude by asking that we do not have a knee-jerk reaction towards regulation. I was interested in the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, that we were now seeing not only regulation as the driver of these industries but also the power of the consumer and business itself. Nevertheless, regulation is still the primary driver and we must not shy away from sensible environmental regulation. By sensible, I mean
1102
regulation such as is now welcomed by the CBI, the trade union movement and individual businesses. I refer to regulation that is stable and predictable, and allows business to adapt, with sufficient time to retool to meet improving standards over time.
In trying to promote these industries we may well have a good "win-win" situation. If we can drive environmental standards up, we shall see economic growth in this fast emerging sector. We shall see the creation of employment. We shall see the reduction of costs. We shall see an improvement in our export position. It sounds like an extremely good deal to me. I urge the Government to support it in every way.
6 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we are indeed indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for bringing this subject to the public eye—if that is what one can honestly call a debate in your Lordships' House—or, rather, bringing it before Ministers and civil servants. At this stage I wish to own to the same interest as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol; I am on the political committee too.
At first sight it is difficult to see what there is to debate—to underline, yes, but to debate? There does not appear to be any opposition to the proposition that the noble Baroness puts forward, and nor should there be. We wait with enormous interest to see what comfort the Government will be able to give us to help in our endeavours.
It is common ground that the world is pressing up against its limits. The statistics produced by World Watch on the decreasing production of the essential necessities per head of the population means that there is a constant threat to our environment. And Britain is no exception so far as this threat is concerned, given that England is one of the most overpopulated countries of the world and has one of the largest and least acceptable global footprints. That means that, both globally and at home, environmental technology and services must be one of the growth industries. It follows that a Government who are keen on increasing the well-being of our environment and that of the world and on increasing our own export performance must be giving the maximum encouragement to this industry. No one, surely, disputes the need. Nevertheless, those who are promoting this industry have need of help. I remember one of your Lordships, who unfortunately is not taking part in the debate but who was immensely supportive of Adrian Wilkes and his fledgling Environmental Industries Commission, expressing the opinion that it had taken on too difficult a task. Fortunately. those fears are proving groundless thanks to the great energy put into the commission by Mr. Wilkes and his colleagues.
But one thing is still necessary. That is, as the noble Baroness pointed out, a rigid insistence on enforcement of environmental controls. One must be cruel to be kind. And this Government have shown few signs of an ability to be cruel to be powerful. There is great need to ensure that those who should obey the law and standards

1103
which have been put forward are made to do so in order to encourage our industry to produce the necessary machinery.
I underline one matter at this moment. I do not think that it has been raised by any other noble Lord. It is the necessity to produce the right kind of machinery and exports for developing countries—the need to produce intermediate and appropriate technology. Your Lordships will probably be aware of the work of Intermediate Technology (IT), a body founded by Fritz Schumacher, which produces basic and environmental technology in countries all over the world in forms that they can use. It is no use our producing large scale equipment which deals with matters in the Western world if it cannot be adapted to deal with issues arising in smaller units in the developing world.
IT has been developing special stoves and solar lanterns in Kenya, small hydro-electric projects in Nepal, small scale food processing in Peru and cycle trailers in Sri Lanka. I have just returned from Sri Lanka, where I saw the cycle trailers in use on the streets. IT has developed donkey ploughs in Sudan and peanut butter processing in Zimbabwe. Throughout the world there is need for technology which can be used where there is a large supply of labour and little capital to invest. In dealing with this extremely important matter, I hope that both the industry and the Government will apply their minds and ambitions to improving the amount of intermediate technology that can be supported and supplied to the developing world.
6.5 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, when I read that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was to introduce this debate I was delighted. Not only does she have a great enthusiasm for all matters appertaining to the environment, she also has a deep knowledge and understanding of the subject. Her speech today was informative and addressed a particular problem facing our exporters. I therefore wish to congratulate the noble Baroness on bringing this matter for debate in your Lordships' House today. It has been a fascinating debate, if somewhat short, with well-informed contributions perhaps of quality rather than quantity.
There is no doubt that the environment is high on everyone's agenda. We are all aware of the damage that can be done to whole communities by a lack of concern. This is brought home to us most graphically as we see the pictures of factory chimneys in eastern Europe belching out poisonous fumes; we watch the tempestuous weather experienced around the world in recent days; we know that more and more children appear to be suffering from asthma; and we see every day the ever-increasing number of cars on our roads, and the damage that that is doing.
Of course there are many other examples which make our minds think positively about the changes that have to be made if we are to pass a clean and pleasant land on to future generations. Public awareness is, I believe, a very important step in charting the way forward. As my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton said, I believe that the consumer is now the driver. I pay tribute to
1104
my right honourable friend Mr. John Gummer for the measures that he took, and I am pleased that the present Government are taking the matter equally seriously.
Government have a vital role to play in providing a framework and formal environmental policy for all business both large and small. This policy has to be clear and set appropriate environmental objectives. There must in addition be a thorough assessment of costs and benefits. Big business can often absorb any extra costs, but I am sure we are all aware that small and medium-sized businesses can experience difficulties in this field.
Of course many initiatives are taken worldwide, and it is essential that discussions take place with international bodies in order to develop a concerted approach to tackle the global environmental problems. Government can play their part by giving incentives to industry. These may be by taxes or tradable permits to encourage the adoption of better environmental practice.
Regulation has a role, but I feel that it should not be too heavy handed. It is not the role of Government to prescribe specific technological solutions, and of course advice must be based on sound scientific principles and a thorough assessment of costs and benefits.
Due to government initiatives over the years, the United Kingdom has gained an expertise in environmental protection and is now exporting British environmental technologies and services. Naturally most of the companies involved are small and encounter the known difficulty of competing internationally. I was most interested to read of the launch of the UK green technology export drive by the Minister of State for Industry, Mr. John Battle. I support the objectives and shall watch the development of the initiative with great care.
I hope, however, that the Government will work closely with industry, liaising with and listening to, for example, the CBI, trade associations, suppliers. regulators and, very importantly, the research community. Such discussions raise the profile of "the environment" in its widest sense. That benefits us all, and enables everyone to understand the challenge it poses. We all have to take responsibility and make our views known and acted upon.
Industry, in the main, accepts the importance of its actions. Good environmental management is purely and simply good management. We have to keep up the pressure. Debates such as this assist in that process. I therefore thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, once again.
6.10 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Nicol for tabling this Motion. I echo the praise given to my noble friend during the debate in recognition of her interest in and knowledge of the subject. Perhaps I may also echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, in recognising the contribution made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's predecessor,

1105
Mr. Gummer, whose commitment was doubted by no one. We all recognise, support and value the work he has done.
As we move closer to the millennium, it becomes even more important to concentrate not on looking back but on looking to the future. It is important to think of the industries of the future. Environmental technology and services are important now; but, as was stated by noble Lords in relation to a wide range of points, they will become even more important in the future. They are a key element in achieving sustainable development.
Noble Lords will recall that our manifesto stressed the importance of policies which combine environmental, economic and social objectives. Achieving all these objectives at the same time is what sustainable development is about. In creating wealth and jobs while protecting the environment, the environmental technology industry provides a fine example of sustainable development in action.
Since this Government came to power, we have demonstrated the impact that a government committed to the environment can have at the highest levels. The Prime Minister highlighted that at the G7 Summit in Denver in June last year and at the Earth Summit in New York immediately after. The Foreign Secretary has put the environment generally at the heart of his foreign policy. It featured as an important item on the agenda at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh. Noble Lords will be aware that the Deputy Prime Minister undertook two world tours in the lead-up to Kyoto; and at Kyoto itself the UK played a central role in ensuring a successful outcome.
The point I would make—particularly in the context of our role within the Commonwealth, though not solely in relation to the Commonwealth. in response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, regarding the importance of intermediate technology—is that we believe it applies to the identification of "appropriate" technologies in the environmental field. It means: appropriate relative to the local circumstances. Provided improvements are achieved on an incremental path, we cannot make judgments from outside as to what would be best in the context of individual circumstances.
Sustainable development, including the environment, is clearly one of the central items on today's political agenda. It is an extremely important aspect in terms of the UK's profile and the way in which it has been raised as a result of the Government's commitment in the fast-growing environmental market and to the way in which the UK can improve its success within it.
Speakers referred to different estimates that may be used to support the importance of this sector of industry. The current global market stands at about 280 billion dollars, and is estimated to be rising to over 640 billion dollars by the end of the next decade. That includes both developed and, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and other speakers remarked, developing countries, which are of increasing importance. Various figures are given, but there is absolutely no doubt that the industry itself is large and growing. Our turnover within the UK is responding well to these markets. It is
1106
some 12.3 billion dollars, including 1.2 billion dollars' worth of exports. That represents over 4 per cent. of the global market, as was remarked by the noble Lord, Lord Wade.
I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, not only for his contribution today, but also for his personal efforts. I am aware that the noble Lord participated in the recent, highly successful environmental trade mission to Singapore. As I am sure he will agree, we cannot afford to be complacent. We welcome and recognise the contribution that the noble Lord makes to work in this field.
The importance of an action plan for green industries was referred to by my noble friend Lady Young. The Labour Party's manifesto commitment highlighted the huge potential to develop Britain's environmental technology industry, to create jobs, to win exports and to protect the environment.
The Government have an interdepartmental unit, the Joint Environmental Markets Unit (JEMU), specifically to look after and promote this important sector of industry. I am sure that those who are involved in this important work will appreciate and be grateful for the very kind words of well-recognised and supported praise for their work in this unit. The Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are working closely together through JEMU to promote the success of the industries involved. JEMU's aim is to provide market information, contacts and events for the industry and to raise its profile on the world stage. It provides a focus for a whole range of government services which are available to this sector.
Within a few months of coming into office, the Government published an action plan and consultation paper to help green industries boost exports and become more competitive. We set out a number of key proposals for JEMU to develop a strategy in partnership with the industry. I stress the importance of "partnership-; the Government are well aware of, and support, the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, about the importance of working in consultation with all those involved—those who are to be regulated where the question of regulation is appropriate, as well as those involved in the industry and the production of environmental technology items in order to meet stricter controls.
In a thoughtful contribution, my noble friend Lady Young raised a question regarding regulation and how it should be handled. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, asked whether the Government are prepared to tackle the issue of industrial pollution. I assure the House that we are determined that all significant violations of environmental standards shall be dealt with vigorously; everyone in industry should understand that these rules must and shall be dealt with and respected.
The importance of the export focus of environmental technology is well understood by the Government. If Britain is to thrive and prosper, its economy must continue to keep pace with global change. The world economic scene is undergoing rapid transformation. As barriers to international trade and investment fall away,

1107
business is increasingly thinking globally and exploiting the revolutionary changes that are taking place in communications and IT.
It is important to recognise the work of the Export Forum which the Government established to assess the effectiveness of current arrangements for helping British business seize these commercial opportunities overseas. Its firm conclusion was that there continued to be a sound economic case for effective government support for export promotion, not because such activities determine Britain's export performance—ultimately that depends on the overall competitiveness of the UK economy—but because they help more UK firms take advantage of overseas business opportunities than would otherwise be the case. The forum has proposed—and indeed published—a number of specific recommendations designed to improve the effectiveness of present schemes for export assistance, and these are now being implemented.
Action by industry is also important. The Government cannot, nor should they try, to do everything. The industry must organise itself so as to be able to take advantage of the opportunities on offer. We wish to work with all concerned to ensure that we maximise the strength of the diversity in this field as well as avoid the weaknesses that fragmentation brings. Fragmentation is probably one of the most serious weaknesses and it is important that the Government work to ensure that customers do not face a difficult dialogue with a fragmented supply chain.
Companies and their representative bodies need to find innovative ways to work together across traditional boundaries to respond to increasing calls for integrated solutions to environmental problems.
My noble friend Lady Nicol raised the question of the Government's attitude towards the Environmental Industries Commission. The UK environment industry is large and diverse, with several subsectors. Some of these already have effective representative bodies. No one group or organisation can—or, I believe, does—claim to represent the whole industry comprehensively. The Government are committed to continue to work with all those bodies that can make a constructive contribution to common objectives on behalf of their members.
The Government have recently awarded a grant of over £270,000 under the Sector Challenge to a new export services company. This will help SMEs in particular—a point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe—in the environmental technology and services sector to put together the commercial response to specific market opportunities.
We also welcome efforts by leading trade associations to develop working partnerships and initiatives, such as certification schemes, which will help to raise awareness of the quality of our technology and services. This is one of the most effective things that the Government can do for the sector. We need to encourage all businesses to think ahead and to plan for a cleaner world.
The Government will shortly begin consultation on a new sustainable development strategy for the United Kingdom. I have referred to the contribution of the
1108
environmental industry. I would stress, however, that all businesses will have a key part to play in developing, but above all in implementing, the strategy. We want to encourage companies, large and small, to make sustainability a key element throughout their planning and operations.
The innovation which is needed is extremely important in order to ensure that companies which manage their environmental performance effectively can reduce their costs and gain a competitive edge in the marketplace. This has been one of the clear messages from our Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme. I am sympathetic to the point made by my noble friend Lady Nicol about the role and scope of applied engineering research. Government funding is used in a number of ways which contribute to both the UK's competitiveness and its quality of life. The Engineering and Physical Research Council's programme covering engineering for infrastructure, the environment and healthcare, worth roughly £26 million each year, addresses precisely these issues. The Natural Environment Research Council, the UK's leading body for research, survey, monitoring and training in the environmental sciences, has been allocated £165 million for the financial year 1997-98.
We also have the UK Foresight Programme which aims to bring together government, industry and researchers to define a common agenda. Its Natural Resources and Environment Panel seeks to encourage business to make more use of the scientific and technological expertise in the UK science base in order to respond positively to future environmental challenges and market opportunities.
We in the UK can be justly proud of the research which has enabled us to develop world-class engineering and technologies in the environmental field. With that credibility, combined with unquestionable growth in the global environmental market, it is our hope—and mine in particular—that young people will increasingly perceive science as a worthy career option. For too long young people have gained a perception that a career in science and engineering is a problem-creating rather than a problem-solving career. It is extremely important that we get across to young people that it is a problem-solving career.
If there are detailed points which have not been answered, I shall reply in writing. Much is happening in this field. With their ability to create employment, generate wealth and deliver solutions to some of the most pressing problems facing us all, these are clearly the industries of the future. I am grateful to have had this opportunity to set out what the Government are doing to help the UK environmental industry to achieve the reputation and success in the global markets that it deserves.
Finally, in again thanking my noble friend Lady Nicol for introducing this debate, may I say from the heart that if everyone were as committed to this subject as she is the world would be a better place for generations to come.
6.28 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, it is not usual for movers of these short debates to sum up and I do not propose to do so. It has been a strangely harmonious debate; I wish we could have this kind of exercise more often in this House. If I have any fault at all to find with what my noble friend on the Front Bench said, I would add that I am very ambitious as far as this country is concerned; I am proud of our history in technology and science and want it to continue; but it will not continue unless the rewards for those who design and innovate are sufficient. Unless the Government continue to take a positive line, we may not get our fair share of world markets, in spite of some of the comforting things that my noble friend said.
This has been a useful debate. I am extremely grateful to everyone who has taken part, and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Energy Supply
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath Lord Hardy of Wath rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to promote long-term balance in the supply of energy.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I start by saying that I have no intention of advocating the establishment of a complex bureaucratic structure devoted to energy forecasting. We cannot see what lies around the corners of history but we ought to pay a little more attention to the possibilities and threats that lie ahead. The farmer cannot precisely forecast what his harvest will be next year, but it would be a poor farmer indeed who did not consider what seeds he should plant.
It may be relevant to quote another natural illustration. In 1972 the Treasury produced a cost-benefit analysis on forestry which showed that not a single tree should be planted in Britain for commercial reasons. Three weeks later the Russians trebled their timber prices; other producers followed suit and the analysis was rendered absurd. But it had already been etched into the stone of the administration. Voices were raised in the other place; there was a debate in this House and 22 Peers expressed their anger or disapproval. Only one beleaguered Minister was left to try to rescue the Government. The Minister today does not need to feel that he needs to be rescued on this occasion; the present Government may be pursuing a wise course.
The fact remains that there are serious problems. One can illustrate that by reminding the House that a few weeks after that forestry debate OPEC exercised seller's power and we saw the more than tripling of oil prices, which had an effect which should have taught lessons—they may now have been forgotten, 20 odd years later.
For much of the post-war period coal provided the UK energy base. For part of that time Keynsian policies were pursued and the National Coal Board actually charged less for its coal than it might have done, in order
1110
to stimulate the wider economy. Even then for some years it was touch and go as to whether the need was met. Indeed, in recent years difficult situations have only been avoided by heavy lifts from stocks of coal.
By the 1950s it was recognised that the larger coalfields of Yorkshire and the Midlands would have to command priority and receive vast investment to promote the technical development which was achieved. In those areas little was done or allowed to be done to prepare for the economic diversification which technology would exercise by reducing manpower needs in the pits. From the 1950s large numbers of miners were transferred from the North East, Wales and Scotland to areas like ours. When I entered the House of Commons in 1970, hundreds of those men were working at the 12 collieries within my constituency and the other seven collieries within the South Yorkshire area of the National Coal Board. Of the 15 collieries which existed then, only one remains in the now metropolitan borough of Rotherham,—Maltby, with 40 million tonnes of reserves and recipient of vast sums of money in investment to prepare for a future. But now there is anxiety about its position and this year there may only be 250 men working there.
So, within a short time contraction of the industry has been dramatic, and that despite the huge increase in mining productivity which has been unmatched in the rest of the British industrial sector. The cost of that contraction has been enormous. The loss of income, the cost of unemployment and redundancy, the cost of environmental regeneration, the cost of bureaucratic paraphernalia which has been established to supervise the change have exercised a remarkable effect; but the social consequences may have been even more severe.
Now it seems that the contraction may continue despite the continuing increase in productivity to which I have referred. That increase has not been properly recognised. I remember three years ago Mr. Heseltine addressed the All-Party Energy Studies Group. During his address he regretted that the improvement in mining productivity had only just begun. The noble Lord, Lord Haslam—who regrets he cannot be with us tonight—expressed concern about that statement and pointed out, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, could point out, that that remarkable increase in productivity had been continuing for a very long time. It is a pity that it has been so greatly ignored.
The advance has been remarkable. But what has also been remarkable is the locking away and sterilisation of reserves. That has been incredible. The 14 collieries most recently closed had reserves locked away of 600 million tonnes—perhaps locked away forever. That is an important natural resource of which we have taken an irresponsible view. Are we to lose a lot more? The Budge collieries alone have reserves of over 2,500 million tonnes. If we question the theory of reserves upon which Mr. Macgregor pronounced while he was chairman of British Coal, there may be more then many people imagine. Mr. Macgregor refused to allow the counting of any reserves that could not be currently profitably mined. There was no account for further advances in productivity; there was no account

1111
for the eventualities of change which could occur or the need to avoid excessive import dependency. We perhaps ought to look again at the reserve question.
If the industry does not survive, even at a time when man is more eagerly scratching at this planet's surface for coal and mineral ores, we shall also see the mining engineering industry whither away. That industry has earned £1,000 million in exports over the past few years. A home base must be adequate to sustain that.
Recent contraction may largely have been affected by the nature of electricity privatisation in 1987. That may have been the starting gun for the "dash for gas". Some of us may recall that in the early 1980s British Gas had a public duty to secure the national gas supplies. To do so, it felt it necessary to purchase the Sleipner field in the Norwegian sector. There was a long delay while the Treasury concerned itself with the exchange implications that that could present and in the end the proposal was rejected. The Minister then announced that there were an additional 625 trillion cubic feet of gas in the British sector in the North Sea available to us. And there were: I would not dispute that figure. But what was never stressed was that much of that gas lies in small and distant pockets far costlier than the gas in the southern basin of the North Sea which was originally available at 2.8p a therm. Now we see the attempt to use that gas as fast as possible and hang the consequences for posterity.
People may say that there are gas reserves elsewhere. There are. There are gas reserves in Algeria, Russia and Kazakhstan. A few years ago, some of us met leading players in the gas industry and they told us how much was being invested in Kazakhstan. One of them said to me, "I hope that you will visit it. We will make the arrangements". I said that I had recently met leading Kazakhstani politicians as they were entering democracy. I did not find them stupid. They are glad to welcome our investment; they will perhaps be eager to ensure that we have a return; but they ain't about embracing Britain as the partner which most deserves to benefit from their national assets. They may be a little more careful than we have been.
The country should recognise that we are not giving an adequate response to the dependency question. That point was made repeatedly by my noble friend Lord Orme, to whose maiden speech we are looking forward. As our spokesman on these matters in the other place, he offered wise advice 10 years ago and it is a pity that it did not receive more attention.
Renewables will help. I am certainly not over-critical of renewables, but we need to be a little cautious. I remember a few years ago 1 was speaking in a debate in Europe about the energy future. A Dutch expert said that the United Kingdom should meet all its needs by the development of wind power. I pointed out that there is a place for wind power, but to reach the scale of production that he suggested we would have to have a windmill on every bit of exposed ground in the British Isles. I said that I cared for the landscape and that I did not wish to see most of the migrating birds across our country decapitated. So we need to have a sense of balance about wind power. Close to my home a field has
1112
been devoted to growing willows for energy purposes. Renewables have many advantages but the downside has not been fully explained. As the farmer who previously used the land wintered 200 ewes on it, the cost of that loss does not seem to have entered into the equation.
We should pay more attention to conservation. After all, the richer homes in Britain are warmer at a lower price than millions of poorer homes which cost more to heat but are colder. They have not enjoyed the benefits of energy conservation provision. There are employment consequences which could be seized in that regard. There is also nuclear power. I do not deny the prospect of nuclear power. However, over the postwar years Britain was often badly misled about the costs and opportunities involved. The achievements were overstated, the costs were often ignored and there was generally a hard sell approach. That was certainly demonstrated to me when I entered the other place in 1970 and attended a meeting to brief us about the nuclear industry. It soon became clear that a number of points had been brushed aside. The City clarified the position in 1987 when it stopped the previous government privatising the nuclear industry. It was not privatised until after the electricity consumer had paid heavily through the levy on his bills, a levy which in part was devoted to rewarding France for its exports to us through the cross-Channel link. I am delighted that the present Government appear to be more sensible about the matter than the previous one.
Last July I visited Chernobyl. I stood beside that awful place, looking at the sarcophagus shielding the horror which may still be leaking. I stood beside a friend, a distinguished Swiss parliamentarian and doctor, and watched his Geiger counter which was acting rather vividly. We walked through the adjoining similar power station. I did not wear an indicative badge—no one did. I always assumed that people wore those badges in such establishments. We travelled through a large exclusion zone, some of it still occupied. We drove through a city which is still empty—horribly empty—and which was built relatively recently to accommodate the people engaged at Chernobyl. 1 do not feel that international concern for this place has been sufficient. I could not bear to attend the hospital where children are cared for, and will need to be cared for, as a result of the events at that place.
In November, Professor Littlechild addressed the all-party energy studies meeting. Some noble Lords may have been present. His speech concentrated on price and the need for the benefits of competition. Perhaps his remit has been too narrow, but there was no concern for future of supply and no concern for economic eventualities. I asked questions. Some were answered. One was not. It is a question that has often been asked in recent months and needs attention today. It is claimed that the electricity provided from coal-fired stations is cheaper than that provided from many gas-fired stations and yet coal is denied an adequate share of the energy market.
That question is important, particularly given the costs if there is further contraction of coal. I wish to make it clear—a number of noble Lords will he aware

1113
of it—that I am a rather green politician. I recognise that we have to have far greater care for the environment. It is 20 years since I first called for the cleaning up of our coal-fired power station capacity. It is a pity that only two stations have been adapted. One of those is now burning petrocoke and we may well be burning orimulsion—at great cost, because it is imported. I trust that the Government will ensure that the environment is cared for. But I trust that they will also pay considerable attention to the need for a more balanced energy policy than we have seen over the past decade.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Orme: My Lords, it is 33 years since I made my maiden speech in another place. I am a refugee from that place in your Lordships' House. I wish to put on record my appreciation for the help I have received from both Members and staff. That is extremely important. It is often assumed that people who have lived at the other end of the Palace know all about this place and how it works and operates. You do not. In consequence, you have to learn about it. I am on that learning curve at the moment.
When I made my maiden speech then it was about the steel industry and British manufacturing. I felt that industry was crucial to the United Kingdom. Here we are today discussing the future of the energy industry, particularly the mining industry. I feel that the economic future of Britain is tied to the success of our economy, particularly in terms of what we produce and sell. If our economy is not successful we will not be able to sustain 55 million people on these islands. It is therefore essential that we should have a balanced energy policy. We are a nation self-sufficient in energy—more self-sufficient than most countries in the world—whether it be nuclear energy, to which my noble friend has just referred, gas or coal. These are assets for which many other nations would give their right arm. They do not have them. However, if we do not take action, we are in danger of frittering away those assets. We should have a balanced energy policy.
I was energy spokesman for the Labour Party in the other place over the period of the miners' strike in 1984. I have not said a lot since about the strike—perhaps one day I will—but this is not the occasion for it. I endeavoured along with many of my colleagues to try to reach a peaceful settlement of that dispute. We were not successful and many things flowed from that. We are paying the price today.
Following the strike and in the next Parliament I was a member of the special Trade and Industry Select Committee which dealt with energy and, in particular, the future of mining. We came forward with positive proposals to assist that industry. Despite the negative efforts of Michael Heseltine and Professor Littlechild we produced a unanimous report. However, the report was not implemented, the industry was privatised and tens of thousands of jobs were lost. The coal was locked under the ground instead of being used—coal which through modern technology could be used not only to produce power but for many other purposes.
1114
That Select Committee met morning, afternoon and night. It set up a record of meetings for a Select Committee in the other place. We fought to try to be forward-looking and to deal with the question of not just the mining industry but of a balanced fuel economy. We brought forward a blueprint. No one said that it was perfect, but at least there were proposals which called out to be implemented. But unfortunately they were not. Therefore, that Select Committee's recommendations are on the shelf. We are facing a changed situation at the moment.
I turn now to the current all-party Select Committee in the other place. It was recently told that while coal producers typically make £4 profit on every tonne of coal produced, the generators make a profit of £30 per tonne. The grid transmission system makes about £2.50 per tonne and the distribution companies make a profit of £19 per tonne. That means that coal going into power stations at £35 per tonne is being sold to us as electricity users at over £160 a tonne. That is the rip-off in the coal industry. I am pleased to say that the Government have intervened.
I wish to place on record the statement made by the Prime Minister that there would be a reprieve in the short term for eight pits and 5,000 jobs. That was helpful. He went further and said:
"This six month period will provide an opportunity for the UK coal industry to look at further ways of improving competitiveness. It also gives us the opportunity to consider what role the UK coal industry could play in meeting the UK's longer term energy requirement—within a framework which takes full account of our need to maintain dependable. sustainable and diverse energy sources at competitive prices and without prejudice to our environmental objectives".
That is to be very much welcomed. Can the Minister give the House any forward information as regards what is happening, because in this six-month period action has to be taken and proposals brought forward, otherwise we shall come to a dead stop and there will be no further development.
Almost in parenthesis, I welcome the task force for the mining industry which has been set up by John Prescott. That is something which is long overdue. In consequence, it is extremely important for the mining communities. People still live in those communities. They see, feel and live poverty in many instances. Therefore, something has to be done. I very much welcome John Prescott's task force as such.
But our overall concern must be to have a balanced energy policy, which Britain is in a unique position to achieve. As I have already said, we have North Sea oil, gas. nuclear power and particularly coal. With modern technology the environmental problems, as I said, which coal caused in the past have now largely disappeared.
I welcome the fact that the Government want a level playing field for coal. The energy Minister, Mr. John Battle, has a series of measures in hand, including a further moratorium on gas-fired power stations, depending on the outcome of a review on the security of electricity supplies. Again, I welcome what the Minister has to say about the timescale for that. It must not be short term. Not many industrial countries have our level of resources. We have to develop and exploit them.

1115
I believe that this short debate is an extremely important one. We are talking about the future of the British economy and of the resources that exist within our country at the present time. Those resources have to be used and developed. Therefore, I hope that the Government will pursue the policy that they have already started.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, this is the first occasion on which I have had the good fortune to follow a maiden speaker. On behalf of the whole House I would like to extend to the noble Lord, Lord Orme, our warmest congratulations on a truly memorable maiden speech. For those of us who have been fortunate enough over the years to know him in another place, it is a great pleasure for us to welcome the noble Lord to this House.
I personally remember him in three forms in another place. I remember him at times as being a rumbustious Back Bencher; I remember him as a well-informed and not-to-be-trifled-with Opposition spokesman, and I remember him as a courteous and always very well briefed Minister. We enjoyed the contributions that he made in the other place. We look forward to hearing him often for many years ahead in this House.
I would also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this very important matter tonight. I enjoyed listening to his speech. I have to admit that there were parts of it with which I did not wholly agree, but that is the way of politics.
There is no doubt in my mind that in future energy balance and the choice of fuels for generation will be governed to a large extent by the environmental concerns over global warming. That is an area which is difficult for coal. There is an ever-increasing role in the selection of these fuels for power generation. It has to he considered in that light. A reduced dependence on coal has played a major part in helping the United Kingdom towards its real target.
I can well understand the concern of both speakers who preceded me in their worry about those who live in milling communities. There is no doubt that we all feel for those people. But there are ways of dealing with circumstances when pits have to close. We have experienced that in the past and we shall no doubt experience it again.
I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, that it was not just the past Conservative Government which closed pits. Many, many pits were closed over the years by successive governments, both Labour and Conservative. So it has been a continuing policy with which I would not disagree. I believe that both governments took the right action, and that is now being proved by the fact that coal pollutes. We have had constant complaints from Scandinavia about the amount of pollution which it receives as a result of our coal-fired power stations. So while one is sad at the near demise of the coal industry, one has to be realistic and look for alternative sources for power generation.
The future calls for electricity generation by CO3-free means, with maximum support for renewables and nuclear power. Fossil fuel-burning power stations are
1116
the worst culprits. During 1995 alone, 44 million tonnes of carbon dioxide were pumped into the air above the United Kingdom. The dash for gas has helped somewhat, since gas-burned fuel produces about half the amount of greenhouse gases of coal, but even then it remains a substantial polluter. By contrast, nuclear power stations produce negligible amounts of carbon dioxide emissions.
Before I say anything more about nuclear power, I wish to declare an interest. For the past three years I have been an adviser to Scottish Nuclear Limited. I helped the company with the run-up to its privatisation, and I still advise it. However, my interest in, and dedication to, nuclear power goes back far before that point. Indeed, it dates hack to the late 1950s when the then Conservative Government decided to site the prototype reactor at Dounreay. My home is not far from Inverness and for 13 years I represented in another place the constituency immediately north of that, Ross and Cromarty, which in its turn, on its north boundary, marches along with that of Caithness and Sutherland, which houses Dounreay.
I have debated publicly in defence of nuclear power and I stand by everything I have ever said about it. I still believe that it is the cleanest form of energy available to us. I believe that it has been unfortunate in its parentage because people still associate it with the atom and that has been a difficult hurdle for it to overcome. There has also been confusion by the anti-nuclear groups over nuclear power for peaceful purposes and nuclear power for war purposes. In 1996 British nuclear power stations by their very existence prevented 65 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from being emitted. Worldwide, nuclear power stations prevented the emission of 2.3 billion tonnes—that is, assuming that had they not been there, the power would have been generated by coal.
Alternative sources of energy certainly have a part to play. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Hardy. on wind power. Of course, it has a part to play, but before long the environmentalists will become just as disgusted by huge areas of windmills as they are by the various types of pollution from other sources. As far back as 1983, when I was at the end of my four-year period as Minister of State for Energy, the Department of Energy estimated that by the year 2000 the total contribution towards power generation which could be expected from all the alternative sources taken together was 8 per cent. I understand that that has been revised downwards; that the forecast is now 6 per cent. and that there is even doubt about alternative sources achieving that target.
So, the question of sources of power for the future is now a problem. Again, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, that we must consider the years ahead and not only the immediate future. I was irritated by my own party in government when it decided about 10 years ago not to go ahead with the fast-breeder reactor. One of the reasons given was that it was not expected to be required for 30 to 40 years. Well, I0 of those years have already passed. The noble Lord, Lord Orme, reminded us that it is now 33 years since he made his maiden speech in another place. I am quite sure that it does not seem like

1117
33 years ago to him because time passes very quickly. I believe that we were extremely short-sighted when we decided not to go ahead with the fast-breeder reactor.
Mention has been made of Chernobyl. In passing, I say only that we all shared the world's despair as a result of Chernobyl. However, I remind noble Lords that the Chernobyl power station could not have been built in this country because our safety requirements are such that it would never have been approved. I know that Chernobyl happened and that the statement that I have just made does not help very much, but it is worth remembering that the safety record of our nuclear industry in this country is second to none.
The Department of Trade and Industry has forecast for the next 25-year period from 1995 to 2020 a dramatic reduction in the use of coal and the growing importance of oil-related fuels, with gas becoming dominant, and the near-extinction of nuclear power with only Sizewell B still operating in 2020. If I could make just one suggestion to the Government, it would be that they do not write off nuclear power. I believe that it has tremendous potential for the future. Indeed, unless in 20 years' time we want to be going cap in hand to the French to be updated on their technology, we shall need to develop our nuclear industry. An apocryphal story is told about the French to the effect that they build their power stations first and have their public inquiries afterwards. We will never know whether or not that is the case, but necessity has governed their actions. Our energy problems are those of success, not of failure. We are an energy-rich country. France is an energy-poor country and I believe that that is why the French have made such progress with their nuclear programme.
Mr. John Battle recently announced a review of security and diversity of fuel supplies to avoid over-dependence on any one fuel or technology. That seems eminently sensible, provided that it does not imply any interference from government by way of regulation or financial involvement. Here, I come to the only point in the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Orme, with which I disagreed: I do not want to see any more government intervention. We have had plenty of government intervention over the years and there is no doubt that since the market has been allowed to operate in the area of energy, there has been great success. Competition enables the generators to choose their fuel at competitive prices. Competition enables the industrial companies to choose their suppliers, and competition is now enabling even householders to pick and choose fuels. Nothing should be done to inhibit this healthy situation, but the long-term situation needs to be carefully considered. That is where I believe that the nuclear industry provides the answer. Again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important topic.
7.9 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in taking part in this debate I must declare an interest as having been actively involved in the energy sector for many decades and being currently chairman of companies involved in the distribution and use of energy, with particular regard to
1118
greater efficiency. I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Gray, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, for initiating this debate. As has been pointed out, he has been a long-term supporter of the energy sector, particularly the coal industry, but is also supportive of environmental issues. He described himself as a green supporter of coal, if one can see those two colours blending harmoniously.
I regret that there are not more noble Lords participating in the debate at this stage; but at least those who are represent all sides of the House in the three main parties, are very knowledgable on the subject and in their various ways are dedicated to the energy sector. Therefore, we make up in terms of quality what we may lack in quantity. I hope that we shall have quantity on a future occasion.
I was delighted to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Orme, on a subject about which he is not only knowledgeable but feels passionately. I remember working closely with him when he was involved in shadowing energy when the Labour Party were in opposition. I always found it most helpful and invigorating to hear his views. Like the noble Lord, Lord Gray, I hope that we shall hear those views on many future occasions.
The question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, raises the whole issue of energy policy. I should like to deal with it in that wider context. I believe that there are three prime aspects of energy policy which are interrelated but not always consistent with one another. The skill of government must be to try to reconcile these three strands in an effective manner. The first objective of energy policy, much emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, is to create an effective competitive framework. Obviously, that is in the interests of the consumer. The second objective is to achieve long-term security of supply, which is also not necessarily always consistent with the first objective. The third objective is to safeguard the environment, which is also not necessarily consistent with either of the other two. Underlying all this are very important social and economic considerations; in other words, the consideration of energy policy has a much wider impact, being such a basic industry. I should like to deal with each of these aspects in turn and see where that leads us.
I deal first with the competitive framework. There is no doubt that Britain has moved a long way in this direction. It is ahead of other countries in the European Union who are presently grappling with the introduction of some modified form of competition in the electricity and gas sectors. On the other hand, in Britain these two markets will in the course of this year be fully opened up to competition. However, there are problems in this process as we begin to see. First, while the markets are effectively being opened up there is still a substantial concentration of power on the supply side. In the case of gas, Centrica (as the former British Gas is now known) is the dominant operator, although it is now far from the monopoly that it once was. In the case of electricity, generation is concentrated substantially in the hands of four major companies.

1119
Quite apart from this concentration of power on the supply side, there are very serious social implications of opening up such a basic market as energy to full competition. Both the gas and electricity industries when nationalised paid great attention to consumers on low incomes, the elderly and the disabled. I believe that they led the way in dealing with those matters in a sympathetic manner. These two considerations as well as others lead to the view that regulation must continue in this sector. I cannot see the day when we will be able to do without regulation of any kind. The Government are at present reviewing the regulatory system. We impatiently await the results of that review. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, will inform the House when the results may he expected.
The next issue in energy policy is security of supply and the maintenance of a desirable balance between the different sources of energy, which was the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy. I do not believe that this is an issue that can be left to be resolved by the free operation of the market place. The present abundant supply of energy at relatively low prices may give the impression that the risk of shortages is no longer likely to arise. As the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, pointed out, this situation may not necessarily last into the future. Like other noble Lords who have spoken and who have been much involved in this area, experience shows that the energy situation can change very suddenly. I speak from my experience. I joined the coal industry at its start. We were then in the midst of an energy shortage. I can remember attending meetings of the OECD in Paris in the early 1950s when it was demonstrated that the future need for coal would far surpass the capacity for production. What were we as one of the major producers in western Europe going to do about it?
Two years later the whole situation changed dramatically with the rapid arrival of oil from the Middle East at low prices with the capability of taking over much of the market for coal. That situation continued until the 1970s. However, during the 1960s the Department of Energy produced a report on energy policy which stated in terms that so far ahead as the department could see oil would be plentifully and cheaply available. I remember having discussions with Dick Marsh, the then Minister responsible, and arguing the point with a team from the National Coal Board. In the early 1970s the situation changed dramatically. Just as people had been forecasting unlimited supplies of cheap oil in the 1960s, they began projecting how high the price of oil might become from the 1970s onwards. When we moved into the 1980s the situation changed yet again. We are still living in a period of relative abundance of supply and cheap prices. As the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, has pointed out, the sources of energy, particularly gas and oil, will be more and more concentrated in uncertain parts of the world; in Algeria, where currently there are troubles; in the Middle East, which is a seething cauldron; and in the former Soviet Union countries. Those are the supply side side uncertainties.
On the demand side, while in western Europe the demand is unlikely to grow at a very fast rate, in developing countries demand will grow a great deal
1120
more rapidly in the years ahead once they overcome their present problems. The European Commission has forecast that whereas today the consumption of energy in oil equivalent terms is 8.5 billion tonnes, by the year 2020 it may well be 13 billion tonnes, which is a very substantial increase. The Commission has also shown in its report on energy policy in the European Union that whereas now it is already dependent on imports for half its supplies by the year 2020 the figure may be three quarters. That is not due to a very rapid increase in demand but to a reduction in indigenous supplies.
All of this points to the uncertainty of the route ahead and therefore underlies the need identified by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, to achieve a better balance in our energy supplies. In the case of coal, which both noble Lords spoke about so eloquently, it is known that world reserves are greater than those of any other source of energy. Those reserves are being very rapidly developed in other parts of the world. Of course, we must develop renewables as much as possible, and nuclear energy must play its part.
We are now facing the risk that coal in the future may play less than the part it should play. That means that we should be husbanding more effectively our valuable reserves of gas and enabling coal to take up more of the market. There is no doubt that that should be attempted. I see that as implicit in the measures which the Government have taken in the short term, which have been referred to. I have always been worried about the increasing use of gas in power stations. We are putting into power stations one of the most valuable forms of natural energy which can be used to 90 per cent. efficiency by direct use, converting it into another form of energy and losing about half its inherent benefits. That has never seemed to me to be an effective way of using that gas. Indeed, until recent years, it was something that was prevented under EU regulations.
If coal is to be used more in power stations, its efficiency in use must be increased, and, above all, its environmental disadvantages must be overcome. That leads to the third leg of energy policy: the environmental aspect. As emerged from the previous debate, that is playing an increasing part in government policy, as it rightly should. The Kyoto Conference re-emphasised the world's concern with the potentially serious impact of climate change. I am delighted by the prominent role that the Government played in that. The Government have committed Britain to giving an example to others by achieving the high target of a reduction of 20 per cent. in CO, emissions by 2010, as we well know.
That will require the mobilisation of a great deal of effort. A major energy efficiency drive, much greater than anything previously launched, will need to be put in hand. Such processes as combined heat and power, which enormously increase the efficiency of overall power operations, will need to be spread more widely. If long-term security of supply is to be achieved by using coal more extensively, particularly in power stations, clean-coal technologies, for which we have long pressed in this House, will need to be developed at a faster rate, and projects on a commercial scale—the technology is ready for that—will need to be launched with the minimum of delay. The campaign to stimulate

1121
energy efficiency and reduce atmospheric emissions has to be handled both at national and at local level. Positive action by Government has to be supported by equally positive action in the regions. I happen to be involved in two initiatives in leading cities. One is in Sheffield where for some years effective use has been made of the heat produced by the local incineration scheme by piping it in the form of hot water throughout the city. Users now include public buildings, hospitals, universities and commercial and industrial consumers. There has been a substantial net saving in emissions as a result of that initiative.
In the city of Nottingham, where there is also an incineration scheme generating energy, an energy partnership has been formed to review the whole of the city's usage in order to identify further measures for savings. The aim is to achieve within Nottingham the Government's emission target. If those two examples—there are some others—were followed more widely, that would make a big contribution towards achieving the Government's objective.
Energy policy, which is inherent in the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, depends, as I have said, on a reconciliation between achieving the benefits of competition, developing secure and diversified energy sources and improving the environment. Underlying those issues are important social and economic implications, with which we are all familiar. The Government are at present undertaking a series of reviews which touch on various aspects of energy policy. They are all important reviews. I hope that soon the various strands will be brought together in the form of a coherent long-term policy which will contribute to the sustainable economy which the Government are committed to achieve. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, will be able to tell us when we might expect that long-awaited White Paper on an all-embracing energy policy.
7.25 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, on introducing this important debate. His Motion argues for an energy policy. I, as the noble Lord, Lord Orme, said, support that objective. Our approach, as my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin said, when we were in government was based on the principle that competition in open markets is the best means of providing a secure, diverse and sustainable energy supply.
I acknowledge that there were difficult issues to address at times. Change is never easy. And one reads the reports from Spain of the strikes against cuts in coal production now taking place in the Asturias. Those are being forced by the falling demand for coal as a fuel and by those targets for cleaner energy to which all nations have agreed—targets which were reaffirmed by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Prescott, in his recent visit to the Tokyo Summit.
We cannot interfere in the market without raising the price of fuel to domestic consumers, many of them the very poor people about whom this House has always rightly expressed concern. We cannot interfere in the
1122
market without raising the costs of energy to business and industry, making Britain less competitive in the world and threatening British jobs; and we cannot insist on burning more coal without raising CO, emissions, risking the achievement of the very targets to which Mr. Prescott recently recommitted us. But jobs today in any given industry cannot be put before the future environmental interests of our children and those after them.
It has been said that the policies of the previous government were harsh. But the reality is that privatisation, liberalisation and competition have increased efficiency and served both individual consumers and British industry. Major price reductions have followed.
The noble Lord, Lord Hardy, referred to the coal industry. Here, too, the Government's policy appears to be confused. In opposition Labour published a six-point plan—as it put it—to "save" the coal industry. It promised firmly,
"no more licences would be issued for gas-fired power stations".
Yet, the Government recently awarded a licence to BP to operate a 1200 Megawatt gas-fired power station. I understand in an Answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Simon, to my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie that there are a further 28 applications before the department. Could the Minister tell me what would be the annual equivalent in tonnes of coal used that would be displaced if those licences were approved?
In addition, the Government cannot both favour the coal industry and reduce CO2, emissions by 20 per cent. as they have pledged. Which objective do the Government put first? We shall look forward to hearing. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, we are still awaiting the results of one of the Government's "reviews" into utility regulation. In opposition, the Government hinted that they would move from regulation via price to controls on profits. What will be their decision? If we cannot be told today, can we be told when the review will actually be published?
I hope that whatever the outcome, the Government will not lightly throw away a system that has led to lower prices and better service. I trust that they will be sufficiently "New Labour" to use competition and not regulation as the first friend of the consumer.
I hear that the opening up of competition in the electricity market is due for April. We have all seen the promises of lower fuel prices that have been flooding through letter boxes and filling newspaper advertisements as a result. I hope that the opening up of competition will not be delayed. Can the House be told the position on this, which is of vital interest to British households?
My noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie recently asked the Government about yet another review—a review into whether there are plans to limit future increases in gas-fired electricity generation, and, if so, on what environmental grounds. When will that review be completed?

1123
I must not detain the House much longer. I hope that in this vital sector, where we have succeeded in setting a pattern for energy policy which other countries are now copying, the constant shifts and interference and the raft of reviews announced by this Government will not cause excessive confusion and damaging uncertainty. The Government must make up their minds; announce a clear, coherent and practical energy policy; do all they can to promote greater competition in the energy sector; and continue lowering prices to help industry and make people better off. That is the way to serve the whole nation in the long run, including the families of those remarkable and brave people who built the coal industry of which the noble Lord, Lord Orme, is justly so proud.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, on bringing forward this topical debate. His interest in energy matters is longstanding. He represented a coalmining constituency for many years and for 18 years he was chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party Energy Group with great distinction. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Orme on his maiden speech.
My noble friend's Question expressed concern about the balance of energy supply into the long term. The Government share those concerns. They are a little less concerned with some of the short-term points made by the noble Earl, Lord Courtown. We also note concern about the environment. Much of the current focus on the balance of our energy mix derives from the decline we have witnessed in the coal industry during the past decade, particularly in the past five years. As my noble friend Lord Hardy reminded us, an industry which was once our main source of energy and employed million men is now down to a few thousand. My noble friend Lord Orme reminded us that that industry, perhaps more than any other, has special political significance for any government but particularly for a Labour Government.
To some extent, that industrial change is a reflection of wider economic, technical and social change. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Gray, that the major specific cause of significant change in the energy sector has been the privatisation of energy utilities and the liberalisation of energy markets. Privatisation has meant that the CEGB's central control of electricity generation in England and Wales and its paternalistic national interest approach to its market no longer holds sway. Now we have diversity of companies in the generation market and profitability, the bottom line, is often their main driver.
The new opportunities and pressures of the liberalised market have led to the acceleration, development and introduction of new kinds of generation equipment and networks which are more closely linked to the needs of the businesses and customers which use the power, power being generated close to the load with less need for transmission over long distances.
Such devolution makes sense in a number of ways, but it makes it harder to ensure the integrity of the whole of the electricity system. Furthermore, customers are
1124
becoming more sophisticated in terms of their expectation of competitive pricing and the quality of supply and of supplier responsiveness. A major innovation has been the combined cycle gas turbine, or the CCGT, which offers generator savings in construction time and costs, in operating costs and in compliance with environmental standards. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has reminded us of that on many occasions. Its rapid take-up is a reflection both of these inherent advantages and of the laissez-faire policies of the previous government which allowed through about 40 power station application more or less on the nod, without taking any particular view as to whether additional capacity was necessary in order to meet likely electricity demands. About half of those stations are still being built or have not even been commenced. Therefore, if we never give consent for another gas station the market for coal will continue to become weaker.
Therefore, during the past few years the way in which we generate our electricity and the mix of fuels we have used has changed and is likely to change further. The noble Lord, Lord Hardy, asked what steps were being taken to promote a long-term balance in the supply of energy. However, to arrive at any sensible answer we need, first, to ask ourselves three basic questions similar to those put by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. Can the operation of open markets be relied on to deliver the right kind of energy mix now and in the future? If markets may not deliver the right balance on their own, how in a liberalised regime can the Government encourage them to do so? Is full or partial self-sufficiency in energy supply important against the current background of low world energy prices and free trade?
In order to address those fundamental issues, the Government are carrying out a review of power sources for electricity generation. Noble Lords asked when the reviews will be completed. The terms of reference of the major review was announced before Christmas. It will be carried out by the Department of Trade and Industry and I expect that it will take about six months to examine the issues thoroughly and to prepare a report. Interested parties are invited to submit views to the review by 16th February. However, I am sure that the review will bear in mind the warning of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, about forecasts. In assessing our future policy, we will take into account the contribution made by each fuel to our overall goal of ensuring security, diversity, sustainibility and competitive prices.
The review has been driven by concerns expressed by a number of sources, including the National Grid Company. While the review is in hand, the Government have proposed to defer consideration of applications for consent for new power stations. It seems sensible to pause for thought while we work out whether there is a problem. Clearly, at this early stage I cannot speculate on the conclusions.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, can the Minister enlighten the House on another review; namely, the review of

1125
regulation which was due to be published before the end of last year? Will it be published soon, because it, too, has a bearing on the issue?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Lord about that. I am not sure of the position of the review, but I know that it is well advanced.
My noble friend Lord Hardy was concerned about the depletion of our sources of gas, as were other noble Lords. Simple extrapolation from current production and estimates of reserves is notoriously unreliable, rather like the forests, since both our figures change over time. For example, remaining discovered reserves of UK gas are about 25 per cent. higher than was the case in 1980, even though production since that time has been equivalent to half of that 1980 figure. Although production has tended to increase, the discovery of new reserves has generally matched the increases such that the ratio of reserves to production has not changed much. Published reserve figures do not include anything for oil or gas which is yet to be found.
The noble Lord, Lord Hardy, is right to say that gas being found on the UK Continental Shelf is in smaller fields. The advance of technology and the infrastructure already in place have meant that those smaller fields can be exploited at a cost which is not expected to affect significantly the final price of gas.
Concern was expressed about imported gas and the unreliable sources of supply. It would be mere speculation to worry about where supplies might come from in 10 or 20 years' time. Security of supply will be a prime commercial concern to gas suppliers who will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that. But Russia has provided a very reliable gas supply to several European countries. Our nearest large potential supplier is Norway, with which we already have pipeline links. The world gas market is still developing and may well become as open and competitive as that of oil.
I turn to the question of gas power station consents. The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, raised that matter. I shall have to write to him about the specific power station which he mentioned. The matter of tonnes equivalent of coal is quite complicated. We do not have the figures. It will depend on the assumption in relation to which coal stations might be displaced and how often they would otherwise have been running. Rough estimates could be made, but I shall write to the noble Earl about that.
He asked also about future power stations. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will consider reasoned requests for exceptions to be made in particular cases and in doing so, she will be mindful of the environmental and other benefits of combined heat and power. But I should make the point that of the five stations consented to by the present Government, which had previously been consented to in principle, three were industrial combined heat and power schemes and the fourth involved a significant combined heat and power element.
The noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Gray, spoke about CO2 emissions. All forms of fossil fuel energy emit carbon dioxide which is a major contributor to
1126
global warming. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, made the important point that improving efficiency in the electricity sector is one relatively simple way in which to reduce emissions. Fortuitously, the switch to gas for power stations has made a significant and, to the Government, cost-free contribution to our expected achievement of our emission targets for the year 2000. That is a reflection both of the higher conversion efficiency of CCGT technology and the lower carbon content of the fuel. A unit of electricity from a coal-fired power station produces about twice as much CO, as the same unit from a CCGT. That is just a simple point of physics and chemistry.
At the climate change conference in Kyoto last month, European member states agreed to an 8 per cent. cut in a basket of six greenhouse gases by 2010. Over the coming months, the European Union will agree how each individual member state will share the burden of that overall target.
I turn now to the question of coal to which all noble Lords referred. The generators are continuing to buy UK coal, but not as much as they used to. As I have explained, the reason is the competition from gas but another factor is competition from imported coal. In spite of increased productivity, about which my noble friend Lord Hardy spoke, and in spite of the large reserves about which my noble friend Lord Orme spoke, coal sales are declining. Some producers have found markets for their output. The Longannet mine in Scotland has just agreed a six-year contract for its output and the smaller English and Welsh producers have also secured contracts. But RJB, the largest producer, has not secured markets for all its output. The Government have helped to facilitate negotiations between RJB and the generators for coal deliveries up to the end of June 1988. That will enable RJB to continue to reduce operating costs and, it is hoped, to improve its competitive position.
My noble friend Lord Hardy referred to the fact that the closure of mines has a great social consequence, especially where the mines are remote and communication is poor. I can only repeat, as many noble Lords will be aware, that on 6th October of last year, the Deputy Prime Minister announced the establishment of a task force to pioneer options for revitalising former coalfield areas. I understand that that task force will make its recommendations by March 1998, to be followed by a national conference for all interested parties in September 1998.
My noble friend Lord Hardy spoke of the mining equipment industry which will be facing difficulties if the indigenous mining industry contracts further. While I recognise that there are benefits in having a home market for one's products, that does not in itself determine the health of an industry. I know that the industry is in fact working with the DTI on finding out how it can more usefully demonstrate the equipment both in the UK and overseas. However, I should add that Indy car racing does not exist outside North America but nearly all the cars used in that sport are made here in the United Kingdom.

1127
The noble Lord. Lord Gray, drew our attention to nuclear power. Nuclear power contributes about one-quarter of our electricity. Noble Lords were concerned about the future and safety of nuclear power stations. My noble friend Lord Hardy and the noble Lord, Lord Gray, spoke movingly about their concerns in relation to Chernobyl. Nuclear power stations are making a substantial contribution to our electricity generation. But the Health and Safety Executive concluded recently a programme of in-depth reviews for the safety of each of the UK's Magnox nuclear power stations. Following that safety review programme, the Health and Safety Executive is satisfied that, subject to continued satisfactory results from normal tests and inspections and further periodic safety reviews, the UK's remaining eight operating Magnox stations can continue to operate safely. And so it makes sense to use what we have while we have it. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Gray, that whether new nuclear power stations are built in future will depend on the generator's perception of costs and benefits compared with the other options.
My noble friend Lord Hardy asked about the generation costs of coal and gas power stations. It has been suggested that it is cheaper to generate electricity from coal than from gas. It is difficult to generalise. We believe that the marginal cost of generation from gas plant is lower than from coal. There is the issue of some early take-or-pay gas contracts which might have encouraged generation from gas even though coal was
1128
cheaper because of prohibitions on the resale of that gas. We have asked the Director-General of Gas Supply to look into that.
The issues covered by this Question are numerous and complicated. They devolve from technical, economic, social and industrial change and from actions of the previous Administration over a number of years. They intertwine with other responsibilities and policies, such as those relating to the environment and to trade, and are not amenable to a quick fix. That is why we are taking our time to review thoroughly the whole question of energy policy.
Before Christmas the Prime Minister announced in another place that the Government would review the long-term energy requirements of the nation to ensure that we have an energy policy consistent with a competitive industry and the long-term energy needs of the country. As I said, those reviews are in hand in a number of energy policy areas. When those reviews have been concluded, we shall be better placed to take a reasoned view of how best to take forward our energy policy objectives. Indeed, when they have been completed, I shall welcome the opportunity to debate them in your Lordships' House.
If I have not responded to any points raised this evening, I shall write to the noble Lord concerned. In the meantime, I thank all noble Lords who took part in the debate and, in particular, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, once again for giving me the opportunity to respond to the points he made.
House adjourned at nine minutes before eight o'clock.