Lords Sitting of 27 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 Lincoln.

The Lord Bishop of Manchester
Christopher John, Lord Bishop of Manchester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Ripon and the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

Academic GPs: Remuneration
2.43 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the Richards report on the problems facing clinical academic medicine, they will make distinction awards available to teachers in general practice employed by the universities.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the Richards report was commissioned by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals which, I understand, is considering at present its recommendations. The report has not been formally presented to the Government for a response and it would be premature for me to offer a view on any specific recommendation at this stage, including the recommendation regarding the remuneration of academic GPs, which raises complex issues as the report itself recognises, and about which I know the noble Lord, Lord Walton, is well aware.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she accept that since the introduction of mandatory vocational training for general practice, the clinical academics who teach general practice and primary care are accepted as being in a specialty like any other clinical specialty; and that this is the only clinical specialty in which teachers in the universities are not at present eligible for distinction awards?
Is the Minister aware that there is at present a major recruitment problem in this field? If, as the Government wish, we are to have a primary care-led NHS, is it not important that incentives should be introduced to improve recruitment, in particular, since these are the people who will be teaching primary care to our medical students and doctors in the future and the BMA General Services Committee, while opposed to distinction awards for general practitioners who are independent contractors, now supports their availability to this group of clinical academics?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the Government accept the importance of academic general practice given our commitment to a primary care-led
96
National Health Service. We would not wish to see disincentives to able individuals entering academic general practice. However, pay is only part of the picture and access to the NHS consultants' distinction awards is only one option which could be looked at in addressing any perceived disparities in pay.
Introducing distinction awards for university employed general practitioners raises complex and difficult issues. Sir Rex Richards acknowledged this in November in evidence to your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, chairs. It is not new, but a longstanding issue to which there is no simple solution. However, we shall ensure that these issues are fully considered and possible solutions addressed. The Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment look forward to working with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to address the issues raised in the Richards report. We shall seek to ensure that there are no disincentives to entering academic general practice. We shall take careful note of the points made in both the Richards report and by the noble Lord, Lord Walton.
Earl Howe: My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity to welcome the noble Baroness to the Dispatch Box and to wish her well as one of the members of the health team on the Government Front Bench.
Is not the difficulty at the heart of the Question the fact that there are simply not enough medical graduates choosing to enter general practice? Does the Minister also agree that because of the shortage of GP trainees, the GP trainers often cannot be retained in the academic loop?
The noble Lord has proposed one answer to the problem. But what plans do the Government have for eliminating the shortage of trainee GPs?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, first, I wish to thank the noble Earl for his kind and courteous comments to me.
The Government very much recognise the importance of teaching general practice best practices to medical undergraduates and young doctors. However, as I understand it, Richards recommended that there should be discussions about the need to ensure that the terms of academic general practitioners match those of their academic colleagues in hospital practice. I accept that in the report there is acceptance of the fact that hospital colleagues with honorary NHS consultant contracts are eligible for distinction awards. But no other group of GPs receives distinction awards. We need to be clear about whether there is a disparity and, if so, how that might be addressed. We cannot assume that the issue is simply one of distinction awards. For example, a separate scheme could be more closely tailored to clinical academic GPs; or other changes could be made to the remuneration of clinical academic GPs which could also address the problem. We are planning detailed discussions with the Committee of

97
Vice-Chancellors and Principals about all the implications and options arising from the report, and possible options for any necessary funding.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that, while we cannot look to the Treasury for a monopoly of all wisdom on matters concerning the NHS, its evidence to the Royal Commission on Doctors' Remuneration of 40 years ago still stands? It argued that distinction awards should be abolished as a blot on the landscape of public finance. Will my noble friend further agree that, while we must do everything we can to ensure that GPs who take part in academic medicine do not suffer financially, we should not seek to extend the range and scale of distinction awards?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the Treasury may well have said that, but I could not possibly comment!
Lord Winston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree, in the light of recent evidence based on research by Dr. Hetherington and his colleagues about the perceived difficulties of ethnic minorities in consultant practice, that this is an issue the Government might wish to re-examine?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, this is indeed an important issue for the Government. Department of Health officials have recently held discussions with the Commission for Racial Equality regarding the number of awards granted to consultants from ethnic minorities. A number of measures are being introduced in the 1998 awards round to secure better data, monitoring of outcomes and representation of ethnic minority consultants on awards committees. Some changes to the criteria for awards were also suggested by the commission and accepted for implementation in the 1998 awards round. Those measures were welcomed by the commission. We are considering what further action might be taken to assist in addressing this issue.

House of Lords:Reform
2.52 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ask a committee of the Privy Council to consider substantial questions of constitutional reform, including the reform of the House of Lords.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, no.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I find it somewhat difficult to thank the noble Lord the Lord President for that reply although that is the customary courtesy. Does the Lord President recall that
98
the Falklands Islands Review of 1982 was conducted by a committee of distinguished Privy Counsellors, who were especially chosen, in the words of my noble friend Lady Thatcher, in order that the review should be seen to be conducted with integrity and independence, and that it should command widespread confidence? Do not precisely the same criteria apply to any review of the House of Lords? Will the noble Lord at least accept that the results of such a review would be far more credible were they to be conducted by a committee which drew on the wisdom and talents of all political parties? After all, constitutional change is not the whim of a five-year Parliament. It must last for generations.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I cannot avoid welcoming the conversion of the noble Lord—with which I hope the party opposite agrees—to the reform of your Lordships' House. I cannot also help but observe that over the past 18 years, when the noble Lord occupied a very prominent position in the previous administration, no proposals at all for the reform of this House were brought forward. We were elected on a manifesto which was quite clear: as a first stage in the reform of this House, we will remove the right of Peers by succession to sit and vote in this House. That remains our policy.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that, when the first Bill comes before this House, based quite rightly on the manifesto, as my noble friend said, the House should have some idea as to what the Government propose thereafter? Perhaps my noble friend will tell me whether he agrees.
Lord Richard: My Lords, in principle I have no problems with what my noble friend has just said.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Leader of the House will help us a little further. Will he give the House an undertaking to consider sympathetically the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett? The House will have been pleased to hear that he is open-minded on this question. Does he agree with me that it would be sensible, if reform of the composition of this House is to be undertaken, for a reformed House at least to include a substantial independent element to take the place of the hereditary peerage if that is what the Government wish to abolish?
Furthermore, is the noble Lord prepared to consider whether, in the coming weeks, the time might be right for this House once again to debate the issue of reform? Is the Leader of the House sympathetic to such a suggestion? If so, is he prepared to make government time available for such a debate?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am not unsympathetic to the idea of a debate. As the noble Viscount knows, that is a matter for the usual channels. It can no doubt be discussed in that particular forum. Regarding the rest of the noble Viscount's remarks, no, I am not prepared to go further than I have gone this afternoon in relation to the question put by my noble friend Lord Barnett.

99
The noble Viscount asked whether the Government are in favour of an independent element in the House of Lords. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions that he is in favour of an element in this House which is dissociated from either of the political parties—in other words, that there should be a Cross-Bench element in a reformed House. We have stated that on a number of occasions. I hope it reassures the noble Viscount.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, leaving aside the question as to what ground the legislation might cover, first, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House confirm that we may expect a Bill in the Queen's Speech this autumn? Secondly, and more importantly in view of the comments made, I understood that the Government were committed to a joint committee of both Houses to examine the second stage of Lords Reform. Is that still the case? I make clear that on these Benches we are in favour of radical reform at the earliest possible moment so as to remove the hereditary element. But that by itself is not sufficient. It creates some serious problems which would have to be dealt with at the same time.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Democrats has expressed the terms of our manifesto very clearly. I confirm that the proposal for a joint committee on which the Labour Party was elected remains our proposal. I am delighted to note that the Liberal Democrats are in favour of the early removal of the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House. I can also confirm that, after the first stage, there will have to be a second stage.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that, when I was Leader of the House of Lords 30 years ago, I was responsible for bringing forward a proposal that would enable hereditary Peers to come and speak in this House but not to vote? That was agreed by the leaders of all the parties, both here and in the Commons. The proposal was sabotaged by Back-Benchers in the Commons. Is that proposal still on the table?
Lord Richard: My Lords, speaking personally, I should not be in favour of a situation in which two Members of this House sat next to each other listening to a debate, one of whom had the right to vote and one of whom did not.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the provisions now being discussed for a Scottish parliament be reasonably consistent with the constitution of the United Kingdom Parliament, since such questions arise as reducing the voting age to 16; the abolition of a revising chamber; and other elements which seem to conflict with existing provisions in the British constitution? Can
100
the noble Lord give the House any assurance that there will be some reasonable consistency in the provisions for a Scottish parliament?
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Government are committed to reasonable consistency in this, as in all other things. My noble friend asks whether there could be any constitutional division. I trust not.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that the Government have no intention of bringing in an age limit for Peers?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I should be a bold man to say that. This is one of the few places left where I am considered on the relatively young side.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, can the Leader of the House say why Conservative hereditary Peers would not be an independent element in the House and have independent points of view?
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may go this far towards the noble Lord's question. I am quite sure that many Conservative hereditary Peers believe that they are independent. Many of them sit and listen to the debate believing they are exercising independent judgment upon the arguments put before them. The only trouble is that they invariably end up voting with the Conservative party.
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I believe that there is time for another supplementary question since there are only three Questions on the Order Paper. Can the noble Lord tell us why he thinks it is necessary to have a revising chamber for English and Welsh legislation and some Scottish legislation, but it is unnecessary to have it for some other Scottish legislation?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am happy to say that my sole responsibility is towards the revising chamber of the United Kingdom; namely, this one. As concerns Scottish constitutional development, if the noble Baroness wishes to put a Question down to my noble friend responsible for the subject, no doubt I can get him to answer it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does not the Minister consider the Scotland Bill to be a United Kingdom Bill?
Lord Richard: My Lords, of course it is a United Kingdom Bill. I am saying that my responsibility is in relation to this Chamber, not to any other one nor to any prospective Chamber.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I apologise to the House for coming back and I crave your Lordships'

101
indulgence. Does the Leader of the House believe in the doctrine of the collective responsibility of the Government?
Lord Richard: My Lords, of course.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, perhaps I may express surprise that the Leader of the House was surprised at the support from these Benches for the reform of the House of Lords. Can I take it that he will implement the pledge given in 1911 by the Liberal Government that they would create a popularly elected second Chamber?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I regard our proposals for the reform of this House as unfinished business from 1911.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, will the Leader of the House give an intellectual response at least to rejecting the argument for considering the future of this House in the context of Parliament as a whole, determining its powers and functions and dealing with its composition at the end of the line, not at the beginning?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness has answered her own question. I see that as a process which is capable of infinite delay. I am not prepared to embark upon the process without first dealing with the immediate difficulty of the composition of this House; namely, the existence in it of an overwhelming preponderance of Conservative hereditary Peers.

Asylum Seekers
3.3 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many people arrived in the United Kingdom in 1997 seeking asylum; how many of them have so far been granted asylum; how many have been rejected; and how many still await decision.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, 32,500 applications for asylum were made in the United Kingdom in 1997, of which 16,590 were made on arrival here.
I regret that it is not possible to provide information about whether decisions have been taken on applications made in a given year. However, 36,045 initial decisions were made on asylum applications in 1997. Of those, 3,985 (II per cent.) were to recognise the applicant as a refugee and grant asylum; 3,115 (9 per cent.) were to refuse asylum but grant exceptional leave and 28,945 (80 per cent.) were to refuse both asylum and exceptional leave.
If I may assist the noble Lord further, as at 31st December 1997 there were 51,795 asylum applications awaiting an initial decision.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving those full details which cause great concern. Is
102
he aware that the Geneva Convention of 1951 which governs the matter has failed to prevent a vast increase in oppression in various parts of the world? Since travel facilities are so much easier than they used to be, and since the United Kingdom has now become a haven for illegal immigrants, has not the time come for the Geneva Convention to be renegotiated?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, obviously the Geneva Convention remains one of our international obligations. If there is oppression which leads to genuine claims for refuge and political asylum, I for one am glad that this country retains its civilised tradition of many years' standing. As I indicated in answer to the Question a few days ago on a not entirely dissimilar topic, an interdepartmental review was set up on 21st August to deal with, among others, some of the points raised by the noble Lord. We must get a system which is fairer, firmer and faster than the present mish-mash. That is what the Government are intent upon.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept the approval of these Benches for what he has just said? It is in the best traditions of this House. Can he give us any idea of the length of time that now obtains between an immediate application for asylum and the settlement of the claim? Finally, can the Minister say whether the Government will reconsider providing assistance for those seeking and awaiting the outcome of their claim and appeal with regard to the position in which local authorities in some parts of the country now find themselves?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot give a particular answer to the noble Baroness's first question because each case varies infinitely. As I said the other day in answer to the Question to which I referred, much of the outstanding backlog relates to people who have been awaiting determination of their case since 1993. No one can regard that as a cause for self-satisfaction about our present arrangements.
The noble Baroness's point about local authorities is a good one. The relevant departments are in close contact with affected local authorities to see what additional supplementary assistance should be given to those local authorities.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the delay suffered by genuine asylum seekers is totally unacceptable and unworthy? Can he tell the House what steps he proposes to take to reduce the delay, without waiting for any revision of the law? Surely steps should be taken now, in accordance with the great and honourable traditions of the country towards genuine asylum seekers.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I subscribe to those great and honourable traditions, but it is also a sensible tradition to approach general reform on a considered basis. That is the purpose of the interdepartmental review which was set up on 21st August 1997.

103
I echo another point raised by the noble Lord about the proposition that those who seek refugee asylum status ought to have their claims quickly dealt with. Of course, that is our policy—it must be firmer, fairer and faster. In that context—and I am trying to be helpful rather than tedious—the Home Secretary has instituted a review of the evident malpractice in certain parts of our community, namely: bogus asylum advisers, whether or not they are professionally qualified. It is a serious vice because they prey on innocent lost people and distort the system which at present obtains for the hone fide applicants.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can the noble Lord supply an estimate of another category of asylum seekers not mentioned in the Question? I have in mind those who have already disappeared without trace within the United Kingdom—a category referred to in my Question last week to which the noble Lord has already referred twice today and to which he gave very helpful replies.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right: he asked this question just a few days ago. My answer then was that our best approximation was 14,000. Although a few days have passed, my best approximation is still about 14,000.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply to my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby about local authority support in the absence of social security benefits for asylum seekers. I also welcome his remarks about the discussions between government departments and local authorities. But is he aware that the Refugee Council estimates that not only do many asylum seekers live in distress because they are living at subsistence level as local authorities are not allowed to give cash benefits but only food and accommodation in kind, but also that it is £30 to £65 a week more expensive for local authorities to support them in the way they do than it would be if social security benefits were available? Is this not the worst of all worlds all round?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not disagree that many aspects of our present arrangements encapsulate the worst of all possible worlds. I can assure the House and the noble Baroness that the whole question of support arrangements for asylum seekers is being specifically addressed as part of the interdepartmental study of the asylum process to which I referred a little while ago.
Lord Henley: My Lords, can the noble Lord assist the House by giving the figures for the number of asylum seekers, bogus or otherwise, who appeared in earlier years than the year referred to in this Question? If, as I suspect, the figures indicate that we have seen a decline in the number of those seeking asylum, would he not agree that that seems to indicate that the measures we introduced, particularly in relation to changes to the benefit regime, have had a considerable effect? Will he therefore confirm that the review being conducted by
104
his department and others will not seek to make changes to the benefit regime as set up by the previous government?
Lord Strathclyde: Answer!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am about to, my Lords. I have never myself come across a review which tried to predetermine the conclusions of the review. That may have been the way in the past 18 years. It is not the way we intend to continue. There are differences in intake, with regard to rise and fall in the statistics, which are substantially dependent on political upheaval in other parts of the world. That is inevitable. What we have to do is to get a decent balance between our historical tradition and the Government's responsibilities, first, to those who live in this country and, secondly, to those who are taxpayers in this country. But there is no easy brutalist solution of which I am readily aware.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I join in the welcome for what the Minister has said about reducing delays in disposing of asylum applications. But does he agree that in the past such delays have been needlessly prolonged by what has been described as the culture of disbelief inside the Home Office? Does he further agree that that culture would wither faster if it were not as assiduously watered as it was under the previous Administration?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the reasons for delays are manifold. One is the present appeal process with the opportunity for judicial review. Judicial review—I say this cautiously in the presence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—is a notoriously slow remedy and it does mean sometimes that unworthy cases are taken to judicial review. There is no culture of disbelief in the Home Office. I hope that there is a culture of decency, as exemplified by the present holder of the Secretary of State's office.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, can the Minister say how many applicants for asylum applied more than five years ago and have not yet had any adjudication or any interview on the matter? Is not to wait five years for a response both demoralising and extremely heavy on the national benefits system?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. It is utterly demoralising. As I said in answer to the question a few days ago, no human being should have to be left in doubt and limbo for that period of time. I cannot give the specific statistics to the noble Lord, but I shall research what statistics there are and undertake to write to him as soon as may be.

Education (Student Loans) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Beef Bones Regulations 1997
3.15 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke rose to move to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government

105
to revoke the Beef Bones Regulations 1997 (S.I. 1997/2959), laid before the House on 15th December 1997, to allow further consultation with consumers and consumer organisations, farmers, trade representatives and the relevant enforcement agencies [19th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first opportunity either House has had to debate the inept measure known as the Beef Bones Regulations 1997. The use of a negative Instrument, which has always struck me as being first cousin to government by decree, cannot be the right way to deal with an issue which had the potential—and has more than fulfilled that potential—to infuriate so many people and make the Government look unusually foolish.
Why has it infuriated so many people? Because there is so much wrong with the reasoning, if it can be so dignified, behind the ban. First, the scientific basis for the ban is questionable. Secondly, even accepting that the scientific basis is sound, the risk involved is so small as to be almost invisible. Thirdly, there are practical difficulties in policing and enforcing a ban which is held in such contempt by the vast majority of people in this country. Finally, there is the suggestion implicit in the ban that none of us is capable of rational risk assessment, so the man in Whitehall must make up our minds for us, and from now on we must all have our meat cut up in small pieces.
Perhaps we could look a little closer at the science and the risk basis on which this beef bones ban has been announced and the sale of beef bones has been criminalised. The advice to Ministers on dorsal root ganglia is based on experiments wherein unrealistically large doses of BSE-infected feed have been given to cattle from the age of four months. These cattle force-fed this infected feed showed clinical signs of infection at 39 months of age. I now quote from paragraph 5 of the SEAC advice to Ministers:
"With the Over Thirty Month Scheme in place the only DRG [dorsal root ganglia] to pose a risk would be from animals which would have developed BSE before the age of 38 months. Using risk management techniques, and taking account of the 90 per cent. decline in the BSE epidemic since 1993. the numbers of such animals with BSE aged 30–38 months are shown to be very small. In 1997 it is estimated that there will be 6 animals in the latter category and 3 in 1998. Thus next year, of the approximately 2.2 million cattle to be slaughtered for human consumption only 3 will he near enough to the end of the incubation period to raise the possibility of infectivity in their DRG. (Note in the worst year in the past the figure was many thousand times greater)."
I remind the House again that this is on the basis of infection discovered in cattle which had been deliberately fed very high doses of BSE-infected material from a very young age, material which has been banned from cattle feed since 1988.
The advice goes on at paragraph 6:
"On the basis of the risk assessment available to us it is estimated that there is a 95 per cent. chance of no cases and a 5 per cent. chance of one case of new variant CJD arising as a result of this exposure in 1998".
But as my noble friend Lord Ferrers pointed out in the debate on agriculture last Wednesday,
"there is no known proven connection between BSE in animals and CJD in humans … No one can say without doubt that new variant CJD can be contracted from BSE in animals".—[Official Report, 21/1/98; col. 1518–9.]
So what we have is a scientific assessment that there is a one in 20 chance that one person out of 58 million may contract CJD from eating beef on the bone; that is a more than one in a billion chance—and that only if you accept the presently scientifically unproven assumption that there is transmission of the disease from animals to humans.
So what was the Government's reaction? Did they pause for reflection? Did they consider the matter deliberately? Did they make the figures and the risks public and allow us to choose whether to eat beef on the bone? No, quicker than you can say dorsal root ganglia, they pushed the panic button. The SEAC advice was given on 3rd December, and by 16th December the Beef Bones Regulations came into force. There has, until now, been no opportunity for proper debate on this subject although there was a rushed and entirely inadequate consultation process. Your Lordships may be interested to learn that the consultees on the matter of the Beef Bones Regulations included some of the following: the British Fur Trade Association; the National Association of Tripe Processors; the European Documentation Centre; the Al Hasaniya Moroccan Womens Centre; the Goat Advisory Bureau, the Association of Masters of Harriers and Beagles; the British Ceramics Confederation—are we at risk from eating off bone china? Perhaps we should be told. The consultees also included the West Indian Standing Conference and finally, and crucially, the Association of Circus Proprietors. But the list did not include any of the beef herd book societies or breeders associations, such as the Aberdeen Angus, Hereford or any of the other principal suppliers of animals to farms.
I understand that all the meat industry bodies who were consulted opposed the ban. Can the Minister tell us which, if any, of the consultees supported this ban? With this valuable consultation under their belt and the odds against infection of more than a billion-to-one, the Government felt it sensible to move to criminalise the sale of beef on the bone with penalties of £2,000 or six months imprisonment or both—the same penalty as applies, as your Lordships are undoubtedly aware, for keeping a brothel.
There are also problems over enforceability of the Beef Bones Regulations. It is the responsibility of local authorities to enforce them through their environmental health officers. I have had an interesting conversation with a senior environmental health officer. He pointed out that no law is enforceable at no cost. The money for information, education and enforcement will have to come out of local authority budgets, which are already spoken for.
He told me that there had been no guidance on how these regulations should be enforced, therefore there would be no consistency throughout the country in application. He also told me that he and his team would hope to inspect the butchers' shops in his area, which is a large area, at most twice a year. Does that inspire

107
confidence in the inspection procedure? I suggest that it does not. Unenforceable law is bad law, and surely effort should be proportional to the risk involved. Is it sensible to spend the time of skilled enforcement officers on a matter of such slender risk when their time should be spent on more immediate threats?
These regulations are really beyond parody. The Government case is based on the risk of contracting new variant CJD from eating beef on the bone, which is more than a billion-to-one against. But everything that we do has a risk factor attached to it. It would be hard to dream up a longer shot than eating beef on the bone. Smoking, driving, reading the latest European Commission directive, are all much higher risks and yet we are still allowed to take them. We are allowed—but for how long?—to decide for ourselves whether to drive to work and to take the risk of being maimed, which is 76,000 times more likely than eating beef on the bone; to play golf and risk a lightning strike, which is 120 times more likely, or to have lunch and to risk choking to death, which is 4,800 more likely or even to lead life on the cutting edge and do all three on the same day.
So although the Government started by pretending that risk to the consumers was the trigger for this legislation and as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Office of Public Service stated in another place,
"The Government's first priorities are the protection of the consumer".
and later,
"we will not play fast and loose with public health",
it is now apparent that the risk is now almost non-existent.
No, there must be another reason. What the Minister must tell the House is why the Government are making a special case, giving special treatment to the practically negligible risk from eating beef on the bone, as compared with the million or more cases of food poisoning nationwide from E-coli or salmonella which occur every year and cause hundreds of deaths. There is also the health risk involved from imported meat about whose origins and safety we know very little at all.
Are the Government saying that this is the best way to build consumer confidence in beef? What an odd method to build confidence in the beef sector by banning its flagship product. In any case, consumers have shown their contempt for the government measure by stocking up with ribs of beef, T-bone steaks and oxtail. I understand that there is a brisk trade in beef on the bone dinners in the more sensible type of pub.
The Government seem to have stumbled on a bizarre method of "confidence by ban". Or are the Government playing to the European gallery in the hope that the ban will persuade our European competitors—I shall read that again because I meant our European partners, of course—to lift the worldwide ban which they have slapped on British beef? If that is the rationale, surely the best way of buying their votes would be to go the whole hog and make it illegal to sell any British beef at all. Surely a mere beef on the bone ban hardly serves the case.
I end by reminding your Lordships of the importance of beef in the British way of life. The roast beef of old England is celebrated in our songs,
108
our verse, our stories and our plays. It is part of our historical background. Our French friends have known us for centuries as les roast beef. Are we now to be known as les milk pudding? I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to revoke the Beef Bones Regulations 1997 (S.I. 1997/2959), laid before the House on 15th December 1997, to allow further consultation with consumers and consumer organisations, farmers, trade representatives and the relevant enforcement agencies [19th Report from the Joint Committed].—(Lord Willoughby de Broke.)
3.24 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am sorry that, as on Wednesday of last week, my noble friend is again having to explain government policy to large numbers of disgruntled or, if that is too strong a word, at least not very gruntled, farmers. In fact, beef formed a large part of the agenda last Wednesday as now. I can fully understand the concerns of farmers and why they need to beef about beef. BSE/CJD has been a body blow to the prosperity of thousands of cattle farmers up and down the country and the whole beef industry, let alone the taxpayer. Now these regulations on deboning are seen as adding insult to injury. However, this cloud, as my noble friend will explain, may have a silver lining.
But first it is important to get the health reasons for these regulations into perspective. In the debate last week both the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and no doubt others—and now the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke—said that the link between BSE in cattle and new variant CJD was still unproven. Strictly speaking, they are right. But the circumstantial evidence is now so compelling that I believe that the link would be accepted in a court of law. In particular, the microscopic appearances in the brain of BSE in animals and new variant CJD are identical, while those of scrapie—mainly a disease of sheep—or the more common form of human CJD, which preceded the BSE epidemic, are not the same as those of BSE if one looks at them in great detail under a microscope. It is true that so far there were at the last count only 23 cases of the new variant CJD, for which we should be grateful. It could already have been a lot worse if the predictions of some prominent microbiologists had been correct.
But we are not yet out of the wood. The incubation period of this disease is very long and in some cases it may be a decade or more. Unfortunately. like HIV and AIDS, the incubation period—between infection and overt disease—is also very variable. So although, based on present cases, the risk is very small, the potential is still there. But the risk does not come from eating muscle meat. The great bulk of the meat eaten is of course muscle meat. The risk comes from those parts of the animal which are part of the central nervous system or consist of certain types of offal.
It is fairly certain that the small number of cases that we have seen arose from the consumption of meat products containing some of these products before they were banned from sale. The new findings—namely, that

109
the dorsal root ganglia can also carry transmissible BSE prions—are not altogether surprising since these small nodules of nervous tissue lie very close to the spinal cord (a main source of the BSE agent) between the ribs where they join the spine. Bone marrow, also covered in these regulations, is closely allied to the lymphatic system, parts of which, such as the tonsils, count as specified offal which cannot be sold for human consumption under current regulations. So the regulations that we are discussing today are in fact a logical extension of the 1989 bovine offal (prohibition) regulations. The experiments which provide evidence of infection often take many years to show results and, as more evidence becomes available, the regulations lag behind. In fact, it could be held that not to include bone and bone marrow among the products banned from consumption would have been inconsistent and illogical.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am very genuinely a seeker after truth on this matter. Why is it more dangerous to carve meat off the bone at home, having cooked it with the bone in in your oven, than to cook at home meat which has been taken off the bone at the butchers? I simply do not understand. The noble Lord is obviously very well informed and very clever, so he will undoubtedly be able to tell me why that is the case.
Lord Rea: My Lords, if the noble Earl will bear with me, I shall come to that point in a minute.
Decisions often have to be taken in the interests of public health before the scientific evidence is complete. Waiting for the scientific evidence risks allowing an epidemic to get out of control. I agree that in this case we are talking about very small numbers. The most famous example of why it is necessary to take action when the cause is not yet fully understood will be well known to your Lordships. I refer to the case of Dr. John Snow who observed an outbreak of cholera in London's West End in the middle of the last century. He suspected the water pump at Broad Street of being contaminated and the source of the outbreak, but he was puzzled by the outlying death from cholera of a woman in Hampstead—until he found out that she liked the taste of the Broad Street water and had it specially brought to her every day. That clinched the evidence as far as he was concerned, and he removed the handle of the offending pump, much to local people's annoyance. Shortly afterwards, the epidemic subsided. The point of the story is that that action was taken before the microbe causing cholera had been discovered.
The current CJD problem is, as the noble Lord described, much smaller and CJD develops much more slowly than cholera. The risk to any individual is vastly less, but the principle still applies. To answer the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, to leave the deboning of beef to individuals, having given them a warning, was one of the options open to my right honourable friend the Minister, but that would not have protected those who ate out or bought mince, sausages, or other meat products which could have come from carcases which had not been "deboned". Incidentally,
110
the word "deboned" does not appear in the thesaurus on the lap-top which is supplied—or rather, lent—to me by your Lordships' House.
Finally, I come to the silver lining. Noble Lords will be pleased that I shall soon sit down. The silver lining is as much a reason for the regulations as the protection of public health. I am quite clear about that. If we had not brought in these regulations, or something very similar, the prospect of British beef being allowed back into Europe would have receded. The regulations are one more nail in the coffin of BSE as a source of human disease. As my noble friend will explain, they have been acknowledged by the European Commission—that body which all farmers love since it administers that golden egg, the CAP. The Commission's approval will undoubtedly bring forward the end of the export ban on British beef to Europe.
However, it is perfectly possible that there will never again be such a high demand for beef as there was before the BSE epidemic. Demand for beef was already falling previously, so it could be that the cattle farmers who are diversifying to other livestock or other use of their land in response to the present crisis will prove to have been wise. Although it was not an easy decision for my right honourable friend to make, as it puts an extra burden on an already hard-pressed industry, I am sure that it was the right decision. Those noble Lords who intend to oppose the regulations in the Division Lobbies this afternoon will, in fact, be doing the beef industry a disservice, and they should think again.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, the House has had the benefit of the expert medical knowledge and experience of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, but he still has not answered the real question posed by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke which is, quite simply: Why are not the British public allowed to make up their own minds about the risk? The noble Lord's advice is there for all to read and see.
We cannot consider the beef regulations in isolation without also considering what are known as the "Specific Risk Material Orders" which also came into effect on 1st January 1998. They represent an additional burden on the farming community and pose a serious problem for the knacker trade and the collection of fallen stock. What is so annoying about the Specific Risk Material Orders is that they have been brought into force in this country by our excellent Civil Service on the ground that they bring us into line with Europe, but the Europeans do not even have a date for the introduction of their Specific Risk Material Orders although it is rumoured to be at the beginning of April.
Noble Lords will have read in Hansard how my noble friend Lord Vinson has pursued the point about whether BSE occurs in sheep which are over three years old. We all know that scrapie has occurred in sheep for hundreds of years. Many noble Lords will have seen a ewe going round and round in circles. Shepherds used to bore a hole in the wretched animal's head to let out the pressure and then block it up again with Archangel Tar. The sheep would then recover. Scrapie has been a fairly

111
common complaint for some time. It is perfectly clear that there is no connection whatever—the noble Lord, Lord Rea, admitted this—between scrapie and BSE. On 19th January, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said, in answer to a Written Question that there is no evidence whatsoever that scrapie is a risk to human health.
The real problem with the beef regulations is that fallen stock can be fed to animals—to dogs and hounds—provided the head, spine and tail have been removed. The head, spine and oxtail go to the renderers. We have a further problem. The unacceptable parts of the animal have to be rendered, but the Government are month by month reducing the amount of money that they give to the renderers. That has put an enormous burden on the knacker trade to carry out its own rendering or, in some cases, where planning permission can be gained, to provide its own equipment for burning the surplus parts. Adding the Specific Risk Material Orders to that problem means that it is impossible to feed to a dog any material other than the legs of a dead sheep.
We are coming up to lambing time and we all know that throughout the countryside very many dead sheep will need to be collected and skinned and will be fed to the hounds. On Exmoor alone last year, 2,232 sheep were collected voluntarily by those responsible for the five packs of hounds on Exmoor. The sheep were skinned, incinerated and fed to the hounds. If all that can be fed to the hounds are the legs of dead sheep, who is going to collect and skin those sheep? Skinning a ewe that has been dead for two days is not a particularly pleasant prospect. It was done because, first, the remaining meat could be fed to the hounds and, secondly, the person who skinned it got an extra three quid for presenting a fleece. Today. the price of that skin has fallen to 50p. That makes it an even more unattractive job. Could we not come to some arrangement such as we had during the war when unclean meat was covered with a dye and all of it could then be fed to the hounds?
My noble friend Lord Willoughby made it perfectly clear that all noble Lords feel that in this case the Government have adopted the wrong option. The right option was to publish as much information as possible about the problem of BSE and let the public make up their own minds.
History always repeats itself. In 1795 Members of both Houses who were enthusiastic about the future of agriculture complained that Mr. Pitt and his government were far too interested in matters European to concentrate on the problems of British agriculture. In 1795 they agreed to dine together regularly and raise money for Smithfield Show and the improvement of agriculture throughout the United Kingdom. They have done so for the past 202 years. One way of helping agriculture was to insist that marrow bones and mutton pies were always on the menu. This has continued for some 202 years, except in 1862 when another cattle plague, rinderpest, swept through the countryside and marrow hones were withdrawn from the menu. It is recorded in the minutes of the Farmers' Club of 1795 that the then secretary was empowered to call upon the Archbishop of Canterbury to pray for deliverance from
112
pestilence. The most reverend Primate succeeded and marrow bones and mutton pies were restored to the menu the following year. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, will be as successful.
3.41 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for not being in my place when my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke first rose to move his Motion. The Motion is a very good and apposite one. I had the temerity to address the House last Wednesday and give my views on BSE and CJD. I do not propose to rehearse all of those points, although frequently I do not remember what I have said and I have no reason to flatter myself that your Lordships should remember what I have said. The fact is that we have had a problem over BSE and CJD and that there is no known proven connection between them. However, both this Government and the previous government have been obliged to take certain measures.
The present Government have taken further measures to try to avoid people getting CJD. It has been pointed out on many occasions that there are only 23 such cases: three cases three years ago, 10 two years ago and 10 last year. The number is not great. But under the regulations now before your Lordships it is proposed to make illegal the sale of beef on the bone because of the prevalence of what is known as dorsal root ganglia. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, knows this but if not perhaps I can impress upon him that this year there are only three animals in the whole of the United Kingdom which could have this problem. Even if they do it does not mean that they will transmit it to human beings. And even if they transmit it it does not mean that human beings will be affected by it. Or, if they are affected, it does not mean that they will die.
As explained last week, by the time one has gone through that gamut, the chance of dying from beef on the bone is about one in 600 million. The regulations have been vilified by the farming community and by those who want to buy and cook beef on the bone. To be told that they should not do so is an absurdity. It is quite undesirable. The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory committee never advised the Government to do this. The Government took the decision on their own without consultation. Their action has proved acutely unpopular not only within the farming community but in other circles.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, says that it is in the interests of public health. It is nothing of the kind. There is no public health interest if only three animals are likely to have the disease. The noble Lord also says that the purpose is that beef should be allowed back into Europe. We heard last Wednesday from the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and from the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. that the intention was to placate Europe. That is a very bad reason for producing a very bad set of regulations. I see the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington—bless his heart—in his place. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. will be broad-minded and realise that the Government would not lose face if they accepted the Motion. All it suggests

113
is that time should be allowed to consult people before the introduction of regulations on which there has been no consultation at all.
The Government would gain a great deal of credence and respect if they agreed to take away the regulations and consult further. Having consulted, they might consider it necessary to bring them back. I hope that the Government will do as I suggest. If they do not—I realise that that is only a minimal possibility—I hope that your Lordships will vote for the Motion. The Motion does not defeat the regulations but enables them to be taken away in order that more consultation can take place.
This Government of all governments like consultation. At least they say they do. There is no reason therefore why they should not have more consultation about something that is ridiculed throughout the country.
3.47 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, perhaps I may be forgiven for moving the debate in a slightly different direction down the food chain. I wish to speak first about the catering and hospitality industry. I declare an interest, albeit entirely honorary and non-pecuniary, as president of the Restaurateurs Association of Great Britain. Not unnaturally, restaurateurs are concerned about continual food scares. They have experienced many food scares in the past few years. It began with salmonella followed by the drama of irradiation when it was suggested that every menu in every establishment should list every ingredient going into every dish. We managed to annul that absurdity. Now we have BSE, leading to the beef bone ban, which means that we cannot have roast beef and T-bone steaks and chefs are unable to make stock from beef bones. That is an important ingredient in the catering industry.
All of this uncertainty has created a lack of confidence in the minds of the consumer and the industry, which is a huge one. The catering and hospitality industry is the fifth largest consumer industry in the country following food, cars, insurance and clothing. It employs more than 2 million people. Last year alone it generated nearly £2 billion in VAT on the food element alone, not counting drink and other products served to customers. It is a vast industry. Surely, it needs to be consulted much more extensively. Restaurants and the catering industry are not very interested in poisoning their customers. That would be rather bad for business. They need an era of confidence, not continual bans and scares.
Last year consumers bought over 9 billion meals in commercial establishments. That is a large number. These people are not stupid. They must be allowed some choice. The point was made cogently by my noble friend Lord Willoughby in opening the debate and by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. There are so many things that are harmful, for example cigarettes. Crossing the road is much more dangerous than eating beef, and always will be. Surely, the ban must represent one of the ultimate absurdities.
114
It should be left to consumers to decide what they want to eat. As we have heard from all sides, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, the health risk is absolutely minimal. I hope that the Government will think again, but I fear that is a triumph of hope over expectation. Let us hope I am proved wrong.
3.50 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. There is no doubt that this outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy will enter the annals of history as among the worst, if not the worst, disaster to affect the British cattle industry.
I have no desire to pre-empt the outcome of the public inquiry conducted by Lord Justice Phillips, but I am pleased that the Government have called it. I hope that, among the many lines of investigation Lord Justice Phillips will need to take, he will find time to review how the administration of science, and the dramatic changes in the way it has been handled since the mid-1970s, might have contributed to the crisis.
What presently excites my curiosity is outside the remit of Lord Justice Phillips' inquiry, which will investigate events only before 20th March 1996. It is the sequence of events that resulted in Beef Bones Regulations 1997. We know that the research that raised concern was conducted by the Central Veterinary Laboratory at Weybridge, an establishment that has dealt with much of the BSE crisis from the beginning. It is owed thanks for its tireless work. Ray Bradley, the BSE coordinator; John Wilesmith, the epidemiologist; and the pathologists, including Gerald Wells and Martin Jeffreys, have all done heroic work in the hardest of circumstances.
However, while thanking the CVL, we should perhaps also recognise its limits, and in this case its relative inexperience with diseases known as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. By force of the epidemic, it has been put on a dramatic learning curve. In the best of all possible worlds, BSE—the most disastrous of the TSEs—would be dealt with by specialist outposts dedicated to them, such as the group based at the Institute for Animal Health at Compton and its world respected satellite, the Neuropathogenesis Unit in Edinburgh.
We know that, for whatever reason—presumably space—the scientific trials behind the beef bone ban were conducted not at these outposts but at the Central Veterinary Laboratory. The work involved dosing live cattle with BSE, then searching for infectivity in carcasses of varying ages. We are told how its researchers found infectivity in the dorsal root ganglia of an animal of 32 months old, but not in one aged 30 months, the maximum age now legally permitted for beef animals. We are also told that the experimental animals were fed an extremely large amount—I understand three ounces—of infected brain material by mouth at the age of four months.
I appreciate that the researchers wished to accommodate a capacious margin of safety but this is many times more than a cow fed on concentrates which included meat and bone meal would have encountered.

115
We are not told whether this material was left even more infectious by being used raw rather than after cooking at a minimum of 100 degrees Centigrade, as would be the case with meat and bone meal.
It is impossible to be more specific about the scientific evidence on which the bone ban is based. The paper involved has not yet been published. Indeed, at the time of the ban, it was not back from peer reviewers scrutinising the paper for its publisher, the Veterinary Record. Most curiously, the most apt "scrutineers", as the publication calls its expert readers, did not appear to include the researchers at Compton or the Neuropathogenesis Unit. When these establishments were questioned immediately after the announcement, they said that they did not know about the CVL paper.
Yet the paper, unreviewed, did go to a very much more general group, the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC). This, we accept, was a vital step. It is the committee charged with giving the scientific advice that safeguards the country against the mystifying pathogen behind BSE, and it is a matter of public health that it sees what work is in progress. But what happened to this work in progress after it was discussed at a SEAC meeting on 2nd December 1997?
The committee noted, but appeared to reserve judgment on, reported evidence on infectivity in bone marrow. It is not clear whether the quality of the work is in doubt. Rather, focus was reserved for infectivity detected in dorsal root ganglia of heavily dosed cattle beyond the legal age ban. The committee deduced that there was a conceivable risk of the order of being hit by lightning.
Having identified the risk, or lack of it, the scientists then suggested three conceivable plans of action for the Government. It told the Minister for Agriculture that he had three choices: he could inform the public of a potential risk; meat from older animals could be deboned in special plants; or bones could be banned. Within hours of the Government receiving this advice, there was a leak to the media that the Minister for Agriculture was to take the most severe option, that bones be banned. This on the basis of an interim report of an unreviewed paper in the face of extremely low risk. I am told the choice surprised even members of SEAC.
It became clear days later that forcing Europeans to comply with this perhaps excessively severe regulation was a circuitous way to raise the slaughter standards for imported beef. One can see the logic here, while having reservations about applauding it.
I wonder, my Lords, during those late hours of 2nd December, whether the Minister for Agriculture realised that he had dealt another devastating blow to then UK beef industry? It would seem not, for he blithely announced, almost immediately afterwards, that it was time the stricken sector accepted that it was in need of reform. Does he realise that the main victims, the quality beef producers, are yet again paying for a disease that appears to be a result of the excesses of the dairy industry? His comment about how 95 per cent. of beef was already sold off the bone betrayed dangerous ignorance about the issues and economics involved.
116
At least two noble Lords have said that for a law to be a good law it must be acceptable to the people to whom it applies and it must be enforceable. No honourable farmer wishes to circumvent important safety regulations: no honourable scientist wishes unnecessary ruination on those riding out science in the making; and no honourable Minister wishes to hang his honour on a mistake.
Might not the Government admit that they have made a mistake? Might they not accept and grin at the spot of ridicule to which they have subjected themselves? Almost immediately after the announcement, risk analysts summoned up by the media remarked that it was such a low risk that effectively it was no risk. "Newsnight" erected a "risk-o-meter". The public rushed to stock up on T-bones and ribs of beef while they lasted. I did; I still have two in the freezer. The Government, science, and the issue of safety were made an ass; the beef industry was dealt a devastating blow.
These are serious criticisms. However, there is no condemnation. The Minister for Agriculture is also due congratulations. Without his support. the Phillips inquiry would not be happening. He has handled the formation of the Food Standards Agency with exceptional diplomacy and is convincing as an ambassador for change and growth. He is proving a tough representative in Europe. He is shaping up to be a very good Minister indeed. One can only hope that he will learn that while all Ministers make mistakes, only the very best admit to them.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, as you will know. I have been highly critical of the performances of both the previous and present governments in their handling of BSE. I am not going to repeat my arguments in the agricultural debate last week except to say again that it must be accepted that ultimately it is Ministers in both governments—starting with the then Health Minister, Mr. Stephen Dorrell, and now the Agriculture Minister, Dr. John Cunningham—who have been so alarmist in the whole matter, having unequivocally accepted the unquantified advice of their so-called experts. That successive governments should be responsible for such scaremongering is deplorable. It will go down in the annals of bad government. Meanwhile I hope that Lord Justice Phillips, who is today embarking on an inquiry into the whole BSE saga, will take full account of this debate.
My own inclination to vote for the Motion is because I am not satisfied that the cost, both to the taxpayer and the farming industry, is remotely justified by the risk of eating beef on the bone. The reason I say that is that I have not yet seen any figures to support the case for the regulation.
Has the appropriate cost benefit analysis been undertaken? There is nothing new in cost benefit analysis. It was first used in public policy some 40 years ago when the Victoria Line was being planned. In relation to BSE I should like to know whether a newer, but now well-developed, variant of cost benefit known as risk analysis has been used and, if so, with what result?

117
I have consulted a friend of mine, Mr. Gerald Orman of Orman Risk Analysts, who have an international practice in the field. In a letter to me he said that the definition of an "expert" in risk analysis is someone who understands the underlying mechanism of how a risk materialises sufficiently well to express a view on its probability without historical records. If he cannot he is not an expert. Decisions can only be taken based on probabilities, and Stephen Dorrell was most unwise not to have forced his experts to give them. In safety engineering as it is applied to the design of railways, which is a good example because people require a far higher level of safety in a medium over which they have no control compared with, say, motoring where they see themselves as in control, the limit of expenditure on a measure which would save one life is £2 million.
Risk analysis, as some of your Lordships will know, is a branch of mathematical modelling which applies probability theory to qualitative advice so as to quantify it. Once the risk analysis is complete then the decision analysis is used to follow it up so as to balance the costs of different actions against the assessed risk.
I must say that I was amazed to learn that it would appear that those techniques do not seem to have been used in relation to BSE and I have done my best to check that nothing meaningful has been published. First, I understand that in October Professor Lacy addressed the London meeting of the Geneva Association of Risk Management and produced none of the figures which his professional audience would have expected to hear. Secondly, I spoke to the Institute of Risk Management, which was unable to point to any published work. Thirdly, I spoke to AIRMIC (the Association of Insurance and Risk Managers) and it, too, was unaware of the existence of any proper analysis. I hope that if any proper risk analysis has been done the Minister will be able to give us details and will undertake that it will be published forthwith.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, said that public health has to be protected before the scientific evidence is available. I was most unimpressed by his cholera example. It was obviously a good idea to clean up London drinking water whatever the reason. The cost of the decision made to turn off that tap was negligible in comparison with the particular benefit.
Let us be clear that this measure will not affect, one way or the other, the attitude of the Europeans. They are keeping British beef out of world markets for quite different reasons. Indeed, some of them might even feel that the more Brits who go mad the better. Meanwhile, I hope that the House will have the courage to ask the Government to think again. If they did so, it would strike a strong echo with the British people who, not for the first time, would see the House of Lords as their protector against unwise and ill-considered measures proposed in another place. The Government might even be pleased to be saved from themselves. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should certainly welcome the annulment of the measure.
118
What, incidentally, has happened to the Treasury? In the days when I was in Whitehall it would never have allowed the Government to get away with such expensive and unjustified decisions.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, one of the few pleasures of opposition is to be on this side of the House in a BSE debate. I do not envy the Minister his position. I have no interests to declare. I have spent most of my life avoiding farming, which occupied my father, brother and cousins extensively. Presumably that is why I was chosen to have Front Bench responsibility for agriculture, and the Minister will know how that goes.
I share the risk assessment of nvCJD put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. We clearly do not know the mechanisms, but we know enough to make it sensible to act as if there were a link and to base all our policy on the idea that there is a link between BSE and nvCJD. It is imperative that we see an early and conclusive end to the BSE epidemic as it has involved enormous costs for the UK, and farmers in particular. Any action to eliminate the risk of a continuation of the epidemic must be justified, even at low likelihoods of continuing infection.
If the Government were able to say that that is why they are introducing this beef bones ban I should give them my full support. but there is no truth in that at all. There is no way in which beef bones in a butcher shop or in someone's kitchen will get back into the cattle herd and produce continuing infection. That is not a risk.
We are dealing with something that is supposed to exist just to protect consumers, but, as has been said so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke, we are dealing with a risk of one in a billion. which does not appear on anyone's scale of ordinary risks to be taken notice of and avoided. We are dealing with a regulation which is just a bit of flannel for the EU. It is a regulation which is unenforceable and which will not be enforced. It is a regulation which is intended not to be enforced. It is a sad day when we look at such legislation: we are, as it were, seeking to beat the Europeans at their own game of failing to enforce regulations. That is not the right way to go.
I return to my first comment. It is important that we ensure that there is no continuation of the epidemic in this country. I noted in the newspaper yesterday that there have been 12 cases of BSE in cattle imported into this country, principally from France and Belgium. That is more cases than those two countries have themselves declared, as I remember. It is extraordinary that we just happened to import the ones that were infected.
The risk for us is that those cattle will bring back BSE into the system when we have reached the point that only three cattle with that disease are likely to reach the human food chain in this country this year. That is an extraordinary improvement on the worst stages of the epidemic. Our tracking system must be in place to ensure that if a cow goes down with BSE, we know whether it has been imported and from where it has come so that we can demonstrate that our national herd

119
is free of infection, even if we are still bringing in infected animals from European countries which have not implemented the controls that we have.
When we were in Government, with this epidemic we regularly found ourselves walking into the slurry pit. Whether that was due to us not noticing that it was there, or whether it was never pointed out to us that it was there, is a question which I shall leave to the Minister. I am sure that he is aware of the danger: we may not have looked at all of the ways in which infection may continue in the national herd.
I have been having a debate with the Minister. I am grateful for his reply yesterday to the effect that calves are still allowed to drink their mother's blood. One is allowed to put cow's blood into milk replacer for calves. We know that calves are much more likely to pick up the infection than adult cows. If there is some material which will come from cows to calves it will be that, because MBM is banned. It is extraordinary that we continue to accept that risk.
We have gone as far as banning all pig products in pig feed, although we have never demonstrated the existence of BSE in those animals. However, we are allowing that element of feedback among cattle. Might not other lacunae exist in our defences? Will it not be ridiculous to discover that one or two animals born this year or last suddenly develop BSE, putting back the whole eradication programme for six years? That would be another six years of slaughtering our old dairy cattle at the cost of £1 billion a year. That is unthinkable. Surely, a proper examination of the remaining risks is required. Would not that be an issue for Lord Justice Phillips to incorporate in his studies?
I turn to the subject of the debate. It is wonderful that we have reduced the risk of contracting nvCJD to one in a billion. Generally, food risks are much higher than that. As the Government have recently stated, fresh meat should generally be treated as though it were infected. Many samples of fresh meat will contain salmonella or E.coli. The Government's arguments about restaurants are ridiculous. The additional risk that would be posed if every restaurant in the land used beef bones is so small in relation to the volume of food poisoning and other risks associated with restaurants as to be insignificant. There is no argument for trying to protect the public against a risk which they do not know exists, even if it were one hundred times the supposed level.
When we discover better methods of detecting the prion proteins which are at the heart of the problem, what will happen when we follow on the work that is already being undertaken into the reproduction of prion protein in muscles? Let us suppose that it is established that there are low levels of prion in ordinary meat and that there is a one in 10 billion chance of contracting nvCJD if you happen to eat a steak. Would that cause the Government to ban the entire beef industry, which would be the only way of avoiding the risk? Would they close down the entire beef industry for a one in 10 billion risk? I hope that they would not. If they would not. why are they trying to avoid this one in a billion risk related to beef on the bone, which is only 5 per cent. of the beef that is eaten? I do not understand the Government's logic in going down that road.
120
I hope that they will not seek to impose that logic on the food safety standards agency when it is set up. Do they intend to impose the one in a billion risk on all food-related risks? If so, we will see a doubling or trebling of the price of every single meat product. Is that the Government's intention? Do they not believe that the correct way of dealing with such risks is by supplying information and allowing individuals to make their own decisions? If we achieve nothing else from the debate, I shall be delighted to have the Minister's reaffirmation that common sense will prevail when dealing with other risk-related food.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am most grateful for the opportunity to debate the beef bone regulations. I have no interest to declare. My ambition is to cover my farm with combinable crops and I find two dogs and two children quite enough to handle. I admire those who are seriously in the cattle business.
The sorry saga of BSE rolls on. I have yet to find anything creditable in the story. It will be interesting to see what the Government's committee of inquiry under Lord Justice Phillips comes up with. It will find the same problems. What is certain is that the subject continues to inflict damage not only on cattlemen hut also on reputations. As others have said and as I have found, no one, except for one or two Members opposite, supports the Government in this matter.
How far the BSE crisis has influenced the suicide rate in farming, which is currently about 50 farmers a year—that is almost one a week—we will probably never know. However, it is likely that suicide as a result of the BSE crisis accounts for more deaths than the new CJD. I accept that the strongly suspected link between BSE and CJD is the reason for the crisis. The question of whether the link can be absolutely proved to exist may continue for a long time. That is because of the long incubation period of the disease and also the long time required for the passing of each generation of both cattle and humans. We cannot accelerate that process.
However, it is certain that if it were not for a suspected link, the handling of the BSE crisis would have been different. It is probable that we would not have had the enormous expenditure on the present cull and the epidemic would have been allowed to run a more natural course. I accept the need for the cattle industry to get rid of the disease, but we do not need the accelerated panic.
With that in mind, it is not unreasonable to suggest that each nvCJD fatality has cost the Exchequer between £160 million and £170 million. That figure is the result of dividing the cost of the BSE eradication programme by the number of nvCJD fatalities. I may be accused of abusing statistics, but, to anyone involved in human health, that is a remarkable figure to play with.
The regulations we are debating prevent the retail sale of beef on the bone because those undertaking research on BSE have discovered the disease in two new parts of the beef carcass. Naturally, given the suspected link, that is cause for anxiety. The relevant committee, having considered matters carefully, duly contacted the

121
Ministry. Its report makes interesting reading. If it were not wholly inappropriate, it would be tempting to read verbatim the report which I have received from the Library.
Be that as it may, the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke—perhaps I may be forgiven the pun—covered the bones of the report extremely well. We understand that there might be one additional case of nvCJD as a result of recently acquired knowledge. To that can be added the possibility of cases already in incubation for which we will pay the annual cost of the over-30-months slaughter scheme. The life insurance industry and the courts, which are used to assessing the value of a life—it may be grisly, but they are—would be shocked by any suggestion that that is a sensible valuation. In a perverse way, I am pleased that the cost is so high because at least it is a strong indication of the relatively small number of cases of nvCJD.
The standing advisory committee on encephalopathy recommended that its findings, based on risk assessment, be made public. It said that the Government might consider two further actions: a soft option to remove all bones from carcasses of animals slaughtered over the age of 24 months; or, a harder option, to remove all bones from carcasses of those slaughtered over the age of six months. But the wording is instructive:
"We recommend that the information be made available to the public".
It goes on to say:
"If the Government decides that action is necessary to reduce this small risk further we recommend either".
I am quite clear that the standing advisory committee did not recommend the action taken.
I raise one separate issue. It is a small but important point of detail. I declare an interest as it affects my culinary wishes. I spoke to a Mr. John Brewster of Smithfield Market, one of the senior market people, who is very puzzled as to why oxtail has been included in the regulations. As all noble Lords will know, oxtail is an extension of the base of the spine but it begins way beyond the point where the spinal cord ceases. Therefore, there is no chance of there being dorsal root ganglia in the tail.
Paradoxically, too, the centre of the oxtail bone does not consist of marrow but of a form of light gristle. So there is no marrow in the oxtail either. We have a situation therefore in which the regulations ban a perfectly palatable aspect of the beef carcass from the market when there is no possibility of there being any infected material in it.
I must assume that the Minister will argue that the new regulations are necessary if the European Community ban on British beef exports is to be lifted. That may or may not be so. But I ask him to bear in mind in his negotiations over the water that the German and continental meat markets were collapsing rapidly before the beef crisis broke. The BSE crisis gave the mainland an excuse, for that is what it was, to ban a large volume of competing meat. The German market has made a less good recovery than ours. It is still in its
122
interests to prevent additional sources of meat reaching that market. We can be confident that as a result of everything that has happened British meat is almost certainly vastly safer than anything which is slaughtered and cut up on the continent.
There is one final point I should like to introduce which arises from an article I read in the Financial Times today. The European Commission seems to be having to alter its attitude towards the whole question of BSE. It is in trouble with the United States because it has not given meat from that country the same BSE risk assessment—if the matter can be expressed in that way—as it has beef from Australia and New Zealand. If that is so and the European Commission is having to look at the issue in relation to the risk of BSE from other countries, it gives the lie to the fact that it is an exclusively British problem, a fact which farmers and others have tried to make on many occasions but one which falls on singularly deaf ears when one crosses the Channel. I await the outcome of the debate with great interest.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before 1st May and before his elevation to the Ministry of Agriculture, I shared a room with my noble friend Lord Donoughue. He will have heard me denounce the hysteria of the previous government in relation to BSE and the ban on beef and so on in far less measured terms than I shall be able to use today. But he can be certain, because I have already told him, that I shall speak against this Government's policy, as I spoke against the previous government's policy. Therefore, he is in no doubt as to what is my attitude today.
This is the first opportunity that the House of Lords has had to discuss specifically this matter. The Statement on 3rd December was refused—which means that it was not repeated here—so unlike the House of Commons, we were unable to question the Minister when that decision was made. That was altogether unfortunate since noble Lords in this House have very great expertise in farming and related matters. Therefore, the Government and the country were denied the opportunity of having those views expressed and the benefit of advice given at an early stage.
Indeed, there has been no full-scale debate yet in the House of Commons about this ban, although that may still happen. It is right, therefore, that there should be a proper debate here and we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, for tabling this Motion. Indeed, had he not done so, I would have done so. I should have tabled a Motion because I believe that it is completely unacceptable that a Minister, without warning or proper consultation, should be able to ban a product on the flimsiest of evidence and after rejecting less extreme measures which were available on the advice of his experts. I had expected a Labour Minister to be more robust in defence of people's freedom and livelihoods than previous spineless Tory Ministers; and to exercise common sense rather than blindly follow official advice.

123
If Ministers are not prepared to exercise their own judgment on behalf of the great mass of people, what are they there for? Why do we have them? Let us just leave the experts to make the decision without any control. Ministers should have taken note of the fact that symptoms showed only after animals had been fed large doses of BSE-infected meat. We are not going to feed humans with large artificial doses of infected meat. That is one of the points that I should have taken into account when making a decision.
Even so, the Secretary of State, in his Statement, stated that British beef is safe but nevertheless he was instituting the ban as a precautionary measure and to maintain consumer confidence. That is what he said on 3rd December. But by 14th January, the story had changed somewhat, as we have heard recently. In a reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said something quite different. I shall quote what she said because it is worth having it on the record on this debate. She said:
"I would say to him",
that is, to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe,
"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, hut more to do with those delicate negotiations that my right honourable and noble friends arc 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".—[Officia1 Report, 14/1/98; col. 1054.]
So between 3rd December and 14th January there was a different story. I think we should take due note of that. What is the real story'? Was the decision made on food safety grounds or as yet another grovelling sop to our real political masters in Europe? The health risk is not just small—as we have heard—but infinitesimal: one in about 600 million. That really is no risk at all.
As we have heard so many times, there are huge risks from other activities. Those risks are enormous compared with eating beef on the bone, or beef of any sort for that matter. So far there have been only 22 cases of CJD/BSE deaths since the beginning of the scare, yet every year 3,600 people are killed on the roads and 50,000 are seriously injured. There are 140 deaths every year from swimming, from jumping in the sea or a pool. There are 18 deaths from childbirth every year. There are 500 deaths every year from AIDS/HIV. There are 65 deaths from E.coli and salmonella poisoning. That is three times as many in one year as the total number of deaths so far from CJD/BSE. That puts the matter into perspective. Many of those E.coli and salmonella deaths may well be due to the unhygienic practices of officials of the Meat Hygiene Service at abattoirs. Indeed it seems to me under those circumstances that there is a better case for banning meat inspectors than beef on the bone!
The ban has been badly received not only by farmers and the meat trade but also by the general public, as was shown by the rush to buy beef on the bone, including oxtails,—people were trampled in the rush—before the ban was imposed. We have seen the flouting of the law by traders, aided and abetted by their customers who refuse to be intimidated by overweening Ministers. This sort of ban brings government into disrepute and induces
124
the contempt of the electorate for laws which they see as ridiculous, unnecessary and harmful to large sections of people. They are simply fed up with knee-jerk reactions by Ministers and MPs to events, and the imposing of new laws, bans and other actions, without time being given for consultation, proper reflection and consideration of the wider implications of their actions which impinge on personal freedom and on people's livelihoods.
We hear a lot about the people so it is all right for me to talk about them. People are increasingly concerned about the growing arrogance and intolerance of the state. It is often described as a nanny state and that seems to me to be an apt term bearing in mind recent revelations about nannies' treatment of their charges. They beat them up and do other such things. I fear that the electorate is being beaten up by governments introducing legislation which is unnecessary, ill thought out and which should never reach the statute book. I have to say in conclusion that if the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, presses this amendment, I shall—and indeed not in fear and trembling of my Front Bench or the Whips—he pleased to join him in the Lobby.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, in his speech my noble friend Lord Kimball went back some 200 years when he described how marrow bones were preserved for the members of London clubs. 1 wish to go back just 20 years or so to the time when I took part in an evaluation visit to the Neuropathogenesis Unit in Edinburgh to assess the funding of scrapie, a disease which is related to BSE. At that time it was a model for the human disease of CJD or Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease.
At that meeting two important developments occurred. First, the members of the Medical Research Council felt that it was not worth carrying on with research into scrapie as a model of CJD because the number of cases of CJD that occurred in this country was low, and they felt that the money could be better spent elsewhere. However, the advice that prevailed was that the work should go on, and indeed it did. Thank heavens that it did because that sort of work is important now because of our CJD problem.
Those were the days when spongiform encephalopathies were of a low order of interest and only a few people in this country were working on them. It is long-term, chronic research that is difficult to fund and it takes a long time to obtain any research results. Secondly, however, everything changed when there was a report of a scrapie-like condition occurring in cattle in southern England. That was BSE. Since the mid-80s there have been 165,000 cases of BSE in the United Kingdom and more than 1.2 million cattle have been slaughtered in a control—and ultimately eradication—programme. The cause has been the feeding of animal waste, specific bovine offals—or specific bovine materials as they are now known—to cattle as a source of protein. That was prohibited in 1988. Over the succeeding years that prohibition and other regulation and control policies eventually led to a dramatic fall in the number of cases of BSE to the level of around 100 new infections in cattle in this country at the present

125
time, as estimated by the Oxford epidemiological group, and some 300 animals under 30 months of age remaining in the whole country which are infected with BSE.
So shortly there will be fewer cases of BSE in the United Kingdom than there are in some other countries of the European Union. Whereas we are taking extraordinarily drastic measures as regards the control and slaughter of cattle and the treatment of meat and carcasses, as many noble Lords have said, these other countries with BSE in their herds—some of whom have admitted the problem and others of whom have not—are not taking similar measures.
Despite the criticism that this Government and the previous government have received, what we have done in this country is quite remarkable. It has rid the country of a pestilence which is slow to develop, difficult to understand and which we are still not entirely sure about in terms of the causal agent. That could have been done much more quickly. We are well aware that the ban on the feeding of specific bovine offals has not been as rigorously enforced as it might have been due to a shortage of manpower and certainly a shortage of funds to support that manpower. We admit that there has been contamination of animal feeds from other animal feeds, the use of material that is already in the pipeline, and, worst of all, the illegal production of animal feeds by knacker men and the use of that animal protein in dairy herds. Nevertheless, successful control, possibly leading to eradication, is near. It has been at great cost: £150 million as compensation for the destruction of animals; £52 million on research; and another £35 million on administration.
A circumstantial association between BSE and CJD is now accepted, although many would say that it is not absolutely proven. Although the prevalence internationally of CJD is as high in other countries without BSE as in this country, the incidence of BSE in this country, and in other countries without BSE, is rising. So in the United Kingdom we are making regulations, such as the Beef Bones Regulations, to prevent human infection with BSE.
However, I believe that there is a degree of confusion between hazard and risk. There is clearly a difference between the two. The hazard of getting new variant CJD from beef is, I think, accepted now by many people. The risk of doing so is an entirely different matter. If the Oxford figures are accepted, we shall have few animals that constitute the hazard. Is it realistic to apply the meat-off-the-bone regulations to all cattle slaughtered in this country to obviate the risk that that hazard will materialise? I believe that it is not.
I hope that the Minister will comment on this point. If the meat-off-the-bone regulations are to prevail, some consideration must be given to those herds where BSE has been absent for a number of years. In certain parts of the country herds are ready for certification that they are BSE free. Why should a herd where BSE has been absent for, say, five or more years suffer the same plight as a herd where recent cases of BSE have been identified?
126
Finally, I believe that there is an urgent need for a diagnostic test to identify freedom from BSE in a carcass at slaughter. Various proteins have been identified in affected animals and their use as possible indicator proteins may be useful markers that BSE and its byproducts are either present or absent in brain and spinal cord material. A confirmatory test that a carcass is free from BSE would greatly help our export efforts and would give that assurance to the consumer buying the beef. It would be especially welcome. I hope that the Minister will advise what progress is being made in developing such a test either in the laboratories at Weybridge, or elsewhere.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, after listening to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I fear that he will think me a spineless Tory, because I have only some simple technical questions which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, will answer. They arise from some remarks made by the noble Lord in last Wednesday's debate. He supported the beef bone order by saying:
"It was made clear to us that without action to demonstrate publicly that our beef is completely safe … there would he no prospect of getting the beef ban lifted".—[Official Report; 21/1/98; col. 1579.]
Today those remarks were supported by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and destroyed by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I find those remarks extremely confusing, even worrying. Why does taking beef off the bone in the butcher's shop, not the abattoir, make British beef any safer for the consumer in Europe? Is the noble Lord saying that the Government expect to have the beef export ban lifted on pre-packaged meat only? If so, when, and by whom, has this been suggested? Can the noble Lord assure me that such packaged beef will be acceptable in export markets, in particular to the French housewife and chef; or, as my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, intimated, is there a commercial element or an element of cowardice in that decision?
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, also said:
"Consumers continue to be given the highest protection against risks from BSE".—[Official Report; 21/1/98; col. 1579.]
Who are those consumers? For instance, I and my neighbour often kill one of our bullocks to consume ourselves. As I interpret the regulation, and I have taken advice, it will still be permissible for us to consume our own beef on the bone. Why are we allowed to take that enormous risk while the chefs, housewives, and so on, cannot? Are we expendable, second-class citizens? Are. too, all our friends and relations whom we offer our home-killed beef on the bone second-class citizens? Moreover, my neighbour is this year's president of the Royal Welsh Show. Is it legal for us to have, as he will make me have, I know, an ox roast in aid of the show when we do not charge for the ox roast? My neighbour and I would like an answer.
I was also intrigued by the answer of the noble Lord. Lord Donoughue, to my Question for Written Answer which stated that only sterilised bones should be given to dogs. As your Lordships know, I have a particular affinity to dogs. I have to tell the Minister that my

127
terrier, Gerty, does not like sterilised bones. Moreover, she is no snob dog; she was a homeless mongrel. So is she, like the farmer with his home kill, a second-class citizen who should be allowed the exemption I have mentioned?
Moreover, as I interpret the noble Lord's written reply to me on 8th January, at col. 1394 of the Official Report, I can spread bonemeal on the garden. What happens if Gerty, my dog, eats it? Has she committed an offence, as suggested by the noble Lord in his written reply of 8th January?
I am sorry that this is the third time within a week that I have had to draw the Government's attention to the damage, which they say is supported by urban morality, that they are doing to farming and rural traditions and practices. When the order was made I thought it was yet another unnecessary blow directed against us. But, as has been said, I was wrong, for to my relief and surprise the screams of protest came not so much from farmers but from butchers, chefs, and, most importantly of all, the public and the housewife, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Marlesford.
I hope therefore that with the support of the public we may be able to encourage the Government to listen to the Motion so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I wrote to the Minister before Christmas on the subject that I am about to address briefly. However, I have not received a reply, so I expect that he has not had a chance to read my letter.
All through 1996 and the early part of last year, I was aware of the fact that in the great BSE disaster there was something missing. During the Summer Recess I gave the matter a lot of thought. I remembered an occasion when I had a chat with my brother-in-law, who was a distinguished professor of medicine, Charles Fletcher, who might be known to some noble Lords; sadly, he is no longer with us. He told me how he had become a member of ASH, the organisation set up to persuade us not to smoke cigarettes. The members of ASH had spent a lot of time trying to see how they could persuade the public not to smoke, particularly cigarettes. They had come to the conclusion that the best way of doing it was to show the ordinary citizen the odds against an early death, or against some nasty disease of the lungs. They thought that the best way of getting through to the public was to inform them of the odds. Incidentally—and this has only occurred to me since—there was no question about convincing the Government. The Government were somehow a step behind. They came into the picture regarding the prevention of smoking much later, when regulations were introduced relating to warnings on cigarette packets and such like.
Ever since the late 1950s, all through the 1960s and 1970s and onwards, each time ASH has entered the battle there has always been a reference to the odds. Furthermore, it has worked. There are enormous numbers of your Lordships who do not smoke now, but
128
who did smoke 30 years ago. The same goes for all our contemporaries. That is because we have been persuaded by the odds.
As several noble Lords have remarked. the important feature of this particular argument regarding beef on the bone is that the decision so obviously works against freedom of choice for the ordinary individual. Surely freedom of choice is a matter of great importance to this country. We are proud of our freedoms. What is more, the present Government, given their record over the past 50 years or so, would claim to be among those who are most enthusiastic about freedom for the individual. Certainly on this side of the House we have always been keen on individual freedom. I do not think there is any Briton who would not feel that this was important.
Therefore, I strongly suggest to the Minister that, whenever particulars are announced of some threat to people from what they may eat, it should be obligatory within all government circles and departments that the odds, as they affect the average individual, are automatically included. They do not necessarily have to be promoted; nor do they have to be part of the argument as to why the Government are doing what they are doing. But if the odds are made available, people will know what they need to do to meet their own needs for living as ordinary and civilised a life as possible, without the threat of being prevented from eating this or that. They are then able to draw comparisons with other odds, such as those of being run over, and so on. If that information became a serious inclusion in every single report, the matter would be brought into balance; Ministers might hesitate and take what might turn out to be more sensible action.
In conclusion, I am pleased to see from the White Paper that the food standards agency is to have a risk assessment department. Risk assessments undertaken by scientists are not necessarily presented in terms that are understood by the ordinary betting public. I suggest that, in that agency, the Government should have on call an experienced, practising bookmaker, who could be called in to present the odds when any such events occur so that the best advice is available as to how to present the matter to the public.
4.55 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I declare an interest as a partner in a family farm which has some minor connection with beef production. Recently, I asked the Government to explain why they had taken the drastic action of banning the sale of beef on the bone rather than giving the public proper information and allowing individuals to make up their own mind—as is done, for example, in relation to the risk from smoking. I found the Government's answer so unconvincing and unsatisfactory that I am moved to return to the matter and take part in this debate.
One thing is plain. Nothing in life is entirely safe. Throughout life, people make up their own mind as to whether they wish to run a certain risk. I note that today's Times tells us that every one of us has a 1:125 chance of dying in a road accident. Yet we all leap into our motor cars and make pointless journeys

129
in every direction, taking that very much greater risk. Smoking is a classic example of people taking risks of which they are aware. Governments have spent vast sums informing people of the dire consequences of smoking; yet people still choose to run those risks for the pleasures they are afforded. My personal view is that they are foolish to do so; but it is absolutely right that they should make their own decisions and not have those decisions made for them.
However, while the Government appear to accept that proposition, when an infinitely smaller risk is thought to exist from beef on the bone, all of us—except the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, on his own farm—are deprived of our right to choose. A nanny state says that the public is too silly to make up its own mind; they, the Government, know best.
What is the Government's explanation for this illogical attitude? They say that more is known about smoking, so people can make up their own mind. People can decide for themselves whether they wish to take the undoubted, proven risks of lung cancer and so on. But, say the Government, less is known about beef and CJD.
All that is uncertain on this topic is whether there is now any causal connection risk at all. But people know perfectly well what CJD is. It is Alice-in-Wonderland-speak to say that if the risk is certain and considerable you can decide for yourselves but if the risk is speculative and dubious the Government will decide for you.
The other reason advanced by the government spokesman, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, as to why they treat smoking and beef eating differently is that, in relation to smoking, tobacco has been around for a very long time. But surely even this Government realise that beef eating has been around for a great deal longer. It is much more an integral part of British life than smoking. Do the Government not realise that the yeoman warders of the Tower are called the Beefeaters, and not the "Woodbine-whiffers" or something of that kind? To many people the Sunday joint of beef is one of the established parts of life. The public deeply resent Ministers deciding for them whether or not they should be allowed to eat it.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I deplore the fact that Ministers of every government seem to think that they are so much more intelligent and sensible than the public and that they should make up our minds. The opposition of the public to this theory is demonstrated by the rush to buy beef on the bone, even though many of those who bought it said that they did not regularly eat it, did not normally buy it, but were damned if they were going to be told by the Government what they could or could not eat.
The public are not less intelligent and sensible than Ministers. Ministers should stop playing Big Brother. Quite apart from the fact that it is all wrong that they should do so, surely by now the Government realise that telling other people what is best for them is not only arrogant but very rapidly becomes counter-productive. Surely the right course for the Government is to realise that they have totally misread public opinion and
130
withdraw the regulations. The Motion today gives them an opportunity to do so. If they wish, they can replace them with rules which require clear labelling in shops, restaurants and so on as to the origins of the beef and whether it was cooked on the bone. People can then decide for themselves whether they do not want to eat beef at all, whether they want to risk some dubious foreign product or whether they want to eat British beef with its theoretical risk in one in a billion cases.
A law which most people regard as a silly interference with their lives is by definition bad law. If enacted as a sop to Europe, it is much worse unless it is made plain to the public that they are being subjected to unnecessary rules merely as a diplomatic ploy.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke for moving the Motion. If he takes it to a Division. I have already told him that I shall support him.
I start by quoting the old saying:
"There are lies, damned lies and statistics".
I add to that, "and research findings". That is not necessarily to impute dishonesty to research scientists in general. That is not my intention. But it is true that frequently scientists, like doctors and theologians, contradict each other. Also, the results of research are often incomplete and a year later the same scientists will come up with something that is absolutely different from, and indeed the opposite of, what they were saying before.
A fact to which attention has already been drawn is that food poisoning scares are often media-driven and are becoming too frequent. I do not accept that the public are as afraid of being poisoned as some politicians and some of the media suggest. As the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said, that was borne out in the 10 days following the announcement of the ban on beef on the bone when, according to reports, the public rushed to buy before it was too late. I bought some oxtail myself.
There are well known risks associated with certain kinds of food. Quite recently my wife became ill through eating shellfish. We all know that that is possible in the case of oysters, lobster and prawns and that in certain cases shellfish poisoning can be fatal. We eat the foods, understanding the risks involved, because we like them. Heaven forbid that I should suggest a ban on shellfish because they are dangerous. We know that, and we are prepared to take the risk. So why can we not be allowed to take the much lesser risk associated with eating beef on the bone?
Her Majesty's Government and some noble Lords say that a lifting of the export ban by the European Union will be helped by the imposition of a ban on beef on the bone. I wonder. I may be wrong, but I think there is misapprehension about the reasons for the world-wide export ban. For climatic and other reasons, British beef is known to be the best in the world. None of our European partners produces anything approaching its

131
quality. They obviously do not like that as it damages their own livestock industries. So although BSE is common in many European countries, they use the fact that we are more open in these matters to institute a ban on our world-wide exports. It is extraordinary to me and to many other people that they are even able to do that. How is it possible that the late government could have signed away such a vital right—the right to sell one's produce to willing buyers? Shortly after the ban was announced, I passed one of Garfunkel's restaurants. In the window was a notice:
"Only imported beef served here".
There's patriotism for you.
At that time I believed, and I still believe, that sheep will be next. After all, our hills and pastures produce the best lamb in the world and Europe does not like it, as we saw when the French farmers attacked our sheep transports. The brutality of those attacks on innocent animals makes fox hunting a humanitarian exercise. But few animal lovers seemed to care or notice, any more than they care or notice that hundreds and thousands, indeed millions, of cattle have been slaughtered on the flimsiest of pretexts in order to satisfy continental vets. Some people are now apparently cooking up a dossier to enable them to do the same to our sheep as they did to our cattle.
Reverting to the way in which we have treated and are treating our cattle herds. I should like, for the first time in my life, to quote Gandhi. I do so not because I always agreed with him nor because I am a Hindu. This is what he said:
"The cow is the mother of the whole human race!"
There is some truth in that. The cow and all cattle should be treated with respect. We use them and they deserve something better in return than wholesale massacre without good reason. There is an understanding between all good stockmen and their animals that they should be given the best care possible in return for the fact that they are milked and ultimately killed. Crucial to their care is that they should not be killed unnecessarily.
I am glad that the right reverend Prelate is present to hear what I shall say now. I believe strongly that by the slaughter of nearly 2 million cattle, we have broken that compact. I believe that God will judge us for what we have done.
How long have we got to wait before the Government and our Euro enthusiasts wake up to what is happening? Our livestock industry is being comprehensively destroyed and with it much of our traditional farming community. Neither this Government nor the last one are or were prepared to say to our European partners, "Enough is enough".
I have no interest to declare except to say that 25 years ago I was a livestock farmer. I thank God that I am spared from being one now. My sympathy is with the farmers and their families and their animals. To a lesser extent I sympathise with butchers and the public, including myself, who are now banned from eating T-bone steak and oxtail for no good reason and look like being banned from eating many other things and from doing many other things like smoking and fox hunting.
132
Finally, I ask one question of the noble Lord who is to reply. I thought it was to be the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, but he is not in his place. Are we allowed to buy foreign T-bone steak or oxtail, Dutch, French or wherever it comes from? If so, I hope that no one and certainly none of your Lordships will buy it.
5.8 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, first I wish to thank my noble friends Lord Kimball and Lord Willoughby de Broke for calling for this debate on the Motion. I would also like to declare an interest in so far as I am a landowner in Scotland and my farm tenant has around 100 prime beef cattle which have never suffered from BSE, as they have only been fed on grass or silage in the winter.
One of the things that puzzles me about the current legislation on the sale of beef on the bone is that imported bones can be used not only for soap, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals but also for bouillon, stock cubes and gravy granules. How do we know that they are from BSE-free herds? We in the British Isles now have the toughest rules in the world to eradicate BSE. No beef is sold to consumers that is over 30 months old.
In 1998, of the 2.2 million cattle to be slaughtered for human food only three beasts will be near enough to the end of the incubation period for there to be the possibility of infectivity in their dorsal root ganglia. The statistical risk to humans from eating meat on the bone is so infinitesimal as to be negligible.
Furthermore, "bone in beef" represents only 5 per cent. of home beef consumption. This tiny risk is not a basis for prescriptive legislation and is overcautious. Consumers should be able to make their own judgment, having been acquainted with all the facts.
This latest ban goes far beyond the advice given by SEAC. I see here a parallel with the Cullen Report on handguns, when an expert was appointed by the Government and then his advice was totally ignored. The result of this ban is further to damage confidence in the British beef industry, which has already been brought to its knees. It is my opinion, having read the findings of the various scientific bodies, that meat on the bone from cattle of six months old or less is totally safe and that meat on the bone from cattle up to 30 months old is for all practical purposes safe although there is in theory an infinitesimal risk.
This latest piece of legislation has brought us no nearer to getting the export ban lifted. We all know that other EU countries are affected by BSE, but they keep quiet about it while we in the British Isles have come clean and have used our best endeavours to eradicate it. Yet still the export ban persists.
In conclusion, the most vocal of the EU countries is of course Germany, seconded by its old ally Austria. Perhaps I am being oversensitive but I cannot help detecting an element of revenge in their current implacable attitude to British beef. This applies in particular to the case of Northern Ireland, where the tracing scheme can actually prove that individual animals are BSE free.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, it is now some 22 months since the government announcement of the possible link between BSE and the new variant CJD. The announcement had an immediate and devastating impact on the entire UK beef industry. Despite some recent encouraging signs of a recovery in beef consumption, due largely to the successful marketing campaign run by the Meat and Livestock Commission, the industry remains in crisis. Producer prices remain depressed, imports are being sucked in due to the strength of the pound, the beef export ban remains in place and the industry is faced with increasing costs which producers in other EU member states do not face. On top of all this came the announcement on 3rd December by the Minister of Agriculture, Dr. Jack Cunningham, that he had taken the decision to ban sales of beef on the bone. While no government can take chances when it comes to food safety, decisions which can have a massive financial impact on an industry must surely be based on risk assessment and not be governed by what will best suit our European partners.
SEAC's advice to the Minister on dorsal root ganglia clearly indicated that there was only an extremely remote risk of a case of nvCJD arising from exposure to infectivity in these ganglia in an animal entering the human food chain. In percentage terms there is only a one in 6 million chance of someone dying from eating beef on the bone. Faced with that minuscule risk, the Minister's decision to ban the sale of beef on the bone was not justified. If in future we abide by this principle without paying proper attention to risk assessment, we would stop many aspects of our industrial production on health grounds. Oysters, which have been mentioned, would certainly go; the processing of shell fish would stop; smoking certainly should finish because that definitely accounts for a great many deaths; motor cycles must be off the road; bicycles should not be allowed; and motor cars certainly should not be allowed. That is clearly not an acceptable position.
Although we understand the precautionary principle that the Ministry is trying to adopt, in future such action must take risks more seriously into account. Surely a more appropriate response would have been for consumers to have been provided with the facts and be allowed to make their own purchasing decisions. Indeed, there is considerable evidence that consumers resent being dictated to by the Government and wish to make their own decisions.
On a more positive note, I should like to take this opportunity to welcome the launch of Assured British Meat. This independent body, funded jointly by MAFF and the Meat and Livestock Commission, will provide independent assurance of basic standards for British meat. Assured British Meat will certify only those who adhere to specific standards, which cover food safety. animal welfare and environmental criteria. This new initiative is surely the best way of reassuring customers that British beef is of the highest quality and safe to eat.
5.15 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I am somewhat saddened that the Minister is still not in his place and has missed so many speeches. Will the Minister be able to answer my questions, I wonder? I have a few interests to declare. First, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Secondly, as a consumer, there is nothing better than a good joint—of beef, my Lords! Thirdly, I have farmed extensively in arable dairy and beef production in Lincolnshire and have reared many hundreds of calves.
In the 1970s, farmers like me were supported in improving our farming systems with the aid of farm capital grant schemes. With that aid I built up a herd of 250 milking Friesians. On joining the Common Market, we, the farmers of Great Britain, were asked to "produce more food from our own resources". Following Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food advice, I built another dairy unit, and by the late 1970s was milking over 500 cows. Beef were finished at varying ages, with bullocks, late finishers at 12 hundredweight, going down to London for the kosher trade, having been fed on vegetable byproducts such as stock feed potatoes, carrots, Brussels sprouts, pea haulm, with urea and straw as protein and fibre. Fishmeal, at that time, was going through the roof in price and compounders were looking for cheaper sources of protein. My Lords, we all know the story from there.
In last Wednesday's debate on agriculture, so ably introduced by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, there were many notable remarks made regarding BSE. The noble Lord the Minister, who is now in his place, said:
"On health grounds it would have been irresponsible for any government to act differently and to ignore the clear advice of its Chief Medical Officer on an important public health issue".—[Official Report, 21/1/98: col. 1579.]
The fact of the matter is that we were not given the opportunity to debate the other options offered by the Chief Medical Officer, one option being to give the public the choice. Like my noble friend Lord Ferrers, I was struck dumb by the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who said:
"The BSE issue is not one of risk but one of confidence within Europe about our ability to act sensibly and responsibly and to move forward cautiously. The rigorous approach of the beef-on-the-hone decision was necessitated by the need to build confidence in Europe and not based on the issue of risk".—[Official Report, 21/1/98: col. 1552.]
The Minister, in responding to the debate, made only one reference to his noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone, saying that he particularly wanted to thank her for being uniquely cheerful. By this, do we presume that the noble Baroness was not incorrect in her assumptions?
This morning I pondered a choice of two ties—the one given to me by my younger daughter, emblazoned with dairy cows; or a tie covered with ostriches whose heads were buried in the sand. My Lords, the cows have it!
Returning to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, we exist to scrutinise delegated legislation. The JCSI is the only body which scrutinises all delegated legislation. It is therefore vital that every

135
Instrument placed before the committee is considered carefully. We are assisted by the Speaker's Counsel from the Commons and Counsel to the Chairmen of Committees from the Lords. The committee does not have the power to question the principle of an Instrument. The committee may report an Instrument to both Houses if, for example, it is defectively drafted or requires elucidation, or makes an unexpected use of powers contained in the parent Act, or even goes beyond the provisions of the parent Act.
I am therefore grateful to my noble friends Lord Kimball and Lord Willoughby de Broke for highlighting the Beef Bones Regulations 1997 for debate today. I was very much concerned about the drafting of these regulations and would have preferred a different drafting approach. Besides the Beef Bones Regulations, there are the Specified Risk Material Regulations, the Specified Risk Material (Amendment) Regulations and the Specified Risk Material Order, a raft of complexity, all mentioned by my noble friend Lord Kimball.
In Regulation 2 of the Beef Bones Regulations 1997, a "bovine animal" is any bovine animal over six months at slaughter unless the context otherwise requires. Why do not the regulations specify exactly where the definition applies and where it does not? Bones can still be left in calves under six months, such as veal calves. Does that not itself make a mockery of the regulations? Why is it that bone is safe up to six months and then suddenly—mysteriously almost—when removed from a seven month old bovine it has to be regarded as contaminated, with inherent storage and disposal problems? That applies across the board with no exceptions.
As it stands this Instrument is a nonsense. We have all heard of the more likely risks that we face each day of our lives. We all share deep sympathy for those who have lost a loved one through disease or affliction of any kind. When I first saw the letters CJD-BSE together I thought, "Could just die—Buy something else"; "Could just die by sniffing exhausts", and so on. We could just die from so many different causes. But we must look after ourselves and make our own decisions, be democratic in our decision-making and not be nannied by the state.
I have no doubt that there will be other scares equally harshly fuelled. There is a great case for saying that British beef is best, is safe, is healthy to eat, and I support the director-general of the Meat and Livestock Commission in his promotion of British beef. The fact that nearly three-quarters of consumers would prefer to eat British beef rather than imported beef speaks volumes.
For the benefit of the consumer, however, there is a greater need to declare war on misrepresentation within the meats industry and produce clear legislation demanding clear definitions of cuts of meat and ingredients, of processed meats and meat products and their origins.
How many of us noticed the unprecedented amount of Aberdeen Angus steaks being offered during the early days of BSE? Personally, I do not believe that there
136
were that many Aberdeen Angus on the hoof to provide so much steak. Then it all became "Scottish beef". How often is lamb really mutton? When is lamb really lamb? Do hamburgers contain only pork? Do beefburgers contain only beef? What is prime beef, as mentioned by certain beefburger manufacturers? It is certainly not first quality cuts of sirloin or rump.
It is vital that Instruments brought before us have been properly thought through. For example. fridges, freezers, washing machines and tumble dryers have to be classified with an energy efficiency rating so that a buyer can ascertain which manufacture and which model will give him the lowest costs in energy consumption. In itself that is fine, but new houses do not have to have double glazing. Think of the long-term waste of energy involved in extra heating bills. Again, legislation must be properly thought through. The Beef Bones Regulations 1997 have not been properly thought through. More time must be given to every aspect of the legislation.
I fear that the Government will not annul the regulations and so I must support my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, as I have done before, I should like, first, to declare an interest in that I own a dairy herd in Cheshire. The BSE debacle has been like a recurring nightmare to the livestock industry. Each development has sapped at the public's confidence and undermined the industry's prosperity. Finally, the announcements on 20th March 1996 isolated this country's beef products from world markets.
The new Minister and his team should be congratulated on the progress that has been made since the election in restoring confidence in our industry's ability to produce safe and wholesome food. In Europe the Council of Ministers has agreed to apply stringent controls on specified risk materials, to the same standards as apply in the United Kingdom.
The prospect of a relaxation of the beef ban is in sight with the tabling of a revised export certified herds scheme and date-based export scheme. The British cattle movement service is being set up and is on course to begin work in May this year. Hygiene standards in abattoirs are being driven up by the publication of hazard assessment system (HAS) scores. The food standards agency is soon to come into being. McDonalds and Burger King—the UK's biggest burger chains—have been persuaded to return to British beef.
Indeed, farmers have given the supermarket Tesco a clean bill of health following their mission to the Republic of Ireland to check the supermarket's beef supply controls after accusations that British supermarkets were sourcing beef products, which were of an inferior quality and standard to UK produced beef. All these and many other initiatives taken by this Government are helping to bring this nightmare to an end. The focus on health issues is the hallmark of this Government's approach to the food industry. This order to ban the sale of boned beef is consistent with that approach.

137
I will not reiterate the full reasoning behind this order. The findings of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) indicate that there is a risk, albeit theoretical, to human health. It was the previous government's failure to recognise that there was a problem and deal with it which put the beef industry in such a parlous state.
I applaud the Minister's bold decision to ban beef on the bone. It would have been ridiculous and irresponsible to issue a health warning about a food product and then just leave it to people to decide whether or not to eat it. Further, the political realities of persuading our European colleagues to lift the beef ban underline that we must be able to demonstrate that all steps have been taken to ensure British food is entirely safe. This is no small point.
The position on the lifting of the beef ban has been summed up best by Professor Philip James. He chairs a Brussels committee which is investigating whether the European Union should import life-saving medicines from the United States which use gelatine or tallow as binding agents. Professor James said he was struck by the almost irrational, political intensity of concern in Europe on BSE. He remarked that in these circumstances, the UK Government faced a series of almost paranoid arguments, in which they would have to prove every step of the way, that each minute detail of control was being implemented. EU inspectors' initial rejection of Northern Ireland's computer-based certified herd scheme is just such a case in point. They seem to be implying that Britain has to prove, well beyond reasonable doubt, that all its anti-BSE measures and controls have been effective.
As regards the precise details of this order, I understand from the Meat and Livestock Commission that there is concern regarding the inclusion of oxtail in the ban. Apparently none of the tissues associated with oxtail has been shown to have the BSE prion and there is no dorsal root ganglia in oxtail. I would be glad if the Minister can explain why it is included in the order. I also understand that soups, broths, stock cubes and gravy granules made from bones from animals reared outside the UK are still allowed to be consumed. I return to the point made last week in your Lordships' House during the debate on agriculture that strict controls must be applied even-handedly. Yes, the element of risk must be eliminated from all food, but BSE is not unknown outside the UK. The UK cannot compete effectively if it alone has to bear higher costs. Until the whole question of bovine material in products for human consumption, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals can be looked at, can the Minister confirm that all food products from bones, whatever their source, will be banned?
It is imperative that the scourge of BSE is eliminated from the national herd. While BSE is still present, food must be demonstrably safe. The plethora of control measures now in place is testament to that imperative. But to restore fully public confidence, we must begin to return to normality. This will, in turn, help us to get the beef ban lifted. In that regard, I should like to raise questions regarding the over thirty months, or OTM,
138
scheme. This classifies, at great cost to the taxpayer, all cattle over 30 months old as waste and unfit for consumption.
Your Lordships will remember that fateful day, 20th March 1996, when trade stopped following the then Minister's statement on a link between BSE and new variant CJD. Following consultations with the supermarket trade during the days that followed, it was thought that the market would collapse if an order was to be made allowing only deboned beef to be sold for human consumption. Thus, the suggestion to ban all sales of boned beef was rejected.
Instead, the OTM scheme was born, eliminating all animals over 30 months old from the food chain. Notwithstanding that all heads, spinal columns and other parts that are collectively known as "specified risk material" are removed from all beef already, beef from animals of over 30 months is banned. There is no suggestion that beef itself carries any risk of the BSE agent. Well, we now have that ban on all boned beef. The question arises: why the continuation of the OTM scheme? Where is the risk to human health from older animals when every conceivable and theoretical risk has been eliminated?
The question is particularly relevant, as the total number of cattle killed under the scheme topped 2 million by the time of the 11th January announcement. The total cost of BSE to the nation is around £3.5 billion. Can the Minister state what is the total cost of this scheme, including cold-store storage, slaughtering and rendering, as well as compensation to the farmer? If the compensation cost to the farmer averages £500 per head of cattle—a not unreasonable assumption, since it was only recently that a lower cap was placed on the monetary value—a figure of £1 billion is arrived at for that element alone. What is the annual cost of this scheme? Can the Minister say what is the continuing need for this scheme and when it is going to end?
It is now time to examine the dismantling of the scheme, to signal the return to normality and to rebuild confidence in the United Kingdom's beef among our European neighbours. The process could begin by identifying herds with no history of BSE and which have pedigree records confirming traceability and that particular animals have not been present in any herd affected by BSE. At the very least, the rolling nature of the scheme could be halted by the announcement that animals born after 1st August 1996 will no longer be subject to its provisions. Can the Minister say what are his department's intentions? I fully support the order but does not the Minister agree that the OTM scheme should, as a consequence, be withdrawn?
The debate over this scheme must begin so that consumers can appreciate the full extent of safety procedures and have confidence in this country's livestock. This may seem ambitious, but the industry has been suffering long enough from this scourge and the cost to the Exchequer has been enormous. I have no doubt that the improvements brought about by this Government will continue, that consumers can have confidence that the safety of foodstuffs is paramount,

139
and that the future of British agriculture is assured. These regulations are part of the process of restoring confidence in the British livestock industry and I urge the House to oppose the Motion.
5.33 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, let me at the outset declare my interest as a dairy farmer and thus as someone who approaches this debate with a certain bias. The debate centres around two issues: first, the extent to which a perceived risk should be regarded as significant; and, secondly, the manner in which government—responsible government—should react to that risk.
My noble friends Lord Kimball and Lord Willoughby de Broke and many other noble Lords have argued, with considerable persuasiveness, that these regulations are not a measured response to the advice given by SEAC, but rather an unthinking response—unthinking, in that it rests on an unbalanced two-legged stool, one leg of which says that if there is a risk to the public from eating a particular food, no matter how small that risk may be, it is the duty of government to eliminate it, while the other leg of the stool says that consumer confidence must he protected at all costs. In this case, the Government have banned the sale of beef on the bone not only, as they maintain, to protect the public, but also to ensure that there is absolutely no obstacle to the lifting of the European ban on British beef exports.
I believe that the Government's action is misconceived on both counts. The SEAC advice defines quite clearly what the risk is from dorsal root ganglia in beef entering the food chain in 1998; namely, that there is a 95 per cent. chance of no cases of new variant CJD and a 5 per cent. chance of one case arising as a result of such exposure. That is the risk from which the Government are seeking to protect us. Examples have been given throughout the debate of other risks that we encounter in our daily lives, but this poses less of a risk than selling paracetamol freely over the counter and far less of a risk than allowing unpasteurised "green top" milk to be sold to the public. These are risks about which the public expect to make up their own mind. The advice given to the Government by SEAC was to inform the public of the extent of the risk, such as it is, and to let the public decide. However, the Government felt compelled to regulate—and at very great cost to British industry.
One argument in defence of the Government, which the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, prayed in aid during last week's agriculture debate, was that the last government went beyond the advice given by SEAC in 1994. That is perfectly true. We did—and I own up to being one of the Ministers in MAFF at the time. But what was that decision in 1994 all about? It was about whether or not to include within the scope of the ban on the sale of specific bovine offals certain organs of calves under six months of age. We decided to adopt a cautious approach and to ban those organs. That was, indeed, a more restrictive policy than the wait-and-see approach favoured by SEAC.
However, that was in mid-1994—at a time when confirmed cases of BSE were running at 1,700 per month and when, with great respect to my noble friend
140
Lord Marlesford, a counsel of caution was the inevitable response to what amounted to a vacuum in scientific and statistical knowledge. Although the risk as presented was theoretical and minuscule, we were only too aware that if Ministers maintained the status quo—and, in doing so, got it wrong—that might result in very serious consequences for the health of this nation and, indeed, of other nations because at that time we were still exporting our beef.
The present situation is not like that at all. The risk—if one can call it that—of BSE entering the food chain is known to be infinitesimal. There is no question of Ministers getting it wrong in the same sense as they might have got it wrong in 1994. If consumers are informed of the facts, they are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves what action they wish to take in response.
Further, one has to question whether the regulations will have any effect whatever on the attitude adopted by the European Commission and other member states. As the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said. the regulations look suspiciously like a diplomatic ploy—and a fruitless one at that. I do not believe that they will make any difference at all to the export ban. I cannot help recalling that, before that ban, much of the British beef consumed on the continent was deboned in any case. With other noble Lords, I regard the regulations as being of the worst possible kind: ill founded, extremely difficult to enforce, and held in contempt by the general public. I do not believe that they are worthy of support.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I too must declare an interest, being a dairy farmer, a beef farmer and a sheep farmer in Scotland. We have had many food safety scares over the years. In Scotland particularly, Professor Hugh Pennington has been involved in many, mostly relating to E.coli (which unfortunately killed an awful lot of people) and to BSE and CJD. When I was young we were told that butter was bad for us, so everybody changed to margarine. We now learn that margarine is worse for you than butter. When I was a little older we had troubles with salmonella in chickens, and eggs with salmonella. There was the case of milk being terribly good for you, and then, suddenly, it was not so good for you. It is peculiar that in Scotland unpasteurised milk is now completely banned and yet in England it is still allowed. Now, of course, we have moved on to consider the situation relating to bones.
In his speech in the agricultural debate the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said that, if we had not taken the action that we did to demonstrate that our beef is completely safe, there would be no prospect of getting the beef ban lifted. I find myself continually asking why it is that this country suffers all the time from its efficiency, whereas the rest the Europe seems to manage to run roughshod over us through its own inefficiency.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, came up with an interesting fact in his speech: he said that the Cheshire farmers are happy. If they are, they must be the only ones in the country who are happy because, for the first time in my lifetime, which is now 51 years, I have seen

141
farmers rioting at Stranraer and at Holyhead. I am fairly certain there would have been a lot of Cheshire farmers there. The farming community is not happy with the situation in which this Government have placed the beef industry.
In a further answer to the Starred Question of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, said, first, that less than one gram of infected meat may be fatal; secondly, eating in a restaurant or preparing in one's kitchen one's own stew or sauce out of bones might be a source of the infection; and, thirdly, if we are successful in eliminating BSE … Those are all "ifs", "mights" and "maybes".
Diseases, according to Professor Pennington, are mostly found not at the stage when farmers are in control but at the slaughterhouse, at the butcher's shop and in the kitchen. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, informed the House on 14th January that it is not known how these new prions are transmitted or in which part of the dorsal ganglia they are found. It is still to be proved that CJD has any connection with BSE, let alone that it is the human version. There is only a one in 20 chance of one person catching, not dying, from BSE and a one in 600 million chance of dying as a result of eating meat on the bone. Yet we find ourselves unable to make a choice about what we eat.
We are controlling diseases that we do not know enough about, but are allowing activities whose dangers we recognise. Many noble Lords have mentioned this: we know that smoking is extremely dangerous. It also increases one's chances of suffering systemic heart disease as a result of passive smoking by 25 per cent. In fact, there is more likelihood of winning the lottery twice than of catching anything from eating beef on the bone. As everybody knows, winning the lottery is not the easiest thing in the world, hard as I try each week.
The whole case, surely, is flawed. We are told that the ban might be removed if the situation can be proved to be satisfactory after further tests. We are told that it might increase confidence in British beef in the EU. but we, the consumers, in Britain, are not being given much choice. We only have one chance at this life. Sometimes we make very bad decisions, but they are as a result of our choice. We have human rights, freedom of choice, freedom of the individual. Those are all planks that this Government hold very dear. Then we have data protection, food safety agencies, etc.—or do we? In this case we certainly do not seem to have them. We are not told the reason for all this; it is just a hunch that there might be a connection. It is a minuscule possibility, but it is not a probability. There is a big difference.
Also, the regulations are not enforceable. Beef under six months of age is exempt. Is the Minister going to tell me that the average housewife in the country can tell whether a slab of meat is six months old? She cannot. Does the butcher know? He will probably have an inkling if he knows his job, purely from the size of the carcass. Does the restaurateur know? It depends on how the meat is packaged when it arrives at his restaurant. All every butcher has to do is claim that he is selling meat under the age of six months. Yes, he will
142
have lots of hassle and lots of red tape. but the food industry is full of that. Yes, he will incur the wrath of the "anti" brigade, but they are everywhere: it does not matter whether the cause is good or bad, they are still against it. However, he will receive the blessing of the local population, as newspaper after newspaper has delighted in telling us. We have weekly stories of restaurants and butchers defying the rules with signs beckoning the passing motorist to pull in and buy beef on the bone.
Some say that all laws are made to be broken. But if the law is being made into an ass, if it is openly being flouted, it has to be a bad law, a very poor piece of legislation. I beg that we scrap it and save face. Return the decision to the people. If they are capable of voting a new government in every five years or so, then surely they are capable of deciding whether they want to eat meat on the bone or whether they do not. It tastes better, has a better flavour and also makes good side products, such as soup. It also keeps man's best friend, the dog, happy. Let us scrap this ban today. It was a knee-jerk reaction, in any event.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Harlech: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, for initiating discussion on the legitimacy of these regulations and whether they may or may not hold water. It is not a coincidence that in less than five days of parliamentary time we have had three debates closely associated with this matter.
Under the present Government's standards, one in five slaughter houses fail the current standards required by Brussels. What they are going to do about that and whether the public purse will initiate the payment of their upgrading it will be very interesting to know. This, however, says nothing of meat imported, the inspection of it and the system that then comes into effect. About 28 per cent. of our meat input is from overseas producers who have different standards, as we know. Of course, by the time it is frozen and has spent three weeks at sea, there is a very different form of inspection than occurs in an abattoir. I sense some double standards here.
A serious risk to health? While it is within the Government's gift of administration, and it is, it is an administration of proportionality. In other words, are the Government representing the first of the three devices on which they took advice? Yes, they had three. And they took one of the three, the scientific one. The scientific one said that it was dangerous. There was a possible chance that it was dangerous. So, from the three, they chose one. Again, I refer to proportionality.
Is this a populist decision, or is this a decision by government for the majority against the minority? One should be very wary when one defeats the minority. To make an educational association, educating people from a very young age as to how they prepare food, how they buy food, how they judge food and how they cook food is a critical part of how one explains to those who will be adults tomorrow what it is that one buys from a shop. Simply giving a diktat as a result of a populist rather than a political opinion is very important.

143
I am not sure that there is legal certainty behind the regulations.
One does not just cripple British beef producers but everybody. It affects people who make diesel engines or tyres; it affects women whose daughters have just left school working all night in a cheese-packing factory. One must be very careful about the 3 per cent. of the voting public who are farmers. This is not just an issue concerning farmers.
As to the link with CJD, we have heard that so far only 20 people have died. I believe that I take a higher risk walking out of this House to catch a tube train. I may get a knife in my back. Tests have been referred to. Supermarkets have announced that if 5p per kilo is added to the price of meat tests can be carried out to determine whether or not it is safe from BSE or CJD. That will add to the cost to the shopper.
Since December local authorities have charged a high street butcher between £60 and £170 per week to collect his bones. This means that people are disfranchised and put out of work because they must regularise their business by selling meat only off the bone and paying the environmental health authority to take away the bones. I should be delighted to hear the Government Front Bench explain where those bones go. Is the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, aware of what happens to the hones collected from every butcher up and down the land? What happens to them when they are processed?
My noble friend Lord Ferrers made an interesting speech in the debate last week. I noted that when my noble friend Lord Jopling, who was Minister of Agriculture for some time, had a similar problem on his hands in relation to TB in milk the advice was that all dairy cows might be affected. A survey was carried out to see whether it was possible for the Exchequer to pay for the elimination of that risk. It was not possible. The risk was so low that milk continued to flow and the public continued to buy it because they accepted that risk.
A £2 million campaign has been announced today. We hope that that will support farmers. It will have a minute effect. Are we to pay farmers to be gardeners? We may as well pay them to be gardeners and buy postcards. This is unrealistic. If this is populist politics and damage to millions is created by an attitude that is not well thought out—if, as my noble friend Lord Howe said, there is a vacuum of real knowledge—the regulations are not worthy of support. I do not support them.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, we all share the common aim of protecting human health and reassuring consumers as to the safety and quality of the food that they purchase. In this context BSE has caused governments a great dilemma. It is natural to have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, in dealing with this dilemma. However, the Government have acted with caution in the extreme over the beef-on-the-bone ban, bearing in mind that the chance of a person catching CJD from eating beef on the bone is 600 million to one, even though there is no positive
144
proof that new-variant CJD is caused by BSE. I could give many more statistics, as have many other noble Lords, but it is now late and I shall not go down that route, but I shall proceed to ask questions similar to those raised by other noble Lords. For example, why have the Government treated beef food products so harshly when many other foodstuffs that regularly create health hazards are not treated in the same way?
There are some oddities. We are not allowed to use bones from British beef in our foodstuffs for human consumption but we are allowed to import bones from other European countries that have BSE. Why are their bones free from risk whereas ours are not? One also questions the speed with which these regulations have been brought forward. They came into force on 16th December 1997. Surely, more time could have been given to considering the matter before a decision was taken so that the opinion of the general public could be measured. As my noble friend Lord Kimball said, Europe has taken nearly a year to conform to the requirement to take out specific risk material. They have taken the time to think through these difficult matters. Why could we not have taken more time? Europe appears to be a law unto itself, with the bizarre situation that Germany claims to be in a BSE-free zone and thus should not be required to comply with the regulations, even though BSE has been identified in that country.
If the banning of beef bones had resulted in the dropping of the UK beef export ban one suspects that there would have been more sympathy for it, but we have heard little to suggest that the beef on the bone regulations have had any effect. Surely, it comes down to choice. Should the consumer be given the choice or should he be nannied by the state? The best government is the one that governs the least. Surely, a bone in beef is pretty obvious and a consumer should have little difficulty in making his or her own choice.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Lowry: My Lords, I must first declare that I am very fond of oxtail. Further, my wife is very good at cooking it. Those two facts by themselves do not constitute an overwhelming argument for revoking these regulations. However, when noble Lords take those matters in conjunction with the facts and arguments in this debate, I believe they will agree that they make a very strong case. The risk to consumers is so minute that I can scarcely imagine any rational person taking that risk as being the inspiration for these regulations. Perhaps understandably, I am not able to say what inspired the regulations, but if the object was to impress governments on mainland Europe, as has been suggested, it is difficult to entertain the idea that preventing people in this country from buying and eating beef on the bone is likely to diminish or eliminate BSE in herds of cattle in this country. I support the Motion.
6 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I intervene to raise one general question about our meat hygiene regulations which has not been mentioned. There has been a thread of consensus running through the debate

145
to the effect that the bulk of our meat hygiene regulations are a good thing; that, on the whole, they protect the public from food poisoning of one kind or another. Only the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has taken the opposite view, to the effect that he would ban the meat inspectors instead because their poor standards of hygiene are now known to cause much of the food poisoning that they are supposed to prevent. Many of us would agree, not least because so many of the smaller slaughter houses have been forced to close with the result that animals have to travel much further to slaughter in larger and more slipshod premises.
My intervention is inspired by something said at a conference on venison in Scotland five years ago. A leading regional environmental health officer—no names, no pack-drill—publicly announced that food poisoning from meat had gone up by 47 per cent. in his region since the meat hygiene regulations had been introduced. He concluded that it was the regulations which had caused the poisoning. He said that the new hygiene regime was preventing the ancient organisms with which our digestive systems are familiar from entering and developing in the meat. Instead, other, more virulent organisms were doing so, against which our digestive systems had no defence, with the result that food poisoning was increasing sharply.
I hope that that is the kind of professional opinion which the new foods standards agency and Lord Justice Phillips's inquiry will examine carefully. If so, we may come nearer to knowing what the risks are in the way we treat and eat our meat instead of being forced to put up with such mind-boggling, idiotic and destructive regulations as those before us this evening.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, there are at least two brave men in the House tonight; they are those who intervened in the gap after 25 other speakers. I cannot say that I have enjoyed the whole debate, but I have enjoyed some of it. The Minister can be proud of having behind him the noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Grantchester, who have endeavoured to support him. Those were noble efforts. In particular the noble Lord, Lord Rea, actually found a silver lining. I do not know where, but it was nice of him to try. Loyalty is a thing that the Tory party always go on about; so there should be satisfaction over that.
However, the best speech from the other side came from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. He spoke with a passion which made me think at one point that he was speaking against the European Union. However, a number of the remainder of the speeches were terribly repetitive. People do not seem to be able to stop repeating what they have on their paper. The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, did a good job and talked a lot of sense, except when he spoke about the roast beef of old England which everyone knows is an inferior article to that of Scotland.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, made very informed speeches. I was tickled pink by the noble Lord,
146
Lord Marlesford. He must have been studying the chances of infection with close attention. Perhaps he will tell us how to use this risk assessment in order to place bets in a more favourable way.
The history of the BSE crisis is very sad. All the mistakes have been delineated. It has had a curious effect on the habitants of the Ministry of Agriculture. I remember hearing the former Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Hogg, say on television that he would slaughter every cow in Great Britain if necessary. He terrified me. He obviously terrified the Germans because the reaction there has been one of the main causes of the trouble we have experienced. Why he and Mr. Dorrell needed to go to such lengths nobody will ever know.
It must be something in the air; something about the Ministry. Dr. Cunningham, while in opposition, gave every sign of being a sensible, level-headed chap. There is something wrong in the Ministry of Agriculture; there is some evil spirit there that upsets all judgment. I appeal to the right reverend Prelate to get along there and exorcise.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, I feel I have no more success with cattle than I have in my own cathedral.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am sure that the right reverend Prelate is right but it is worth a try.
The history of this matter is ridiculous. We all know that the decision is wrong; we know that the effect on the Continent must have been entirely the opposite. A sensible position would have been to say that there is a minute risk, so minute that we are simply leaving it for people in this country to judge. That would have been far less harmful than slapping a ban on meat on the bone. It is stupid, ridiculous and has been very good for the sale of sirloins in certain quarters. Quite seriously, though, it has not been good for the beef trade; it has been another severe blow.
I have a great deal of time for the Minister and this Government. They should take the chance to go back and talk to their friends and say "Right, we accept the fact that we have perhaps made a mistake. On the other hand we have been careful." There are all sorts of things he can say but this stupid ban of beef on the bone has to be lifted. That is a chance he should take.
The Minister has done great harm by sticking to his position because he will force me into the Lobby with the Tory party, which I am not very fond of doing.
6.9 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Kimball and Lord Willoughby de Broke for giving us the opportunity to discuss these regulations in detail. I apologise for the sound of my voice. Obviously the evil aura that hangs over the Ministry of Agriculture has managed to spread over the Opposition Benches and got into my throat. We on these Benches have always supported measures to ensure the safety of public health where we believe them to be warranted. This country now has the toughest food safety regulations in the world.

147
When the Minister of Agriculture made his statement in another place on the 3rd December, my right honourable friend Michael Jack stated that it was essential that discussions were held on the impact of the Government's decision,
"before casting the measures absolutely in stone".—[Official Report Commons. 3/12/97; col. 3731.]
If the Minister of Agriculture had in fact taken my right honourable friend's advice and had a more extensive consultation, many of the questions raised in the debate tonight would have been resolved.
The Government should have followed the principal advice given by SEAC in paragraph 7: to inform the public of the risk posed by eating beef on the bone, and to allow individuals to make their own decision about whether or not to eat it.
We reached that conclusion only after giving due consideration to the impact that the ban on beef on the bone would have on the beef industry in Britain and confidence in beef in general, against the minute risk of infection. Details of that were given authoritatively by my noble friends Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior and Lord Willoughby de Broke.
The Government's position is fraught with inconsistencies and anomalies. Many of my noble friends have proved that beyond doubt today. I am grateful to MAFF for its website which is honest because it tells the world:
"SEAC concluded that the risk is very small and did not say that the Government needed to act at all other than to make the results public. On this basis the action proposed by the Government is precautionary in the extreme and there is no need to clear existing stocks. The Government has spelled out the risks to consumers so they can make up their own minds about stocks in the kitchen or in the freezer".
If the ban were so essential, why was there a delay in imposing it until 16th December during which time consumers were given the chance to exercise choice? Why do the regulations allow a transitional period until 15th March for manufactured goods such as stock cubes and soups, and full choice about food already in the consumer's store cupboard and freezer? Why are consumers being allowed to make up their own minds about some products associated with beef on the bone but not about others?
Why did the Government ignore the results of the consultation exercise which was carried out hurriedly during the few days after the beef bones ban had already been announced? The vast majority of those who responded to the consultation would have preferred the Government to follow the SEAC's main recommendation—publish the information and let the people decide.
There are oddities about that consultation exercise which give rise to questions that I should like to put to the Minister. My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke referred to some aspects of that consultation. Like my noble friend, I have read through the responses to the exercise which MAFF placed in the Library of the House. My mathematics may not be too great but I think that 334 organisations and individuals were on the consultation list. I say "think", because one person was in brackets, and I am not too sure what that says about
148
that person. Of those 334 organisations and individuals, 39 replied. I make no criticism of the others for not taking the action that they should have taken, because they would have received that consultation document, at best, by first post on Monday morning, and they had to get their replies hack by 4 p.m. on the Friday. I am sure that noble Lords, as I have, have taken part in consultation exercises and know that it is difficult within such a short space of time for an organisation to be able to gather together effective information.
There were a further 56 organisations and individuals who were not on the original list who sent in their comments. Taking them all together, at best, and being generous to the Government—I am sure that the Minister recognises that I am being as generous as I can be—of those, six were in favour of the regulations; 56 were against; and 33 expressed what I would term a neutral or technical view about the matter. They did not say whether they believed the regulations to be right or wrong; they were explaining to the Government how difficult it would be to implement the regulations or what impact those regulations would have upon them, whether they be a butcher or someone involved in the beef trade.
Common themes run through those responses—from real people responding to a real crisis. Consumers say that they want to be given the choice to buy beef on the bone—or not. The National Housewives Association said that such reactions from members as it had been able to obtain in the time were, "hardly printable". It was essential for consumers to be given information and the chance to make their own decision. The National Federation of Women's Institutes said:
"We are seriously concerned that the public should he denied the freedom of informed choice in this matter. The public needs access to all scientific evidence and information in order that they can make their own decisions based on known facts".
Many individuals wrote in expressing their view that it was vital for consumers to be able to make a choice. They included Mrs. Diana Smith, and Mr. John Atkins who stated:
"[Aged 60.] I am as capable of making sensible decisions as to whether to buy a T-bone steak…as I am of whether to buy a packet of cigarettes, take my car on the M.25 or go on a boat in a Force 6, all of which, if the Minister is to be believed, carry risks several orders of magnitudes greater than those involved in choosing to eat bone in beef".
The Government say that it is a matter of risk assessment. That is correct. But this afternoon my noble friends have proved that the Government have got their risk assessment wrong. Expert organisations which responded to the consultation exercise also believe that the Government have got their risk assessment wrong. The responses are littered with comments such as:
"The Government reacted with panic, MAFF acted with insufficient judgment; they over-reacted, and with poor judgment in risk assessment".
Many questions were raised about the enforceability of the ban. The Chartered Institute on Environmental Health pointed out:
"It may be prudent to consider re-drafting this legislation to ensure the measures required by the Government can actually he achieved and enforced by the authorities".

149
Have the Government taken any action to redraft the regulations? Are they legal? Like other noble Lords, I noticed an article in the newspapers last week in which a Member of the other place claimed that the regulations were illegal because of the poor way in which they are drafted. Will the Minister reassure us about that?
There is also what I would call the "Scottish question". Under the terms of the Scotland Bill, could a Scottish parliament revoke this legislation? If so, what arrangements will be made to stop illegal imports across the Border? I hold no brief for Scotland, of course, but I recognise that many noble Lords on both Benches reflect the intellectual acuity of the Scots. So I am surprised that few Scottish organisations appeared on MAFF's original consultation list. But the Scots were not to be denied. Even if they were not asked to respond, many of them did.
I take just one example which reflects the response from all the Scottish organisations about which I read in the Library. The BMA Scottish office states:
"It would be sensible to let the public choose whether they are prepared to take what appears a minuscule risk".
That must be the right course of action.
The Motion gives the Government the opportunity to consult widely and more effectively than they did the first time around. Noble Lords have today proved that that would be the best course of action for the Government to take. The debate is an example of the House of Lords working constructively to assist the Government to think again. I support the Motion.
6.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, I feel that I have been here before. 1, too, thank the noble Lords, Lord Willoughby de Broke and Lord Kimball, for so entertainingly and pungently opening the debate. They have given us all the opportunity to raise questions, and they have given me the opportunity to answer them, on an issue which, we all know, has excited some interest, as reflected by the exhausting list of speakers today. It shows how well represented some interests are in this House, although perhaps concentrated on one side. I welcome that because it makes my life so interesting.
The issue goes much wider than Sunday lunch. Many speakers touched on the broader BSE crisis and its terrible cost, including specifics ranging from the scientific basis and the BSE/CJD link to the tragic number of farming suicides. I cannot respond to all the points made. However, looking back over a long debate, I believe that it is possible to condense my reply into half a dozen main areas of concern. Among them are the nature of the scientific advice on BSE/CJD; the nature of the health risk to consumers; the decision to ban (I shall begin with that); the so-called "nanny state" and whether the consumer decides; and enforcement. Several misunderstandings have been revealed and I shall try to deal with the main issues together with some other points that have been raised.
150
The first issue is the recurring suggestion that the decision was rushed and ill-considered. That is denied by the facts. The suggestion was made by the noble Lords, Lord Willoughby de Broke and Lord Rotherwick. It was as long ago as 1st July that the Minister was advised of the initial SEAC results. By the autumn, the preliminary results were confirmed to Ministers. In late November Ministers from MAFF and the Department of Health met to consider the likely recommendations and our reaction to them. On 1st December, Dr. Cunningham reported SEAC's findings to the Prime Minister and discussed what we had been considering—that beef should be boned out. He received the Prime Minister's full support. On 3rd December, Dr. Cunningham received the final recommendations. The ministerial position had already been well considered and the Minister made his Statement to Parliament. Therefore, there was no rushed decision.
Your Lordships will be aware that SEAC reported the results from its ongoing research; that BSE infectivity had been found in the dorsal root ganglia of bovine animals and that there were indications, still being evaluated, that infectivity may also be found in bone marrow. SEAC advised that consumers should be warned of the risk and that the research findings should be published. That was done immediately. SEAC also recommended that if the Government decided that further action was necessary in order to reduce the small risk further—and the Government did so decide—either no beef with the bone should be sold from cattle over six months old or a more complex alternative should be adopted, which we rejected.
As regards the further action of de-boning, I point out that, ever since the introduction in 1989 of the ban on specified bovine offal, governments—that is we and our Conservative predecessors—have always excluded from the human food chain any tissue in which BSE infectivity has been identified. I appreciated the points made about that by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
The only way to ensure that that was done in the light of the new SEAC findings was to prevent hone in beef from cattle more than six months old being sold to consumers. That was one of the options SEAC recommended. We did not take the other option.
In deciding to take that further action, consistent with the actions of the previous government, we were particularly and properly influenced by the views of the Chief Medical Officer responsible for public health. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, confused the advice of the CMO with that of SEAC. His advice was:
"We have a responsibility to take into account new information which emerges from research, especially when it has a direct bearing on public health. This must apply even when any risk involved k very small. That is why, in our efforts to protect public health, all tissues"—
I repeat "all tissues"—
"in which BSE infectivity has been detected have been excluded from the human food chain. Infectivity has now been detected in the dorsal root ganglia, a tissue which is not currently covered by the Specified Bovine Materials Regulations. It is, therefore, right that this tissue should be excluded as well. I would be very concerned if any tissues that have been shown to transmit BSE were knowingly allowed to remain in the human food chain".

151
Therefore, our action was fully in line with previous practice and with the firm views of the Chief Medical Officer. It has always been our policy, and that of our predecessors, to act to remove tissues where infection is detected.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Chief Medical Officer's comments are relevant, but, surely, the number of beasts in which BSE will be present should have influenced the Government.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, that fact was clearly taken into account.
To reply to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, we are applying the principles of deep caution which she rightly asks us to apply in respect of pesticides. I fully support her in that.
Many experts on the theory of risk probability have emerged in this House. I should also tell the noble Countess that I have known of two people who have been killed by lightning
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Lord says that he supports me. Why does he not show that support by action in respect of pesticides? The Government do one thing for one problem and something else for another.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, as the noble Countess knows, I say, "Give us time".
I acknowledge important points made in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. It is true that all of us—those of us who buy lottery tickets and those of us in government—take decisions according to an assessment of risk, which is often erratic. I agree with the noble Lord that often there is no uniformity in the way in which we apply risk. Sometimes there is an insufficient statistical basis. Governments and their advisers could well read that and think about it. However, on this issue, sadly. I must disappoint noble Lords opposite by informing them that a risk analysis was carried out. An assessment of risk from possible BSE infectivity in dorsal root ganglia was carried out by an independent autonomous foundation called Det Norske Veritas. The assessment was commissioned by MAFF at SEAC's request and has been published by the company. SEAC considered the report before formulating its advice.
As regards the risks, it struck me that, in general, noble Lords opposite seemed more optimistic than Members on this side of the House. I recall the famous Hungarian saying, which my noble friend Lord Parry quoted, that the only difference between an optimist and a pessimist is that the pessimist is usually better informed. We admit that the risk to consumers is small: the numbers have been pointed out. However, our scientific advice was clear. It was expanded on by my noble friend Lord Rea, who is a distinguished practising doctor. I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, that no one has recovered from CID. We believe that risky infective tissue should be removed. Do noble Lords opposite seriously believe and advise that this
152
Government, unlike our predecessors, should ignore the advice of both SEAC and the Chief Medical Officer? I cannot believe that. What confidence would the public then have in our food and in the Government's responsibility as regards protecting public health?
To fully protect public health, all material which may be BSE infective must be removed from the human food chain. That applies to dorsal root ganglia and bone marrow and thus affects all beef bones from animals over six months old. A key point is that, with BSE, the risk is hidden; and that is the answer to a number of questions.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, perhaps I may return to a point that I made in my speech. Does what the Minister has just said mean logically that if infectivity, at however low a level, were discovered in muscle—however few cattle still had BSE and were likely to enter the food chain—this Government would ban all beef from United Kingdom origins?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, that is clearly a hypothetical question and so far no infectivity has been discovered in muscle or blood. But all beef meat or bone looks exactly the same whether or not it is BSE infective. It would be impossible to identify reliably meat and meat products from BSE-free herds, whether of UK origin or imports, once it has entered the human food chain.
The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, asked why we do not exclude BSE-free herds. The food uses to which meat and bones are put are diverse. Sometimes there is no way in which consumers can know whether a food ingredient contains something which originates from beef; for example, food served in restaurants and beef origin substances included in composite ingredients used in manufactured foods. It is not possible to identify bones from one herd as opposed to another. That is very different from the Government not seeking further regulation in other areas of consumption where the risks are well known and where the risky activity or substance is clear so that individuals are able to choose whether or not to accept that risk; for example, as mentioned at Question Time, whether or not to smoke. People will know when they light up a Woodbine. But one cannot always recognise the presence or origins of beef and bones in, for example, manufactured foods. That is why we cannot leave the matter to the consumer.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, who eats bones? I have never eaten a bone. Who does?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, bones are frequently used in the stock for soup so the noble Lord may have eaten them without realising it.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, waxed eloquent on the nanny state, which is a very easy phrase to throw around, or the freedom of the individual, as did my noble friend Lord Stoddart, who expressed his support for the Government in his characteristic way. As my noble friend knows from our long period of living together—I do not know whether we were considered designated partners or something—he and I share

153
similar views on this broad subject. We happily created an anti-politically correct oasis in the bowels of the Palace. Neither of us shared the youthful experience of nannying which many noble Lords opposite enjoyed and which seems to have turned most of them against it. I start from a more primitive position. As I stated in this House, in principle the only ban that I could support enthusiastically would be a ban on bans. But that is not real life. Responsible government must intervene to protect the public, however reluctantly. I accept that this ban is in the public interest. That is not the nanny state but responsible government. Although the risk to consumers is small, the Chief Medical Officer's advice was firm and there were very good reasons to take precautionary action.
That is broadly the public health reason for our action. But it is not only a question of health. There are other reasons for taking action. The first reason that I mention in passing is the legal reason. The Government might have laid themselves open to legal challenge that they had been irresponsible or negligent if action had not been taken. To have ignored the advice of the Chief Medical Officer might have appeared to be both politically and legally irresponsible.
Even more important to Ministers is their priority of seeking the lifting of the beef ban, to which reference has often been made. In that regard I say especially to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, that the European Union has made it clear that the beef ban will be lifted only when we have met the Florence obligations and that our beef must be seen to be completely safe. SEAC and the CMO have concluded that beef on the bone is not completely safe. Therefore, in my view, we have no option if we wish, as we certainly do, to achieve a lifting of the beef ban other than to ban beef on the bone.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that he seems as optimistic about the reactions of our European partners as he is about the powers of Anglican bishops. That action was taken in the interests of British farmers. I trust in time that they will appreciate that. I must ask whether noble Lords opposite wish to be identified as willing to jeopardise the lifting of the ban. I agree that it is irritating to appear to be in the position of a supplicant in Brussels. But that is a position which we inherited.
The issue of allowing consumers to decide was addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, the noble Viscounts, Lord Montgomery of Alamein and Lord Bledisloe, and pressed particularly hard by the noble Baroness opposite. I should say to her that she was wrong to say that that is the main SEAC recommendation.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, at paragraph 7, SEAC starts by recommending that the information should be published so that people can decide. At the end of that paragraph it gives options (a) and (b). Therefore, I read those options as being subordinate, and it is those subordinate paragraphs
154
which the Government adopted. That is why I make that statement, which is of course borne out by MAFF's own Internet site, from which I quoted earlier.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I was referring to the actual SEAC advice. It is not true that that was the main recommendation. It offered what it believed to be some logical options. I thought that that point was well answered by my noble friend Lord Grantchester.
But the answer to this matter is clear. As regards letting consumers decide, as I said, consumers often do not and cannot have the necessary information to make informed decisions on the origins of the meat which they may be eating. It is often impossible to know whether the meat, processed food or soup contains beef and whether that beef is on the bone or not. Therefore, in my view, that argument falls at the first base. The consumer does not have the information necessary to decide.
But secondly, as I said, to have allowed unsafe beef, however small the risk—and nobody questions that the risk is there—would have destroyed our crusade to achieve the lifting of the ban on British beef. If those two arguments are taken together, in our view they make an overwhelming case for the action we have taken.
Enforcement was mentioned by a number of noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned it. I thought that I detected some scepticism about the powers of enforcement. In licensed slaughterhouses and cutting plants, enforcement is the responsibility of the Meat Hygiene Service. In all other premises, including retail butchers, pubs and restaurants it falls to local authorities. Normal levels of supervision will apply, although enforcement officers will be required additionally to check that boning requirements are being met.
It has been suggested that the controls are unenforceable. However, we do not accept that: that is wrong. They are as enforceable as other public health and consumer protection measures. Guidance is being issued to local authorities and the Meat Hygiene Service to help them in this task. Some breaches of the regulations have been reported but the vast majority of food manufacturing, distributing and retailing businesses are complying willingly. Equally most consumers seem to have accepted the controls.
I stress that any businesses that are found to be acting illegally will be advised of their obligations and warned to stop. The normal process is to give a warning before taking action. But thereafter court action may follow. I understand that already the Procurator Fiscal is considering whether a case should be brought in Scotland.
The noble Lord who opened the debate and the noble Baroness opposite criticised our process of consultation. More than 300 representative bodies and individuals were consulted. They constitute the normal list of those consulted on BSE. Some 104 responded and their responses were considered before the regulations were drawn up. The noble Lord who

155
opened the debate referred to some rather amusing examples. Those bodies were included at their request. In our view the response to the consultation did not provide sufficient grounds to change the scope of the regulations, although of course many vested interests expressed reservations.
The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, asked why it was more risky to cook beef on the bone than to remove the bone before cooking. The cooking process could allow infectivity to leach out and contaminate the meat or other food, such as gravy made with the cooking juices. Once cooked, dorsal root ganglia cannot be distinguished from meat and could be eaten in error. The subject of oxtail seemed to agitate many. Our measure on oxtail was basically a practical measure because had it been excluded it would not be possible to distinguish one bovine bone from another in cuts of meat. However, it is not true to suggest that it cannot contain bone marrow; it can and that is a potential source of infectivity.
The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, referred, I believe, to diagnostic testing. I can assure him that a great deal of effort is being put into developing a diagnostic test for BSE. It appears that the key is to develop a test which can detect subclinical infection; that is, before the symptoms appear. So far no test has been developed which has been shown to do that. It is likely to be some time before that is achieved. As regards the OTMS, I must stress to my noble friend Lord Grantchester that that scheme plays an important role in the protection of human health. The number of animals incubating BSE and going into the food chain would be significantly increased without it.
The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, surprised us a little by suggesting, I believe, that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments was somehow not in agreement with us as regards this debate or the regulations. The regulations were made in accordance with the powers available to Ministers to make regulations in the interests of public health. They were considered by the Joint Committee, which made only one comment about drafting style. It did not make any criticism of the regulations to be drawn to the attention of Parliament.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. In no way was I trying to say that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments was doing anything but its job. We discussed between ourselves the problems within the Statutory Instrument, but in no way were we criticising—as I said in my speech; perhaps that was while the Minister was outside the Chamber—legislation because that is not our remit.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for those comments. I am sorry that I was missing from the Chamber for a while owing to reasons of nature. I have spoken for rather a long time but I have tried to deal with many of the points that have been raised.
156
I refer again to the words of my noble friend Lord Parry, who reminded me that the South African Marquess of Salisbury stated that, if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe; and if you believe the physicians, nothing is healthy. I add that if you believe the Opposition, nothing done in government is right, including when they were in government.
Our latest action was deeply precautionary and was fully in line with the need to protect public health and maintain the confidence of beef consumers. We believe that the controls are fully justified to protect public health and enhance consumer confidence. In doing so they help the farming industry and support strongly the Government's efforts to get the beef export ban lifted in the European Union. They will be kept under regular review, as is the case with all BSE control measures. I hope that before too long we shall revisit that happy experience of 1795 which the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, so vividly remembers.
Any future decision to lift the ban will be taken in the light of scientific developments and progress with the eradication of BSE. I urge the House to support the regulations and not to support any vote against them which would, in my view, suggest that this House is careless of public health and content to delay the lifting of the beef ban. I am bound to point out that although I did—and always do—listen to the many points that were made today, and learnt much from them, because of the priority we attach to public health and to lifting the beef ban, these regulations will remain in force, how ever the Opposition may use their built-in majority tonight.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in the debate. I was overwhelmed by the number of speakers and the great support that the Motion received. I hope that noble Lords will allow me to give a compendious or portmanteau thank you to everyone who took part and to the many noble Lords who listened to the arguments without taking part.
I believe that it was an informed, rational debate. The Government's rationale for the regulations was, I believe, comprehensively demolished. In spite of the best efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, I do not think that he managed to put them together again. I am, however, grateful to him for all the effort he put into giving answers to a large number of points and questions raised during the debate. When he left the Chamber for a few minutes I thought that he might be undergoing some sort of Pauline conversion on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie; namely, that he might have reconsidered the position. I was disappointed to hear the noble Lord say that the regulations would remain in force regardless. In view of the overwhelming support the Motion has received, I now wish to test the opinion of the House.
6.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 207; Not-Contents, 97.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gainford, L.

Abinger, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Ackner, L.

Geddes, L.

Addington, L.

Geraint, L.

Addison, V.

Gisborough, L.

Aldington, L.

Gormanston, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Greenway, L.

Alport, L.

Grey, E.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Haddington, E.

Ampthill, L.

Haig, E.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Halsbury, E.

Annaly, L.

Hampton, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hamwee, B.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Harlech, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Belstead, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Berners, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Blaker, L.

Harrowby, E.

Bledisloe, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Boardman, L.

Hemphill, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Higgins, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hogg, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Holderness, L.

Burnham, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Byford, B.

Howe, E.

Cadman, L.

Hussey of North Bradley, L

Caithness, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Calverley, L.

Inchyra, L.

Carew, L.

Jacobs, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Jeffreys, L.

Camock, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Jopling, L.

Chesham, L.

Kimball, L. [Teller.]

Clanwilliam, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Kintore, E.

Colwyn. L.

Kitchener, E.

Congleton, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Knutsford, V.

Courtown, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Leigh, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lincoln, Bp.

Cranbome, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Davidson, V.

Liverpool, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Long, V.

Deedes, L.

Lowry, L.

Denbigh, E.

Lucas, L.

Denham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Dholakia, L.

Ludford, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Lyell, L.

Donegall, M.

Macclesfield, E.

Dundonald, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

McConnell, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Ellenborough, L.

McNair, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mar, C.

Exmouth, V.

Marlesford, L.

Falkland, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Ferrers, E.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Fookes, B.

Mersey, V.

Freyberg, L.

Middleton, L.

Gage. V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

158

Monson, L.

Seccombe, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Shuttleworth, L.

Moran, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Mottistone, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Munster, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Newton of Braintree. L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Stewartby, L.

Northesk, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Strafford, E.

Onslow, E.

Strange, B.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Strathalmond, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Sudeley, L.

Pym, L.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Quinton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Radnor, E.

Taverne, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Tebbit, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Teviot, L.

Rawlings, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Razzall, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Redesdale, L.

Thurlow, L.

Rees, L.

Thurso, V.

Rennell, L.

Tordoff, L.

Renton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Vivian, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Westbury, L.

Romney, E.

Wharton, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Rowallan, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L. [Teller.]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Glenamara, L.

Amos, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Barnett, L.

Grantchester, L.

Berkeley, L.

Gregson, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hardie, L.

Blease, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Borrie, L.

Haskel, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hayman, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Healey, L.

Burlison, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hogg of Cumbemauld, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hollic, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Hollis of Heigham, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Chandos, V.

Hoyle, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hughes, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hunt of Kings Health, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Islwyn, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Jeger, B.

Desai, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dixon, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Donoughue, L.

kilbracken, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Levy, L.

Eatwell, L.

Lockwood, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Falconer of Thornton, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

[Teller.]

Gallacher, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Gilbert, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Glenamara, L.

159

Molloy, L.

Sewel, L.

Monkswell, L.

Shepherd.L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Simon, V.

Moms of Manchester, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Nicol, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Orme, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Parry, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Randall of St.Budeaux, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Rea, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Varley, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Whitty, L.

Serota, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
7.1 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, before we proceed to the next Business, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether he remembers the last occasion when a government were defeated on what I think is technically a non-fatal Motion. Since the noble Lord's memory is, I know, extremely good, perhaps I may refer him to col. 575 of the Official Report dated 8th March 1996, when the then government suffered a defeat on a non-fatal Motion.
The noble Lord, with his usual courtesy, made a request that,
"in view of the vote that has just taken place and the firm expression of the view of this House, will the Government now consider whether this matter should be referred to a Select Committee either of this House or of Parliament?"—[Official Report, 8/3/96; col. 575.]
I am not wedded to that device, but since the noble Lord is clearly a fair man, and since he feels strongly that the expressions of opinion of this House, fatal or otherwise, should be taken careful note of, I wonder whether he will allow me to ask him how the Government intend to react to this vote.
Lord Richard: My Lords, it was said of Abraham Lincoln that, as an advocate in the courts of Illinois, he once appeared in the morning and argued one point; when he appeared in the afternoon he tried to advance the precise opposite of what he had argued in the morning. The judge said to him: "But Mr. Lincoln, you said this this morning, you are now trying to argue this this afternoon". He replied: "Well, Judge, I was convinced by the arguments against me this morning".
Since we are into the realm of precedent, I am sure the noble Viscount will remember that on 6th July 1992 a Motion was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, in relation to the Income Support (General Regulations) 1987. There was a Motion on Hong Kong on 15th July 1993. There was one on the sheep annual premium and suckler cow premium quota regulations in 1993. We will be behaving precisely as the previous government did.

Royal Assent
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Education (Student Loans) Act.

Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill [H.L.]
7.5 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hunt of Tanworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Lyell) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Experimental decision-snaking arrangements]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, leave out lines I7 to 19.
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 grouped with this amendment. Also grouped with this amendment is Amendment No. 12 in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Hunt of Tanworth.
Without wishing to make a Second Reading speech at this point—but it should at least occupy a minute or two until those concerned with the Bill are able to hear the arguments on these amendments—perhaps I may say a word or two about the attitude of these Benches. As I said at Second Reading, we are not against innovation in the powers of local authorities, in the electoral arrangements applying to local authorities and in democracy, as well as efficiency, with which the Bill is concerned.
We are most concerned that any new administrative arrangements should not overshadow innovations that are possible without new legislation, such as "localisation", if I may use that term to encompass many different mechanisms; nor indeed the varied responses to the new challenges that have faced local government over the past few years.
I was struck by a comment on comparisons between local government in different countries. It is striking that much of the language of reform is universal. Elsewhere, as in Britain, the phrases that recur are against monopoly and bureaucratic uniformity and in favour of deregulation, accessibility, responsiveness, choice and efficiency—in other words, a much wider agenda than this Bill purports to set.
I was also struck by the comment in paragraph 5.11 of the Widdicombe Report dealing with proportionality that the current model of government is one which has

161
proved itself sufficiently adaptable to accommodate all the various circumstances to which the report referred in relation to the composition of authorities.
Having made that general point, I turn to the group of amendments. My amendments are concerned with the establishment of an executive ordinary member. We do not seek to wreck the Bill; and it is partly in regard to that that my amendments do not concern themselves with the powers of a directly elected mayor—another of the models proposed in the Bill.
I believe that the public probably has some understanding of the concept of an elected mayor. I am much less sure that the public understands what might be undertaken by an ordinary member in whom executive authority has been vested. I may betray my age when I say that, as a councillor, I was one of the generation brought up on the concept that governance and management are, and should be, separate.
Voters elect the council; in many cases they elect individuals and they will vote not on a party ticket. But I do not believe that they expect to elect someone who may turn out to have considerable executive powers, with little check on them. Voters expect leaders of authorities to lead but I do not believe that the public expect leaders to be vested after an election with executive powers. By and large they elect councillors for a range of attributes such as political values, priorities, and, of course, the efficiency that they demonstrate, but not primarily for their managerial skills.
I know that there are some residents who expect that if those of us who are councillors are not at home to answer our phones it is because we are out picking up refuse or possibly even constructing multi-million pound budgets with little help from our officers.
I still see the distinction between strategy and politics and the executive role of local government. Therefore, I have put down a range of amendments to delete the references to vesting powers in executive ordinary members. In re-reading the Bill last night, it occurred to me to wonder, particularly seeing an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, dealing with social services, whether an ordinary member to whom powers have been delegated might be reluctant to exercise the serious and complex powers involved with social services. Therefore, in moving the amendment, I take the opportunity to ask whether an ordinary member in that situation can refuse to exercise any of the powers that the authority attempts to vest in him or her. I can see also that an ordinary member might not want to have the responsibility, for example, of taking planning decisions. The whole planning area is only too vulnerable to corruption. I put it in that way. I do not believe that there is as much corruption as some cynics believe. But it is an area where members must be absolutely scrupulous.
One slightly different amendment is Amendment No. 7. It appears to allow delegation to be passed on to another stage, to go down another tier. I was also brought up on delegatus non potest delegare: if you have power delegated to you, you may not delegate it on to another.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will deal with his amendment, Amendment No. 12, with regard to scrutiny. My comment on it at this stage is that the amendment is not one with which I seek to argue. I observe that it does not require a scrutiny committee. The mechanisms would operate only if there is a committee. Therefore, I do not take issue with it. I do not believe it is necessarily a complete solution to my concerns in that area, but we shall return to the question of scrutiny later. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Government welcome and support this Bill. We do so because the Bill is not prescriptive but enables those authorities who volunteer to find a better way of doing things, one which suits their own particular needs. Equally we do so because we believe that the opportunities which the Bill opens up are opportunities which, in the right circumstances, will be well worth trying out.
I am bound to say therefore that the Government view the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, with some regret. Their intended effect is to rule out some of the opportunities for experiments which the Bill currently provides. There would no longer be any ability for an authority experimenting under the Bill to give any of its functions to a single member of the council except for an executive mayor. The effect would be to cut out of the Bill a whole swathe of options for experiment which are currently attracting considerable interest in local government.
Our regret is not primarily because the amendments would simply reduce the range of options open to authorities but rather because the amendments would remove the opportunity for authorities to experiment with arrangements which we, as government, believe could prove to be immensely worthwhile. They would be worthwhile in terms of modernising local government and helping councils more effectively to engage with, and be accountable to, their communities.
I share many of the noble Baroness's concerns about the need for councils to be open, to promote rather than prevent public participation, to open up decision making, and to allow local people a real say in the governance of their communities. But we believe, as do many others, that perhaps part of the problem in the past has been the traditional committee structures. In these structures the executive, scrutiny, and representational roles of councillors are easily confused. By separating out these functions it will be possible to make clear just who has taken decisions and to allow sharper scrutiny of those decisions. That in turn should lead to improved decision making, greater openness and accountability: aims, I believe, which are shared on all sides of the House.
The kind of experiments which the noble Baroness's amendments would rule out are exactly some of those which are centred on achieving this separation of the executive, scrutiny, and representational roles. I am not saying that we are certain that any one of these models

163
is necessarily right. But we are saying that councils should be given the opportunity of adopting, say, the cabinet system, or to have a system of lead members.
As the noble Baroness said, these are not new ideas. Like her, I can remember the changes in local government, having started my local government career at the time of the innovations of the Bains Report and the proposals that followed. For example, the ideas were identified in the 1993 report of the joint local government/central government working party, established by the right honourable Member for Henley, which looked at the internal management of local authorities. That working party's membership was drawn from the local authority associations—in which I declare an interest as a member—and the Audit Commission; and it had among its members Professor George Jones, Professor of Government at the London School of Economics.
In its report the working party examined a number of models, including the cabinet system, the lead member system, and the single party executive committee. It identified the safeguards each system would require, the benefits of each and the legal implications. The Bill before us tonight will give councils the opportunity to try out such models for decision taking. The Bill reflects the work and study of that expert working party. Yet these are the decision taking arrangements which the noble Baroness's amendments would rule out as an option for local authorities.
These models are now being actively explored by local authorities. That is not because of some cynical judgment that they will allow them to take decisions without any interference from the public or the opposition, whether inside or outside their own party. Rather the reverse. It is because they see the benefits which might accrue for the quality of local democracy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will wish to consider whether it is possible to take away these possibilities—to put this particular genie back in its bottle—without disappointing many responsible, forward-looking and democratic councils and councillors. Perhaps more importantly, do we wish to shut off an opportunity which could lead to real improvements in local democracy?
I understand the concerns about safeguarding the position of minority parties. But I believe that having a clear executive, drawn from the majority party, open to public criticism and review by members from all parties represented on the council, strengthens minorities as compared with their position in the traditional committee structure. This model is used widely throughout the world, both in the constitutions of central government and at the local level.
The models envisaged by the Bill which sharpen executive responsibilities equally sharpen scrutiny. Amendment No. 12, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, would write on to the face of the Bill an essential element of the scrutiny framework; namely, that a scrutiny committee must reflect the political balance of the council as a whole. We have included in the draft guidance which we placed in the Library of the House this requirement for scrutiny committees to
164
reflect the council's political balance. But the Government have no hesitation in supporting the noble Lord's amendment and would commend it to all. Equally, for the reasons I have outlined, I hope that the noble Baroness, particularly in the light of the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will not wish to pursue her amendments.
We support the principle of the opportunity for local authorities to pursue a variety of models. My personal experience of local government is that for many years there has been a tendency for someone to base a particular model and proposal on the basis of his experience as a Member of Parliament with regard to the local authority or local authorities within his locality. What is right for a small village in the middle of Yorkshire may not be right for Brighton and Hove or for Kingston. Therefore, we welcome the opportunity that the Bill gives to local authorities to make those local decisions under full public scrutiny and with the opportunity to consult the people most closely involved at local level.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: As I think your Lordships are aware, I chaired the all-party Select Committee on relations between central and local government and in doing that had the honour and pleasure of working alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. One of the conclusions of our report on which we were unanimous was that local authorities should be empowered to experiment with innovative ways of taking their decisions. The question we are now facing is: which ways?
In the course of our consideration we took evidence from a large number of people and bodies and we paid particular attention to the models for decision-taking which had been considered and set out in the 1993 report of the joint working party between the Department of the Environment, as it then was, and representatives of local government. While we did not firmly recommend any one of those models ourselves, we did float them as possibilities and recommended that authorities should be empowered to try them out. That is precisely what the Bill as currently framed seeks to achieve.
The noble Baroness's amendments to Clause 1 would, I believe, prevent any individual member of an authority except a directly elected mayor from having any ability to take decisions on behalf of the authority acting alone. This would take away a range of options described in the 1993 joint working party report and in which there is already significant interest in the local government world. For example, it would not be possible to adopt what is loosely called the cabinet system, where a committee collectively would have executive functions in addition to other functions given to individual members of the committee. It would not be possible to have a lead member either within such a cabinet system or otherwise. It would not be possible for an elected mayor to delegate some of his or her functions to another member of the council forming part of the mayor's cabinet. Surely, in the context of a mayor with a wide range of functions, such an arrangement would make perfect sense. But I do want to make it clear that

165
a fundamental principle behind the Bill is that any separate executive would be held publicly to account, perhaps most importantly through scrutiny by members of all parties elected to the council.
It is worth saying a few words about what we mean by scrutiny. Typically, scrutiny would not merely mean criticism of decisions already taken. A scrutiny committee would have full access to information; it would be able to review general strategy as well as discuss the effect or sagacity of decisions already taken; and it would make recommendations on future policy or criticise what had been done. All of that would be done in public, and all by the council or a committee or committees whose membership would reflect the political balance of the council as a whole. We gave that assurance at Second Reading, but it is such an important point that I decided to table an amendment, which we shall be discussing later, to this clause to guarantee that scrutiny committees would be politically balanced in this way.
Such scrutiny could give all non-executive councillors, even the back-bench members of the majority group. a much greater say in the direction and decisions of the authority on which they serve. As I have said, it would lead to greater accountability and better decision-making, but it all relies upon clarity about who is taking the decisions in the first place.
To return to the noble Baroness's amendments, their effect would be severely to limit the scope for experimentation under my Bill, experimentation which I believe could result in the very improvements to decision taking in terms of accountability and openness which I believe the noble Baroness wishes to see. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, in the light of this discussion, not to pursue the amendment, which would shut off a major range of experiments provided for under the Bill and truncate the Bill very considerably. For my part, I am persuaded that, if the Bill is to give local authorities the opportunities they need and should have, it must allow a full range of experiments. But at the heart of many of these is all-party scrutiny. That is why I commend Amendment No. 12 to the Committee.
Baroness Hamwee: Can the noble Lord deal with my question as to whether a lead member—an individual member—to whom functions are delegated or loosely transferred by the local authority may say, "That is too big for one member to decide upon. That is inappropriate. I do not think I will exercise that area of authority". I mentioned social services and planning. I am not clear whether the executive member has to carry out all the functions which the local authority might, under this model. load upon her or him.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: We shall come shortly to an amendment dealing with a social services committee. On the particular question which the noble Baroness put to me, I might have to take advice, unless the noble Baroness. Lady Farrington, can provide the answer. I would personally—and subject very much to
166
correction—find it very difficult to believe that one could delegate to someone something which he or she was unwilling to have.
Baroness Hamwee: I asked that question out of curiosity but also because I wanted to highlight how serious I regard this point.
Perhaps I may make it clear that I am not seeking by this group of amendments to rule out all the models that are proposed. Both the noble Lord and the Minister suggested that the amendments would mean ruling out the model of a cabinet committee. I am not seeking to do that and I do not believe that the amendments would achieve that end.
The Minister talked about separating out the functions—separating executive scrutiny and the representational role—and suggested that that would lead to greater clarity. She also said—I hope I have written it down correctly—that the proposals could lead to real improvements in democracy. I accept that they could affect efficiency, and I have doubts about their beneficial effect on democracy. However, that is not a matter we need to pursue today other than by making clear our concern on this point. I do not think, either, that the proposals will necessarily lead to clarity in the minds of the public. That is why I chose this model on which to concentrate.
We shall return to the question of scrutiny. I very much welcome the comments made by the noble Lord. He said that scrutiny is not just a question of looking backwards. That is something which a number of noble Lords mentioned at Second Reading. I am glad to hear that. I am concerned to understand how it can work. If one has a committee of members who can look forward, in the words of the amendment,
"to scrutinise the exercise of any functions … to be determined",
will that not lead to the sort of logjam which these amendments are seeking to overcome? If a decision has not been taken, but members can scrutinise it in advance, that means that there has to be some mechanism whereby proposals can be tabled for the members to consider. That of itself could be a recipe for slowing everything down and having completely the opposite effect to the one intended. I do not know whether the noble Lord might wish to make some comment on that as we are in Committee and, indeed, an extremely select committee, if I may put it that way.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: As I understand it, there is no intention that scrutiny need work in a way which slows things down because not everything needs to go through the two stages. There is the crucial question—and there is an amendment later which bears on this—as regards the availability of information, of agendas and minutes. The scrutiny committee should be able to grip something at any stage and question the executive and make its views clear.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I shall try to be helpful. I seek to reassure Members of the Committee that all the models envisaged by the Bill which sharpen

167
executive responsibilities do equally sharpen scrutiny. Any exercise of an executive function will be subject to scrutiny by a politically balanced committee. That is not necessarily something that happens in authorities where decisions are taken by leading members of the majority political group, either at what is called a party meeting or an executive meeting of some sort where there may not be any officers present and where the individual members, even of the majority group, let alone any minority opposition groups, have no opportunity to question and acquire information.
To facilitate that, the schedule to the Bill ensures that there is a requirement placed on any individual councillor empowered to take decisions alone to keep a record of the decisions taken and to make that available to the council. Furthermore, the guidance which the Government are required to issue to local authorities under the Bill, should it be enacted, will set out checks and balances that are required to make such models work and to ensure effective and proper local government.
It may also stipulate that certain regulatory functions may not be undertaken by an individual member. Many Members of the Committee have seen the first draft of that guidance, which the Government have placed in the Library of the House. That is being written in discussion with prominent academics in the field and with the Local Government Association. We are likely to cast the net still wider to ensure that the guidance results in applications which are acceptable to all and provide for the democratic and open local government. I do not know if this has been helpful.
A scheme of delegation will be set up in the arrangements to be approved by the Secretary of State. I believe that that will be helpful. It could allow onward delegation by an executive member to another of his or her political party. The degree of scrutiny would continue. It is an important issue that the opportunity to scrutinise the powers is there on a politically balanced committee level.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful. Some of the comments which the Minister has just made provide something of a lead into the next group of amendments. I am not proposing to push the matter further at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, leave out lines 22 to 24.
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, 1 shall also speak to Amendment No. 6 which is grouped with it. These amendments are about proportionality and political balance. As regards the last group of amendments the Minister commented on decisions now being taken by leading members in small groups in private without the opportunity for scrutiny. I entirely accept that that is the way in which many council groups operate. However, having taken a decision in private, there have to be public meetings. Members of the public and the local press can attend such meetings. At those meetings there is a chance for opposition councillors
168
and, as the Minister has suggested, for back-bench members of the majority group to question the decisions.
It was said to me by one of my colleagues in local government that the only good thing that the Conservatives did for local government was to introduce proportionality on committees. The Widdicombe recommendations were enacted in 1989. It has occurred to me that that period is less than the aggregate of the eight years plus four years proposed in this Bill for experiments. In other words, we have not had 12 years in which to assess practice under the Widdicombe arrangements although I regard them as important and successful.
I will he the first to say that there are huge dangers of complacency in a large council group or in a group which has no opposition at all. The chair of the Local Government Association, Sir Jeremy Beecham, went on record quite early after the formation of the LGA in lamenting the virtual absence of Conservative councillors in the big cities. I share the concern about our system not reflecting voting patterns and producing overwhelming, imbalanced councils. What use would there be in a better political spread of councillors if the minorities are excluded from decision-taking?
I believe that the rights of minority parties are the rights of the electors. They are expressing concerns of a group of electors. As we see ourselves on these Benches, they provide at the very least constructive opposition, which sometimes might be outright opposition. However, very often it is constructive opposition. That is especially the case under electoral arrangements which are based on the first-past-the-post system. That means that the number of councillors elected, as we all know, is not an accurate reflection of the political preferences of the voters—certainly not of the political preferences that might be expressed—if there were a system which allowed them to express their preferences. The current system means the opposition councillors and voters are locked out. Opposition councillors have a role in contributing to decision-making and to hold the majority administration to account.
We shall talk later about access to information. I accept what has been said about record-keeping and about the ability of members, and indeed the public, to have access to local authority records. However, the question of access is more than just a matter of being able to look at the papers after the event. It is a matter of how one can use one's position effectively. It is about, for instance, the opportunity to question officers of the authority through the chair of the committee; the opportunity to have real freedom of information and, as I have said, the opportunity to play a full part in the decision-making process.
In the mid-1980s, a colleague, Councillor Chadwick in Sheffield, was involved in a case following his exclusion from certain of Sheffield Council's operations. His need to know was supported by Mr. Justice Woolf, as he then was, who said:
"The fact that the information was refused and attendance was not permitted underlines the dangers that can follow from allowing a sub-committee of the council to be used as the forum of a particular party group".

169
That perfectly expresses my concerns. That is why I have tabled these two amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has spoken ably about Amendments Nos. 2 and 6. Unfortunately, I have been suffering terribly today with nosebleeds so, rather than stand here and risk an accident, I shall be very brief and say simply that we support the noble Baroness in these amendments.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is soon well. We shall all understand if she suddenly leaves the Chamber and we shall not take offence. Perhaps I can be of some comfort to her. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was most unkind and unfair when referring to the previous government's record with regard to local government. They did many things of great benefit. I cite as an example the abolition of the poll tax.
In speaking to these amendments, it may be helpful if I refer to the fact (in the interests of getting it on the record) that already in local government there is the opportunity for delegation to a committee, from a committee to a sub-committee, and from either the main committee or the sub-committee to an officer. The process of onward delegation is already being practised in local government.
There may be many arrangements in local government that can be allowed under the current legislative framework which could turn out to be more effective than the existing arrangements within a particular local authority, both in terms of accountability and the quality of the decision-making which results. I stress that we are talking about "enabling" as opposed to "imposing" an opportunity for innovation.
One model would be where there is a clear executive body drawn from the majority party which is subject to open criticism and review both by the other members of the authority in the same party group and by those from the opposition parties. It is a model used throughout the world in both central and local government, not least our own parliamentary system. I am aware that the use of the "cabinet system" by majority parties has not always been supported by opposition or minority parties. It would be a shame if we got to a point where a particular concern being expressed by those who happen at a particular time and in certain authorities to be the minority ruled out experimentation with the system altogether. I can think of authorities which are controlled by the party of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which have an executive committee model which, I understand, is a single-party executive committee. I may be wrong. If I am, I shall be interested to know and am open to correction.
I stress the importance of having a range of opportunities for innovation. Both the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, have already made it abundantly clear, both this evening and in the draft guidance produced by the Government and placed in the Library of the House, that it will not be acceptable for
170
a scrutiny committee to be other than in line with the political balance of the authority. That guidance also makes it clear that the scrutiny committee should meet in public, wherever local authority meetings are currently required to do so. I know that the noble Baroness will agree that the rules about openness to the press and public in local government are extremely valuable. There is therefore no question of sidelining minority parties. They will have a crucial role to play in any of these models for decision-taking. I would argue that there is therefore no justification for amendments, which, if carried, would also take a broad range of worthwhile experimental arrangements out of the scope of the Bill. For these reasons I ask the noble Baroness not to seek to pursue these amendments.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: I have already stressed that the purpose of this Bill is to enable local authorities to experiment with a wide variety of arrangements for taking their decisions, but not at the expense of proper, effective or open government—indeed, the intent is quite the opposite. I am as keen as the next person to ensure that there is the appropriate political balance in a committee where this is necessary. But there is a wide body of opinion from all areas of the political spectrum which would wish to allow local authorities the option of taking decisions within structures where the executive arm was not necessarily in line with the political balance of the membership of the authority.
At one level, a model such as a single-party executive committee is just reflecting the reality of what currently goes on in local government in authorities of every political colour. The majority group will typically come to a decision and then it will be debated by the full council. Sometimes the line can be agreed by unofficial meetings of the few leading players within the majority group. A number of the majority party may have had little or no influence in the decision, but would still be required to vote for and defend it.
However, a model which brought such unofficial meetings within the formal decision-making structure of the authority and provided for access to the necessary information and scrutiny of the decisions taken would enable officers to advise the policy-making process within the formal structure of the authority and could lead to an enhancement of local democracy and to better decisions being taken. A requirement that the membership of all committees of the authority should reflect the political balance of that authority would, in my view, work against the opening-up of the decision-making process. The real decisions would still be taken behind closed doors, outside the authority's committee structure.
I do not argue for this particular experimental model as my preferred option. I merely point out that many authorities would like to adopt such an experiment and that, if implemented correctly, it could improve local democracy. I stress that all the experiments possible under this Bill must be most carefully designed and implemented. In particular, it must be right that the

171
function of scrutinising the decisions taken by any executive arm, be that an individual or committee, should reflect the political balance of the authority.
However, I do not accept that there are sufficient grounds for concern for experiments which include committees which do not reflect the overall balance of the authority to be excluded from the options available for temporary experiments under this Bill. It may be that some authorities, particularly (but not exclusively) those with no overall political control, would wish to experiment with executive committees which do reflect the political balance of the authority as a whole. I would welcome such experiments. But experiments with single party executives could be perfectly valid in other authorities. I therefore believe that the amendments moved by the noble Baroness would overtly constrain the room for experiment which this Bill seeks to give to local authorities, and I cannot support them.
Baroness Hamwee: I like the concept of winning Brownie points by abolishing a tax which achieved so little support in the first place.
The noble Lord says that many authorities want this sort of model. I have to say that I wonder at their motives. Of everything which is in this Bill, this causes me the most concern. The temporary experiments to which reference has been made could last as long as 12 years. Yes, they are temporary in the great scheme of things, but it is still quite a long time.
I do not believe that committees which do not reflect proportionality and do not reflect the political make-up—I am repeating words which have been used within the answer—will enhance local democracy or open up local authority. Formal meetings involving members of the opposition and back benchers allow the opportunity for interaction between those members and the officers, even if the majority group has decided what it wants to do and is going to go ahead and do it. I have been a member of committees where, very properly, the proposals of the majority group have been put to the test. Quite often, of course, it helps the majority group. I am not suggesting that one should not allow them to undertake experiments or different arrangements because I know better than they do, but the fact is that if proposals are put to the test publicly by the opposition and talked through, then they are better decisions for that.
The Minister suggested that there are committees in authorities run by my own party which operate on this basis. I am not aware of any, but that is not to say that I know how every Liberal Democrat-run authority, of which I am happy to say there are now many, conducts itself. However, if they conduct themselves in this way they will be subject to the current rules. If they are subject to the current rules and they do conduct themselves in this way, there is no need for change, so I am a little perplexed by that. It may be that the operation is not quite the same as is now being proposed.
I believe that I have said enough to indicate the strength of my concern. I will want to consider very carefully what both the noble Lord and the Minister said
172
in their responses to what I regard as fundamentally the most difficult point within the Bill. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 25, leave out ("some or").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 3 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. These are relatively small amendments, designed to seek from the noble Lord further explanation as to how the committees will work.
The first pair of amendments suggest that where there is to be a cabinet committee it would require a majority of its members to discharge the functions of the authority, not, as I believe could be the case, some of its members. I may be technically wrong in saying that because, of course, it might require the majority of the committee to take a decision on behalf of that committee but, if that is so, then I wonder why the words "some of the members" are used here.
The third of the amendments seeks to understand the limits on the functions delegated to the committee. The wording of the Bill would allow the committee to discharge any of the functions of the authority. I assume that there has to be specific delegation by the authority in a full council meeting, but I may not be correct. This is a probing amendment to understand how the machinery would work and to seek to understand what the criteria are in designing how that delegation should be expressed in a committee resolution. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I believe that these amendments are still intended to prevent authorities adopting cabinet forms of decision-making. By that I mean models where individual members have responsibility for discharging functions of the authority acting alone, but who also meet together in the committee to take decisions corporately. At the risk of repeating myself I believe that such models could be very valuable as a response to the current committee structures which do not always serve authorities and their communities well. We do not want to see this whole family of models eliminated from the options available to authorities and we cannot therefore support the amendments.
As I believe that this is an important area, I hope I shall be forgiven if I go into more detail. The Government cannot accept Amendment No. 5, either with Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 or without them. It may be that the functions of an individual acting alone were given to him or her by dint of the proposals approved by the Secretary of State or by some subsequent delegation either from a committee or another member—the mayor, for example—if the approved arrangements permitted such further delegation. An individual acting alone would be discharging functions which had been given to him or her by some route or another, not necessarily merely those which had been first delegated to the committee of which he or she is a member.

173
I have spoken so far as to what I believe is the intent of these amendments. However, their actual effect would be that Clause 1(2)(d)(ii) would state that one or more ordinary committees of the authority or a majority of the members of which are able, acting alone, could discharge any of the functions of the authority delegated to that committee. This suggests that the actual effect of the amendments would be that the authority could give responsibilities to the individuals so long as they totalled more than the other members of the relevant committee without such responsibilities. This seems at variance with the intent of the other amendments, and the noble Baroness may wish to reconsider whether this is her desired result. However, even if it is, the Government would still feel constrained to oppose Amendments Nos. 3 and 4.
It seems to us to be unduly restrictive to prevent an authority creating a committee of nine, four or whom were also able to take defined decisions acting alone, for example. The authority's proposals under the cabinet system would set out who would be responsible for discharging functions. A cabinet would have functions which it could exercise as a committee, but it could also contain members who would be able to discharge some functions acting alone, no doubt in practice after discussion with the cabinet.
I am sorry for the length of my answer but I believe that it is helpful to have it on the record. This is clearly an area in which both the Conservative Opposition and Liberal Opposition groups have expressed concern.
8 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: I can add little to what the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, has said. I believe that the same arguments apply to the discussion that we had on some of the other models. The models which these amendments would prevent seem to me to be perfectly valid. They are used in central and local government across the world and should be available in this country to local government for experimentation as and when they fit local circumstances. I regret that I cannot accept these amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: I end the debate on this group of amendments more concerned than when I began. I do not believe that my amendments would have the effect which the Minister has suggested. Leaving that aside, as I understand it arrangements can be made for the appointment of a committee some of whose members can discharge functions. This is not dissimilar from the point that I made in the Committee earlier in relation to levels of delegation. It may be appropriate to delegate to a delegate, but for that delegate then to delegate on is a matter that should be viewed with some concern. I believe that that obscures the way in which the authority will operate.
I am somewhat confused by the arguments on my amendments. I shall read the responses to see whether I
174
can tie them up with the points that I have made. I do not believe that the points have been answered. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 to 10 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 22, after ("committee") insert ("or an officer").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 11, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 47. These are technical amendments which are intended to make explicit that authorities may design social services committee, both to other committees and to officers of the authority. The need for these amendments arises only from the fact that there is specific legislation on the discharge of the social services functions in local government which differs from the general framework in the Local Government Act 1972, to which the schedule otherwise refers, and a desire to give local authorities scope to experiment in this area similar to that which they have in relation to all their other functions. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Government support these amendments. They clarify that the starting position should be that similar scope for experiment applies in principle to each function of a local authority, including social services. In practice, it is possible that particular structures would not be appropriate for some services or functions. But we do not wish to see the room for manoeuvre in designing experiments unduly constrained by the initial legislation where this is avoidable, as we cannot at this stage predict the ideas for experiments that authorities may put forward should the Bill be enacted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 34, at end insert
("(4A) Experimental decision-making arrangements may not include arrangements for the membership of any ordinary committee of a local authority which is appointed to scrutinise the exercise of any functions of the authority to be determined otherwise than in accordance with the political balance requirements.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 12 when the Committee debated Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 39, after ("efficient") insert (", effective").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 13 and speak also to Amendment No. 14. I believe that Clause 1(5), the subject of these amendments, is pivotal to the Bill. It requires that the proposed arrangements are likely to improve the decision-making process and that regard is to be had to effects in certain areas, one of which is that the arrangements are likely to lead to the authority's decisions being taken in a more efficient and accountable way.
One would not quarrel with efficiency or accountability. I have sought to add another two adjectives to deal with effectiveness and openness. I believe that "effectiveness" is about the outcome of an action and "efficiency" describes the means. I dare say that all noble Lords involved in this Committee stage are well aware of the Audit Commission's strictures about efficiency and effectiveness. One is told by the commission that these are different aspects. A lack of efficiency may not be caused by administrative arrangements; indeed, there may be other reasons. For example, because local authorities are large in population and in budget terms compared with councils elsewhere, or because of the average number of councillors per council. There are lots of reasons for lack of efficiency. I believe that "effectiveness" more closely describes what I should like to see in a local authority.
To mix all of the words up, one can be efficient in a democracy only if one is sufficiently open and accountable. It may be that accountability includes openness. I table these amendments, in particular the second one, to ask both the noble Lord and the Minister to expand on the operation of Clause 1(5)(a). Like other noble Lords, over the years I have had experience of differing views of those from different backgrounds which have been brought to bear on the decision-making process. After the abolition of the GLC I remember very well the early meetings of the business-led organisation London First, which involved representatives of local government. For me it was characterised by the very different approaches of the two sectors. Those who came from a business background when presented with what they believed to be a good idea said, "That's great. Let's do it"; those who came from local government said. "That's great. Let's consult on it". There is something to be said for both approaches, but openness and taking the matter outside the council chamber is a matter of which we should not lose sight. An executive mayor or cabinet committee must have a particular task to meet levels of openness that may not need to be expressed in the case of committees which are, in any event, required to be open. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: When I chaired the education committee in an authority, which necessarily has the largest budget, the Audit Commission's use of the terms "efficiency" and "effectiveness" were always linked with the heavily-stressed "economy" when people spoke to me.
The Government will be content for the words in Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 to be inserted and become part of the Bill. They are clearly in line with the benefits which we anticipate will arise out of the experimentation under the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: I too am happy to accept these amendments, which reflect the aims of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving them.
Baroness Hamwee: I commend the amendments to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2. line 39, after ("efficient") insert (", open").
The noble Baroness said: I have spoken to the amendment but I did not say thank you on the previous occasion. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 43, leave out ("for members of the authority") and insert ("to call for the attendance of and reports from any executive mayor. executive elected mayor, executive ordinary member, the Chairman of any ordinary committee and any officer entitled to discharge any functions pursuant to subsection (3) and ").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment, I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17.
I apologise to the Committee for the fact that on Amendment No. 15 the words "for members of the authority", which it is proposed to remove, should not be removed, even though the clause would still read comprehensibly with those words taken out.
What I seek to do by these amendments is to understand a little more fully—the point has, to some extent, been dealt with by Amendment No. 12—the powers of the scrutiny committee; its powers to call for the attendance of individuals and for reports from them. If the powers are not specifically provided by the Bill. will the committee have those powers? I come from the school of hard knocks, and have often been told that if the power of a local authority is not expressed. then it does not have it.
Amendment No. 16 seeks to widen the activity a little by assessing and reporting on the proposed exercise of any such function. This may have been overtaken to some extent by Amendment No. 12.
Amendment No. 17 arises from a report of a recent conference on this subject at which Professor Stewart, who is noted for his energy in looking at ways of doing things locally and his support for local government. suggested that there might be a connection between the scrutiny function and decentralised committees working on a localised neighbourhood basis.
As was said on Second Reading, many authorities—particularly those run by members of my party, but not only so—have put into place new administrative arrangements which include neighbourhood localised area committees. Are those committees to have any sort of role in the scrutiny procedure?
It would be a great shame if the advances made in this area—the innovations which have been so successful—were in any way held back by such committees not being properly involved in the scrutiny of the executive. I look forward to comments on this matter. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Although the Government may share the concern which appears to have prompted Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17, we cannot support them.

177
Amendment No. 15 goes into some detail about the powers that may accompany the exercise of the scrutiny function. We would expect scrutiny committees to operate in very much this way in a number of authorities but we do not believe that it is helpful to set all this out in legislation. The detail set out in this amendment may not be appropriate to each authority; for example, it may be that most chairs of an authority are non-executive members who would be responsible for the scrutiny function, rather than subject to it as they would be under this amendment.
Furthermore, this amendment is constrained to only those functions discharged by a person acting under arrangements made under Clause 1(3) of the Bill. Might not an authority want to set up similar processes for scrutiny of decisions made through structures which are currently possible under existing legislation? I am not sure, because we do not know what sorts of experiments local authorities may propose. I do not know, therefore, whether this amendment would cause any difficulties in such circumstances. It does seem likely that it might.
It would also be curious to define in a rather precise way one particular process which will then form part of the criteria for assessing whether an authority's application should be approved. An authority which produced proposals that included different but equally effective procedures for scrutiny and that suited its own circumstances might well have less chance of approval than if it adopted the set format in this amendment, even if it were unsuited to that authority. This would be an unfortunate result from such a well-meaning amendment—one with which many of us could sympathise but not, therefore, support.
Much the same argument applies, in our view, to Amendment No. 17. 1 do not argue here either for or against the presence of area committees in any structure a local authority might adopt. But, again, it is perfectly conceivable that an authority could define arrangements which brought decision making closer to the people without necessarily adopting a formal area committee structure. So why use this as a criterion for judging whether a particular proposal would improve matters? We find this amendment also too prescriptive.
Turning to Amendment No. 16 the arrangements suggested by this amendment would be a recipe for a hamstrung authority, particularly when taken with Amendment No. 15. The structure these amendments would create is one where any decision which is to be taken by any means other than that which would be permissible under the current legislative framework would be held up if the scrutiny committee so wished, until such time as it had called for evidence from various quarters, including the executive, and reported on the proposal. Such arrangements, if applied in a general way, could make it very difficult for any separate executive, be it a committee or an individual, to operate effectively. They do not seem appropriate in a Bill which seeks to promote more effective decision taking.
Some of the ideas underlying these amendments may be seen in many applications from authorities—and the Government may often welcome the arrangements
178
where this is so—but scrutiny arrangements will not always take the form described in these amendments. We therefore do not believe that they should appear as part of the criteria for judging whether a proposal is likely to improve the decision-making process. For those reasons, we cannot support the amendments.
The powers that an authority will have will be established by the arrangements approved by the Secretary of State, and the legislative modifications made by order under the Bill. One would expect that in any particular experimental set of arrangements. the scrutiny committee may perform the processes referred to in the amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that we do not seek to negate them as possible, or even probable, arrangements within particular processes; rather we seek to prevent their becoming prescriptive or part of the automatic criteria.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord speaks, will the Minister assist the Committee as to whether, as seems to be implicit in her answer, scrutiny committees will have those detailed powers without legislation providing for them? That was the objective of some of the amendments in the group. I am interested to know whether it is necessary to specify the powers in the primary legislation.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I understand that part of the process of submitting an application will be to ensure that there has been wide consultation and that there is support for the proposed system. It appears to me—I shall write to the noble Baroness if I am wrong—that a scrutiny process would inevitably form part of the application if it is to meet the criteria laid down in the legislation to be taken into account by the Secretary of State.
Baroness Hamwee: I fear that I am not making myself clear. I accept of course that a scrutiny arrangement is to be required. My concern is to know whether the detailed powers to call for reports, for instance, should be specified in the primary legislation, or whether the power of scrutiny encompasses such a power. I accept that the point may be too detailed for the Minister to respond to now. It is not a frivolous point, but I am sure that the Minister is not suggesting that it is.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I, of course, recognise that it is not a frivolous point. My understanding is that the noble Baroness's fears are groundless, but should that prove not to be the case I shall ensure that she is informed.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: The Committee will remember that on Second Reading some Members argued that a Bill which was designed to free up things and allow local authorities to experiment was already itself too prescriptive. We must be careful about loading more and more into the Bill to tell local authorities how they should go about these experiments. Neither they, we, nor the Government know the answers, though we should expect to learn a good deal as a result of the experiments which may be of more general application later.

179
For those reasons, and those the Minister gave, I am reluctant to accept the amendments. I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue them. I should like to offer one suggestion entirely without commitment; that is, the Government might consider whether this is the sort of issue where, in a sense, we are all saying that we want the same thing, but it is a question of whether it is spelled out in legislation or whether it is something that could be dealt with in the guidance for local authorities, which has been placed in the Library. I hope that at this stage the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: It may be that the point can be covered in secondary legislation applying to the particular authority and to the particular arrangements. I believe that the Minister wishes to intervene.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It may help the Committee were I to say that the scrutiny committees could have powers to call for reports, and so forth. How a scrutiny committee will work will be established in the approved arrangements. Paragraph 3 on page 4 of the draft guidance refers to that. I hope that that makes the position clearer.
Baroness Hamwee: We are all interested to make this matter work. In connection with Amendment No. 16, the Minister has confirmed that the scrutiny committee will be required to make assessments. I was a little surprised by her description of the amendment as too prescriptive.
With regard to Amendment No. 17, it is a shame not to allow that direct relationship with neighbourhood committees. Again, I shall not seek to take the matter further now. I do not intend to restrict the exercise of executive powers, merely to see, if they are to be given to a cabinet model or an individual, how they would fit in with the effective neighbourhood committees which are now in operation.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I hope that the Committee will forgive me. The noble Baroness referred to "not allowing". My understanding is that the existing arrangements could be continued and allowed. There is obviously wide acceptance that such committees have worked well in many authorities. We wish to avoid prescription, not to cease to allow.
Baroness Hamwee: I did not mean to indicate that I thought that the provision sought to stop neighbourhood committees. I should like them to be allowed to fulfil the scrutiny role rather than that the scrutiny be undertaken by a central committee. If an authority has devolved powers to neighbourhood committees in a way which does not follow the old conventional models, the "shame" to which I was referring is the shame that those committees with the devolved powers do not have a direct opportunity to scrutinise what the executive is doing. That may be another point to which we can return at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
Clause I, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Hunt of King's Heath Lord Hunt of King's Heath moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause I. insert the following new clause—
REVIEW OF DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

(" .—(1) Every local authority shall not less than once every four years after the commencement of this Act consider and review the efficiency and effectiveness of its decision-making processes.

(2)Every local authority shall as part of a review under subsection (1) consult the community interests in its area.

(3)The conclusions of a review under subsection (1) shall he reported to a full meeting of the council of the local authority.").

The noble Lord said: The intention of the amendment is to require a local authority, at least once in a four-year period, to undertake a review of its decision-making structure, and to report to full council. One of the most important aspects of the Bill is that it is permissive: it does not seek to be prescriptive. That must surely be right in our endeavour to develop the role and confidence of local government.
I wish to see an approach to local government which tries to widen its discretion rather than to require it just to react to the diktats and circulars of central government. It is clear that many local authorities will wish to take advantage of the Bill, if enacted, as soon as possible. Yet more will wish to reflect on the success, or otherwise, of those local authorities which will be in the first wave of experimentation.
I suspect that a third group of local authorities will say no to begin with and will bury their heads in the sand, not wishing to return to reviewing their decision-making structure. The amendment refers to that group of authorities. If local government is to be the dynamic, innovative source of government at local level which the 21st century requires, it is important that local authorities examine their decision-making structure and ensure that it is as up to date as possible
Many of us have been influenced by the Audit Commission's report of 1997. It stated that too much of a burden is placed on councillors, often unproductively, by committee meetings which focus on detailed issues. The Audit Commission stated:
"Such committees can assume large amounts of management time, slow down decisions and duplicate each other's work".
We must take that comment seriously. We must encourage those local authorities which may be reluctant in the first instance to undertake a review to consider whether their traditional approach to decision making is up to the needs of local government today and tomorrow. This is a modest amendment which seeks to encourage that without being prescriptive.
I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I support the amendment. Many authorities will review the efficiency and effectiveness of their processes more frequently than every four years, but it is good to require them to do so in a formal

181
manner. I recognise instantly the example of a committee which focuses on spending £500 but fails properly to debate spending £5 million.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt of King's Heath and to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for tabling the amendment. The Government fully support the permissive structure of this Bill, but we want to encourage local authorities to take advantage of the opportunity it affords them. We do not want to ask for volunteers in the manner of some army sergeant major. We want authorities themselves to come to the view that they need to address their decision-making processes and the way in which they engage more widely with those they serve.
The Government therefore welcome the thrust of this amendment, which would require authorities to review periodically their own decision-making arrangements and, in the course of that review, to consult those they serve. This is clearly good practice. We often hear of cases where an organisation seeks views from its customers on what it does and how it might be done better and comes away from the experience wiser, humbler and with a determination to improve. Even the best of us can always benefit from a little constructive feedback. A number of authorities are already doing something like this; for example, producing and maintaining democracy plans.
However, this amendment places no compulsion upon any authority to experiment under this Bill should it become law. It merely ensures that every so often an authority should think about these issues and take a view on whether it is operating as it would wish. The Government believe that this would be a very useful discipline. We are therefore content for this amendment to be made. But I would mention to the Committee that on studying the detail of the text the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, may see a need for certain further amendments to take this new clause fully into the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: I have listened with interest to this short debate and I, too, have sympathy with the aims of the amendment. I should be content to accept it. However, as the Minister said, we would like the opportunity to consider the text and its possible relationship to other amendments. If further amendments are required they can be brought forward at a later stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Applications for approval of experimental decision-making arrangements]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 34, after ("resolve") insert ("in accordance with subsection (1A)").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 19 is a paving amendment for one of the amendments in the next group. It may be convenient if I speak to both groups together. I do not intend to move Amendment No. 44 during the Committee stage. Amendment No. 19 deals in part with the mechanisms for resolution. I suggest that resolutions should be taken by at least a
182
majority of two-thirds of the local authority membership and with the agreement of the leaders of all the political groups of the authority. Leaders are normally designated. Although the term may sound loose it reflects practice.
When considering the constitution of an organisation, it is conventional to seek more than a bare majority. I do not suggest that a local authority should be run in the same way as a local golf club, but there may be lessons to be learnt. Decisions for such fundamental administrative change should be made on the basis of more than a bare majority or even a resolution passed on the casting vote of the chairman or the mayor. It would also be possible for a large group to force through such changes, but I do not believe that it could healthily be done without a consensus across the authority. Many authorities have no overall political control. Members of those authorities will have to have a debate as to the benefits of any arrangements which may come from any side of the authority.
The second group of amendments relates to information and consultation. Amendments Nos. 23 and 34 deal with the mechanisms for consultation. They refer to publication in local newspapers. I have suggested that because that is increasingly required in legislation dealing with the dissemination of information by local authorities; for instance, league tables and so forth. That is not to say that local newspapers necessarily have enormous readerships, but at least they have a role in alerting residents to what is happening.
Amendment No. 26 deals with similar issues and I support it. Amendment No. 24 proposes more than information. It proposes that there should be a local referendum. That was something floated on Second Reading and it is well worth pausing to consider it. It moves away from a traditional approach to local government and is something on which local groups of residents, the community, should have the opportunity to have their say.
The proposals, which are increasingly being discussed, for directly elected mayors are of course controversial. I do not seek to argue now against directly elected mayors. I shall perhaps do so on other occasions. But it is a considerable constitutional move.
On 7th May we are to have a referendum when Londoners can express their views on a new form of constitutional settlement. I believe that local people should be given the opportunity not just to express their concern about an elected mayor with executive powers, if they have such concerns, by perhaps abstaining in the election for mayor when that comes, but by having a full involvement in the process. A referendum will mean a full debate in a way which general consultation will not achieve because people's minds will be focused.
I strongly advocate reliance on the good sense of local people, of local electors. If a local authority believes it can win an argument for a model which involves a directly elected executive mayor, it should take that argument to local people. It should not take to them a

183
decision made, I admit, not behind closed doors but within a council chamber. It should use the opportunity for a local constructive debate. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of King's Heath: I should like to speak to my Amendment No. 26 and also to Amendment No. 23. One of the key purposes of the Bill must be to enhance accountability of local authorities to the public and their local community. An implication of that is that there should be greater public participation in the work of local government and being able to feed into the decisions which local authorities make.
Therefore, it seems sensible that one of the criteria under which the Secretary of State may make a judgment in relation to an application is the extent to which the local authority has consulted about the proposals with its local communities. Indeed, a local authority which has had the confidence to consult and take note of that consultation is much more likely to implement successfully the proposed experimentation.
Amendment No. 26 does not specify how that consultation should be undertaken, and I think that is right. But we know from the practice of a considerable number of local authorities that they are using innovative techniques, including citizen's juries, focus groups and centralised committees to get a feel of what the local community thinks.
Therefore, it seems to me that while not being prescriptive about the technique to be used, a local authority should have to show that it has used some of those participatory techniques. The advantage is that in seeking to propose experimentation, it will have much wider community debate and support. It will also give the Secretary of State more confidence in agreeing to the proposal.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I would have some difficulty in supporting Amendments Nos. 19, 20 or 22. Unless I have misunderstood, I am concerned about the wording in subsection (1A) which provides that the leaders of all political parties must vote in favour of the resolution. One can envisage a situation in which perhaps there is one political group with only one, two or three members. It seems to me that even if you have 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. in favour of the resolution, it could still be vetoed and that could be quite dangerous.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I very much support what my noble friend said and I support also the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of King's Heath, as regards the need for consultation on these matters. While we are on the subject of elections of mayors and how that should be accomplished, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, will explain to the Committee what will happen to the ceremonial role associated traditionally with ordinary mayors or chairs of local authorities.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I regret to say that the Government are concerned that the cumulative effect of the amendments might be to strangle experimentation at birth. In a way it is helpful that the
184
noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of King's Heath have managed to bring together this group of amendments.
First, the authority would have to resolve to pursue a particular experiment by a two-thirds majority including each leader of a political group. Such a veto for a political group leader is, we believe, unprecedented and it is certainly not something with which the Government feel comfortable. It could allow very small groups to exert undue influence over the decision on whether to experiment and, if the authority does experiment, the shape of that experiment. Furthermore, there are very few matters in local government which require a two-thirds majority.
Next, it would have to consult widely and then win a referendum. I regret to say that this would all look like a set of expensive obstacles to many in local government. Our fear is that this whole process might be seen as so tortuous that some authorities may be put off from embarking upon it, in particular, those which are less committed to change than some others but which were prepared to look at the possibility of experimenting. I think many in the House this evening would agree that that would be counter-productive. I am afraid therefore that the Government could not support Amendment No. 19.
I also regret that we cannot support Amendment No. 24. The authority would have to publicise the proposed amendments and conduct a referendum, only putting forward the proposal for approval by the Secretary of State if there is a positive vote in the referendum. But there are many major questions which are not answered by this amendment. Who would draft the question? Who would be the returning officer? What campaigning would be allowed by whom and who would pay for it? And so on.
I do not mean to suggest that it is not desirable for authorities to consult the community they serve as part of the process of framing an application to operate experimental arrangements. Indeed, our view is very much the opposite. As the Committee will be aware, this Government are committed to modernising local government to make it more open, responsive and consultative in its operation and outlook. They do not want to achieve this result through compulsion, but through exhortation, encouragement and leadership.
The Government would not therefore wish to be prescriptive about how any consultation might take place, or when, or how much of it there ought to be. These are matters which are properly local decisions. However, we do sympathise with the objective of ensuring public consultation in this area. Therefore, I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friends Lord Hunt of King's Heath and Lord Bassam may be able to bring forward on Report a suitable amendment which meets the spirit of Amendments Nos. 23, 26 and 34, and which could incorporate both the important points raised by my noble friend Lord Hunt and also the essence of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness,

185
Lady Hamwee, which deal with informing as well as consulting the public. I hope that response is helpful and that suitable amendments will be tabled on Report.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: I, too, have doubts about making this Bill more prescriptive, as I have said many times before. For the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, I would be reluctant to accept these amendments. However, I very much sympathise with what she said about consultation. I hope very much that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Hunt of King's Heath, will take up that suggestion and bring forward something at a later stage which will meet the objective which I think we all share.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful for that suggestion. For my part—I note that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of King's Heath, nods his head—I should be happy to undertake some collaborative venture. The Minister commented on the cumulative effect of these amendments. She will not be surprised to hear that if I cannot have all of them, I shall of course settle for some of them. There are not sufficient stages in the legislative process to deal with such amendments one by one. The noble Baroness said that the amendment regarding the referendum left unanswered many questions such as who would draft the questions and who would be the returning officer. I wonder whether I should say, "Don't tempt me". However, I shall not be tempted tonight.
More seriously, the response from the Government highlights the fact that a group with a tiny majority—as I have said, that may result only from a casting vote—will be able to entrench its position through such an experiment. Such a group could, through the use of a casting vote, propose new administrative arrangements which would, frankly, give it a much more comfortable time. I do not think that we should easily accept that. However, for the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: Before the Question is put, I realise that I did not give the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, an answer to her question. That is partly because I do not know the answer. I am afraid I shall have to write to her in that respect.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3. line 36, leave out ("eight") and insert ("four").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 21 concerns the period during which experimental arrangements can exist. Clause 2 allows for experimental decision-making arrangements for a period not exceeding eight years. I am proposing four instead of eight. The period of eight years seems to me to be a considerable time in the life of a local authority. That constitutes two terms of election for a councillor. That period also covers a local authority's own elections, whether they are all out elections or annual elections in the case of those which have annual elections.
I am unclear how a new administration coming into office during the middle of the period—I accept that my four-year suggestion does not wholly meet this point because the four-year period might straddle an election; but an eight-year period is bound to do so—even one of the same colour as the previous administration, can be expected to respond to arrangements such as those we are discussing which will have been put in place by its predecessor.
However, more importantly, experiments are experiments. If you want to have an experimental road closure, you do not close the road for eight years and wait for responses. If you want an interim response to a planning application—I appreciate that these are service functions and narrow points—you would give permission for a period of, say, a year. You are told that if it does not work properly within that year, it does not have much chance of being continued; but, if it does work properly, you ought not to continue with the experiment.
I have tabled this amendment to probe as much as anything and to find out what is in the minds of the noble Lord and, indeed, of the Government in proposing such a long period because I do not think I have yet heard any argument to support the proposed length of the period. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As has already been said this evening, the purpose of this Bill is to enable experiments to take place. The purpose of any experiment is to learn something. It may be that a whole new rich seam of practice emerges as a result of the experiments under this Bill which would justify variety in decision-making arrangements in the longer term. On the other hand, it may become clear that there are one or two models which are clearly more beneficial in our culture and society than others that have been tried. No one knows yet, or could know, until the experiments had run for a number of years.
Either way, it is likely that there will be the need for some legislation towards the end of the period in which these experiments will take place to provide for the longer term. I suggest that it is placing a rather awkward timetable upon the Government to expect them to learn all there is to learn from these experiments in only four or five years, prepare and agree draft legislation and bring it forward to enactment when there might be other pressing legislative priorities, all within a maximum of eight years.
It is not as if there is a lack of safeguards in the arrangements proposed which should cause us to worry about conducting an experiment over a longer period. Authorities will not be allowed to experiment unless they have had their proposals approved by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. He will not approve any proposal which does not conform with the guidance he will issue, a very early draft of which has been placed in the Library of this place.
An authority could apply to the Secretary of State for permission to cease operating an experiment if it felt it was not working well. In extremis, if an experiment had, by some chance, disintegrated and the authority did not

187
appear capable of resolving the situation itself, the Secretary of State could end the experiment by revoking the order which gave effect to it. That would have the effect of requiring the authority to return to operating under the current legislative framework.
The Government do not see any benefit in reducing the period in which experiments can be pursued. Neither do we accept that there are any particular problems with the eight-year period currently envisaged. Indeed, we would argue that there are positive advantages and therefore urge the Committee to oppose this amendment.
In speaking to an earlier amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the history of local government. She spoke of a period in which the relationship between central and local government was perhaps not good. One of the concepts that marked that period was a Monday morning launch of a pilot project, then an assumed evaluation the following Monday in favour of its working well. Thereafter, the following Monday, it was extended through legislation which usually involved orders which could not be voted against in this Chamber. I hope that the noble Baroness will do nothing to erode the eight-year period which enables full and adequate evaluation.
9 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: How long is temporary? It is a difficult question to answer. But the objective of experiment is to learn. There may be cases where a period of up to eight years will prove desirable. For example, where an authority has adopted a model with a directly elected mayor, it is likely that the dynamics of the situation and the relationships between the different parties will still be developing after four years, as such a model would be a considerable departure from existing practice. Moreover, if the experiment with an elected mayor were to last for two terms rather than just one, it would be more likely to involve cohabitation between a mayor and a leading group on the council of different political complexions. Experience of these circumstances would be very important in assessing how models with executive mayors could best be introduced in this country more permanently, if at all.
There is another point which the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, mentioned. When these temporary experiments come to an end, they either cease or have to be replaced by primary legislation. There is the problem of assessing the experiment, deciding whether it should be a matter of primary legislation, achieving a place in the programme and getting the legislation through. It is difficult to contemplate a period of less than eight years. I hope that the amendment will not be accepted.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister is most beguiling in reminding us of former bad practices. I am not necessarily persuaded that in order not to put something in place by a week on Wednesday one must have it in place as a temporary arrangement for eight years. However, I shall not pursue the matter at this time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 42, at end insert?
("( ) must describe the electoral arrangements for the election of any executive elected mayor;").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 32.
Amendment No. 25 relates to electoral arrangements. It provides that the information in the application will include a description of the arrangements for the election of any executive elected mayor. I hope that I may tempt the Minister to offer some encouragement to those of us who support a move to more modern and fairer methods of election. I refer to the preferential model by the alternative vote; or—I do not think that it is such a good model—the supplementary vote, which does not allow the expression of preferences through the list, instead of the first past the post system.
I do not simply bang the old Liberal Democrat drum that we are in support of proportional representation by single transferable vote. We are. But we are most concerned not about the detailed mechanism but about the need to include the electorate in order to help it feel that it is part of the process and has a real opportunity to influence the outcome, and in order to make elections more inviting.
A preferential system avoids the dangers of the imposition of an elected mayor with. for instance, 20 per cent. of the vote. I am sure we can all imagine how that might come about: with a long list of candidates, the vote is split and a person comes top of the poll but with a small majority and unable to demonstrate majority support across the electorate.
The country appears to be moving towards more proportional systems. I do not have great expectations that the Minister will be able to say that the Secretary of State will not permit such an election unless there is to be a preferential system. However, I hope that she will be encouraging about the need to include the electorate in the process.
Amendment No. 27 seeks to find out the expectations of the Minister as regards the arrangements in respect of a power of recall of an executive, elected mayor, and a power of veto. In other words, apart from scrutiny, are any constraints to be written into the arrangements? I should like to have on the record the expectations in that connection.
Amendment No. 28 provides that the information includes an estimate of the costs of the new arrangements. Among the electorate, cost can be controversial. The electorate wants the services to be provided; it is a little less happy about paying for them; and it is much less happy about paying for what are regarded as the fripperies of local government—although many of us would regard them as the support systems. An executive elected mayor, or a lead member. perhaps a cabinet committee (but it is most starkly demonstrated in connection with individuals), will need considerable support to carry out his or her functions: There will be the overall costs of the mayor's or

189
member's office; and the staff required to assist in the exercise of the functions. The question of political officers is addressed either in the Bill or in one of the later amendments. Government increasingly have support from political advisers. I do not seek to argue against that. I merely use the debate to highlight that it will be an on-cost of such a new arrangement.
As regards allowances for council members, I do not have much sympathy with many of the criticisms made by the public. Members of local authorities are expected to do jobs which require them to be paid allowances in order to concentrate on those jobs. Nevertheless, it is a matter of public concern and I seek to suggest that information regarding these should be part of the application.
The final amendment in this group, Amendment No. 32, is concerned with any modifications. The Secretary of State can come back to a local authority and say: "Your application is by and large OK, but I should like you to modify it in the following ways". The Bill appears to allow the Secretary of State to impose arrangements modified by him without consultation with the local authority. I hope that consultation with the local authority on amendments would be automatic; however, in Amendment No. 32 I seek to ensure that that is the case. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In Amendments Nos. 25, 27 and 28, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, flags up some important and legitimate areas of concern such as the relationship between the elected mayor and the rest of the council; electoral arrangements; and the system of allowances proposed by the council. They are, nonetheless, detailed matters compared to the general formulation of other parts of Clause 2(2) and therefore sit rather oddly here.
That does not mean that these matters are not important to the Government. Clearly, the relationship between the mayor and the rest of the council is crucial. But, as a number of Members present will have seen, most of these issues are already covered by the draft guidance placed in the Library. We shall continue to develop that guidance in further consultation with the local government associations, academics and others. I believe that is the proper way to address these issues, rather than by amendment tonight.
Amendment No. 32 would require the Secretary of State to consult an authority before making any order which includes modifications to legislation for that authority which do not appear in the schedule to the Bill. That is precisely what the Government would intend in such circumstances. We believe, therefore, that the amendment is not necessary, but equally we would not want to stand in its way should the Committee wish to see it as part of the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: Amendment No. 32 seems very sensible and in line with what I hope would always be the practice. If the Government are content to be placed under such a requirement, for my part I see no difficulty at all with the proposal. However, I am not attracted to laying down a requirement in the Bill for
190
local authorities to set out what their allowance structures, etc., are intended to be. It seems to me that this and some of the other matters mentioned are more properly dealt with outside legislation. Under the Bill, if the Secretary of State states a requirement in his guidance that a particular issue should be covered in an application to experiment, he may not then approve an application unless he is satisfied that the authority has had regard to that guidance in framing its application. I should therefore not be willing to support those amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: The assurances given with regard to a number of the matters I mentioned are very welcome, and I shall move Amendment No. 32 at the appropriate point. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 25.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 4, line 13, leave out ("subsection (2) above") and insert ("this section").
The noble Lord said: This is merely a technical amendment intended to insert the correct internal reference into the clause and to clarify its purpose; namely, to ensure that local authorities shall have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State in describing the arrangements which are the subject of their application. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Government support this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 4, line 17, at end insert ("after consultation with the Local Government Association and such other representatives of local government as appear to him to be appropriate.").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 36. In these amendments, perhaps rather cheekily, I suggest that there should be consultation with the Local Government Association or other representatives of local government in connection with the guidance. I have every expectation of being told that that is what is happening. But we used to make this request when the Conservatives were in control. I see no reason not to put down the same point now. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would expect, the amendments are exactly in line with the Government's approach. As I have already said, we have made available in the Library of the House a very early draft of the guidance the Secretary of State would be required to issue if this Bill were enacted. The Government are committed to an open consultative approach to the drafting of this guidance as it is clearly very important that we get it right. We have therefore already consulted the LGA and the department's panel of prominent

191
academics on the drafting of this guidance and fully intend to continue doing so. The Government would therefore be happy to support these amendments in principle, though we might wish to see the amendments elsewhere in the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: With regard to these amendments I have to declare an interest because, as the Committee is aware, I am the honorary president of the LGA. Members of the Committee will not be surprised, therefore, that I, too, shall be content to make explicit the LGA's rightful place in determining the guidance to he issued to local authorities.
I noted what the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said about the possibility of there being a more acceptable way of working the provision into the Bill. I wonder, therefore, whether the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, might be prevailed upon to withdraw the amendment at this stage, on the understanding that I will take advice and bring back similar provisions at a later stage.
Baroness Hamwee: I am content. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lucas: I wish to take the opportunity to question the noble Lord, or perhaps the noble Baroness would like to answer for him, as to how it is intended that the powers under this clause should operate after the Welsh assembly becomes fully functional.
My understanding, which may well be erroneous, is that the powers under Clause 2 will pass in their entirety to the Welsh assembly and that no residual right will remain with the Secretary of State for Wales. But perhaps I am mistaken and everything will stay with the Secretary of State for Wales, or the powers may even in some way be divided. I should be fascinated to know how the division will work and what exactly it is envisaged should happen under the Bill. I am sure that everything is known and planned and it is only my ignorance that needs to be satisfied. However, I should be delighted if either the noble Lord or the noble Baroness were able to do that.
While I am on the subject, presumably if we were to insert the words of the amendment we have just discussed into the Bill there would need to be separate provision for whatever the equivalent of the Local Government Association in Wales is or will be.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I rise after careful thought and with some trepidation, as I have to declare a past interest as chair of the Association of County Councils for England and Wales, before its demise, and leader of the Labour Group of members of the Association of County Councils for England and Wales.
192
The power of the Secretary of State in Clause 2 is no different from the powers of the Secretary of State in other legislation to approve or direct. In so far as the power would relate to Welsh authorities, it would need to be considered alongside all other similar powers in the legislation for the Welsh assembly. I hope that that helps the noble Lord.
Lord Lucas: I do not find it at all helpful. I am sure that the Government must know how they intend to deal with the matter and whether these are powers which will remain with the Secretary of State for Wales or powers that will go to the Welsh assembly. I wish to know the Government's intention. I shall be content for the noble Baroness to promise that she will write to me a detailed, informative letter on the subject, but I shall not be content to let the matter pass with less than that.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It would be discourteous of me to refuse to write but I am sure it would be equally discourteous for me to indicate that the letter would contain all the information that the noble Lord wishes to have. I feel there is little else to add, except to tell him that, of course, the Welsh Local Government Association is part of the LGA and is therefore being consulted on all the proposals.
Lord Lucas: Yes. I shall refer to the second matter first. It may be part of the LGA now, but it will not be by the time the Bill is operational. Presumably the Welsh Local Government Association does not envisage continuing in subservience to the English association when Wales has its own local government.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I can assure the noble Lord that at no time in my long experience over many years with colleagues, authorities and officers in Wales, have they ever accepted that they are subservient. They are equal partners, and where it appears appropriate and beneficial to them to join in concert with English local authorities they do so, as they do with associations in other parts of the United Kingdom when appropriate. But please let it not be said in your Lordships' Chamber that the Welsh are subservient.
Lord Lucas: I am delighted with that, but I hope that when it comes to the noble Lord drafting whatever clauses he does draft, he will bear in mind the necessity to mention the Welsh separately and to give them due place in the Bill, which, as I understand it, will result in them operating the powers of the Secretary of State, and, presumably, having a separate interest in consulting the Welsh, whereas our Secretary of State will have no interest in consulting the Welsh. It will be a parallel consultation rather than a cross-consultation.
I await with interest the noble Baroness's letter. I shall be fascinated if it contains as little as she has been able to say to me this evening because I had presumed that the Government had thought out what they intend to do rather than leaving it to the last minute. However, in anticipation that the letter will contain everything I need to know, I am content to leave the matter there for now.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Approval of applications under section 2]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 4, line 29, at end insert ("and
( ) he has considered the implications for freedom of information").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 37. These amendments are concerned with freedom of information. Clause 3 deals with the Secretary of State's actions on receipt of an application and with the matters to which he must have regard. We are in a period when freedom of information is firmly on the legislative agenda. I welcome that. I would have hoped to be able to propose an amendment which provided for consultation with the information commissioner, which I believe is the term given in the White Paper to the officer who will be charged with overseeing the application of freedom of information regulations. However, we do not yet have legislation.
My amendment, which is a rather poor relation of that suggestion, proposes that the Secretary of State must have,
"considered the implications for freedom of information".
I hope that, with this probing amendment, I will be able to obtain from the Minister assurances that those implications will be seriously considered.
I mention them because of the concern about the opportunities for doing things in smoke-filled rooms—that is the way anything about which one is suspicious is often characterised—and actions being taken where scrutiny will not be wholly adequate because the best type of scrutiny may fall down. We talked earlier about the need to look at actions before decisions are taken. I remain concerned that scrutiny will be a backward looking process and that information surrounding an authority's decisions, whoever takes those decisions, may not be as free as one would like it to be. I have therefore put down the amendment in the hope that the Minister can give assurances that the implications for freedom of information will be very much in the Secretary of State's mind. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Heaven forfend that I should ever hanker after smoke-filled rooms for decision making! The Government are committed to the principles of freedom of information. We have proposed that there should be a freedom of information Act applying right across the public sector, including local government. The Government therefore fully support the sentiments behind the amendments.
As my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster explained in another place when announcing our White Paper on freedom of information, we have now embarked on an extensive and open consultation on our FOI proposals. This will continue through much of this year. First, we will be consulting on the proposals in the White Paper. That will be followed by draft legislation, again for consultation.
194
Our intention is that when considering applications from local authorities to operate experimental arrangements, my right honourable friend will have regard to the developing FOI regime and the detail of its application to local government. In the draft guidance, which we have placed in the Library of the House, we state that proposals put forward by local authorities should,
"be consistent with statutory requirements for access to information, and will need to take account of moves towards 'Freedom of Information'".
The point raised by the noble Baroness is an important one. We do, however, need to be careful that any reference to freedom of information introduced now into legislation will not cut across any wider developments as we, in our consultations, work up our wide and robust FOI regime. I would suggest, therefore, that if it would be helpful to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I would be happy to discuss with them what might be the most appropriate form of an amendment, encapsulating the concept of the noble Baroness's currently proposed amendments on FOI, which could be brought forward at Report.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: I agree that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has correctly identified an important area which local authorities will need to address in their applications to operate experimental arrangements. If she is willing to take up the suggestion which the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, made, I shall be happy to do so. It should then be possible to prepare an appropriate amendment on freedom of information for Report, which I shall be happy to see brought forward, if that is the wish of the Committee.
Baroness Hamwee: Of course I am willing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 5, line 4, after ("State") insert (", after consultation with the local authority,").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment earlier and an indication was given that it would be accepted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Applications for extension or variation of experimental decision-making arrangements]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 6, line 31, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: With my last group of amendments I shall be even quicker than I have been on previous groups. I tabled these amendments because, as I read the Bill, any extension or, more particularly, variation of the arrangements requires the consent of any executive member or executive mayor who may be in

195
place. It seems a very dangerous proposition to give that individual an in-built right of veto of any variation. I do not believe that I need expand on that. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendments Nos. 33 and 45 would remove the duty on a local authority with an executive mayor to obtain the written consent of their mayor before applying to the Secretary of State to extend, vary or terminate the operation of experimental arrangements.
If this duty were to be removed and the application successful, it would allow the council to discharge some of the functions, which by virtue of the arrangements the mayor may discharge, or even remove the mayor without his or her consent. In extreme cases it would be possible for the council to seek to use this power as a means of conflict resolution. Clearly, this represents an inappropriate way of resolving a conflict between the mayor and the council. It would appear particularly inappropriate for a council to be able to remove the powers of a directly elected mayor with his or her own mandate from across the authority.
We, the Government, would much prefer that local authorities should operate within the framework for conflict resolution they set out in their original proposal. As noble Lords may be aware, the need for such a framework is highlighted in the draft guidance which has been placed in the Library of the House. It is our belief that both local authorities and the Government are likely to learn far more from the operation of experimental arrangements if conflicts are resolved through a predetermined set of procedures rather than the removal of an element of that experiment. I therefore ask the Committee to oppose Amendments Nos. 33 and 45.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: I, too, am reluctant to accept these amendments. I have little to add to what has been said, but I should like to expand a little on the area of consent, which I believe is central to this Bill.
Before making any application to the Secretary of State, an authority is required to pass a resolution of the full council. In doing so, consent is rightly sought from the council to undertake an experiment. When an authority undertakes an experiment with an executive mayor, it is equally important that consent is sought from the mayor before his or her role is changed or even abolished. As the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, pointed out, this is particularly relevant where the mayor has been given a direct mandate from the electorate of the authority to exercise certain powers. The removal of the principle of consent in this case would appear to undermine the basis for experimentation under this Bill. It is on those grounds that I must oppose these amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: I am unpersuaded but, as there is pressure on time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 6, line 39. leave out ("the written consent referred to in") and insert ("any written consent required by").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 35, perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 46. These are further technical amendments which ensure that the provisions of the Bill recognise that mayoral consent will not always be required for applications to the Secretary of State made under Clauses 5 and 11, because not all experiments will have executive mayors. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Government support these amendments, which help to clarify the purpose of these clauses.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No.36 not moved.]
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Approval of applications under section 5]:
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 9. line 1 leave out ("approves") and insert ("has approved").
The noble Lord said: This technical amendment will help to avoid any possible confusion over the effect of this clause by clarifying the provision that the Secretary of State may approve only one application by a local authority to extend the experimental period. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Government support this technical amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Extension of arrangements etc: orders under section 6(4)]:
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 9, line 32, after ("above") insert ("(taking references to the arrangements there mentioned as references to the existing arrangements)").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 are technical amendments which will help to avoid any possible confusion over the effect of this clause by clarifying the requirements for publicising and the decision to extend or vary experimental arrangements. These amendments ensure that the correct documents are available for public inspection. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Variation of arrangements etc: orders under section 6(5)]:
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 10, line 32, at end insert ("(taking references to the arrangements and the order there mentioned as references, respectively, to the varied arrangements and the order under section 6(5) above)").
The noble Lord said: I have just spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Monitoring of experimental decision-making arrangements]:
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 11. leave out lines 40 and 41.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 41,I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 42 and 43. These amendments are intended to allow the reporting period for reports, by the monitoring officer and the head of the paid service of an authority, upon the operation of experimental arrangements to begin from the date on which the arrangements themselves begin.
The need for Amendment No. 41 arises from the fact that, as the Bill stands at the moment, the first monitoring report may cover only a few months, or even less, of actual experimentation. The amendment will enable local authorities to report on whole year periods, a move which I believe will allow them to gain the maximum possible information from their experiments. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Government support this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment Nos. 42 and 43:
Page 12, line 7, leave out ("experimental period begins") and insert ("authority begin to operate experimental decision-making arrangements").
Page 12. line 8, leave out from ("which") to end of line 10 and insert ("ends on or before the date on which the authority terminate the operation of experimental decision-making arrangements.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Termination of experimental decision-making arrangements]:
[Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 12, line 33. leave out ("the written consent referred to in") and insert ("any written consent required by").
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
The Schedule [Modifications of enactments which may be specified in an order under section 3 or 6]:
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 14, line 3, at end insert—
("Section 4 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970

.—(1) Section 4 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (joint committees and sub-committees) shall be amended as follows.

(2) At the appropriate place there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2A) A social services committee of a single local authority may delegate to an elected mayor any of the functions of the committee."

(3) At the appropriate place there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2B) A social services committee of a single local authority may delegate to an ordinary member of the authority any of the functions of the committee."

(4) At the appropriate place there shall be inserted the following subsection—"(2C) A social services committee of a single local authority may delegate to an officer of the authority any of the functions of the committee."

(5) At the appropriate place there shall be inserted the following subsection?—
"(2D) A social services committee of a single local authority may delegate to another ordinary committee of the authority any of the functions of the committee."

(6) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) Subsection (7) of section 1 of the Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Act 1998 (interpretation) shall apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section.").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment in connection with an earlier amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 16, line 32, at end insert—
("Section 100G of the Local Government Act 1972
8A.—(1) Section 100G of the Local Government Act 1972 (principal councils to publish additional information) shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) So much of any written record kept by a single member of a principal council under paragraph 45A of Schedule 12 to this Act as does not disclose exempt information shall be open to inspection by members of the public at the offices of the council until the expiration of the period of six years beginning with the date on which the function to which the record relates is discharged."
Section 100H of the Local Government Act 1972
8B.—(1) Section 100H of the Local Government Act 1972 (supplemental provisions and offences) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (4) (offence in connection with document required by section 100B(1) or 100C(1) to be open to inspection by public) for "or 100C(1)" there shall be substituted "1(H)C(1) or 100G(2A)".").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 48, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 49 to 55.
It is a key element of each experiment made possible by my Bill that the fullest possible access to information ought to be afforded to both the councillors of the authority and the public, to support both the scrutiny function and open government more generally. These amendments ensure that this is the case.
Paragraph 13(3) of the schedule provides for a councillor (including an elected mayor) who is able to discharge functions of the authority acting alone by virtue of Section 101 of the 1972 Act as modified for the particular authority in question by the Schedule to my Bill to keep a record of how he has discharged those functions. As the provision currently stands, it is incomplete, in that functions discharged by an individual councillor as a result of Section 4 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 as modified by the schedule are not caught. Amendment No. 53 remedies this.
This record is then to be the mechanism for ensuring that both councillors and the public can find out easily what decisions have been made by an individual councillor acting alone. Paragraph 8 of the schedule to my Bill provides for the record to be open to councillors. Amendment No. 48 ensures that the public will also have access to the record for six years, as would be the case for the minutes of a meeting. It also backs up this right by bringing failure to make this record available to the public within the scope of the offence in Section 100H of the 1972 Act again. just as would be the case for the minutes of a meeting. These are important amendments which will underpin the openness of many of the models made possible by the Bill.
Amendment No. 51 is designed to make similar provision in the case of social services functions in respect of all those bodies within an authority that might have delegated responsibility for those functions. Section 101 of the 1972 Act prevents an authority from delegating to a committee or sub-committee those functions which stand referred and are delegated to the social services committee. This amendment extends that provision to mayors and other councillors who are able to take decisions acting alone, both for consistency's sake and to avoid legislating by omission.
Amendment No. 54 is a technical but important amendment to the Representation of the People Act 1983. It ensures that the election for a mayor who is a councillor can be held at the same time as those of the other councillors for the authority and of other authorities. Thus, the elections of all councillors for the same authority which are due on the same day can be combined and those can also be combined with the election of any local parish councillors, for example. This is important if the nonsense of voters forming separate queues at different ballot boxes in the same polling station is to be avoided.
Amendments Nos. 49, 50, 52 and 55 are minor technical amendments intended to assist the Secretary of State when making an order to allow the operation of experimental arrangements. Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 are intended to ensure that the drafting of the modifications to the Local Government Act 1972 is consistent with the rest of that Act. Further, Amendment No. 52 is intended to insert the definition of an "ordinary member" into that Act. Similarly, Amendment No. 55 is intended to insert the definition of an elected mayor into the correct part of the Representation of the People Act 1983. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for tabling these
200
amendments this evening. The Government's agenda for local government is founded on a desire to see open, responsive, democratic and effective local authorities. An important part of achieving this vision is the ability of local authorities to experiment under this Bill with structures which give them both more streamlined decision-making arrangements and greater public scrutiny of the resulting policies and decisions. Amendments Nos. 48 and 53 are crucial to the openness of authorities experimenting under this Bill and the Government therefore welcome and support them. I urge noble Lords to do likewise.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for tabling Amendment No. 54. It would clearly be a nonsense to force local government elections normally held on the same day to be held either separately in the same place or to shift one of them to a different date. The former could cause difficulties for polling in many areas and the latter could significantly affect turnout in the election which was moved to a different date. It therefore clearly makes sense to combine these elections, and the Government support this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said Amendments Nos. 49, 50, 51, 52 and 55 are merely technical and are tabled for the sake of clarity and consistency. The Government are happy to support these amendments.
On Question, amendment agree to.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendments Nos. 49 to 55:
Page 16, line 44, leave out ("that individual") and insert ("he"). Page 17. line 6, leave out ("that individual") and insert ("he").
Page 17, line 39, at end insert—

("(12) In subsection (10) (section shall not authorise local authority to arrange for discharge by any committee, sub-committee or local authority of any functions required to he discharged by specified committee) after "discharge by any" there shall he inserted "elected mayor".

(13) In subsection (10) before "committee, sub-committee" there shall he inserted "ordinary member-.").

Page 18, line 16, at end insert—
("(c) after the definition of "open space" there shall he inserted?—
""ordinary member" has the meaning given by section I of the Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Act 1998;".").
Page 19, line 5, after ("above") insert ("or section 4 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970").
Page 19, line 7, at end insert—
("Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act 1983

.—(1) Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (local elections in England and Wales) shall be amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (3AC) there shall be inserted"—

"(3AD) Where the polls at

(a) the ordinary election of councillors for any electoral area falling within paragraph (b) of the definition of "electoral area" in section 203(1) below, or an election to fill a casual vacancy occurring in the office of such a councillor, and

(b) the ordinary election of an elected mayor for any electoral area falling within paragraph (a) of that definition, or an election to fill a casual vacancy occurring in the office of such an elected mayor,

201
are to be taken on the same day and the elections are for related electoral areas, the polls at those elections shall be taken together…").

Page 19. line 22, leave out ("after the definition of "local government election" there shall be inserted") and insert ("the following definition shall be inserted at the appropriate place").
The noble Lord said: As the remaining amendments are technical and have already been explained, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 49 to 55 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Zimbabwe: Land Acquisition Policy
9.45 p.m.
Lord Vivian Lord Vivian rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they view the Zimbabwean Government's current policy on land acquisition.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have recently returned from a visit to Zimbabwe, where I met many farmers, area representatives of the Commercial Farmers Union, the Farmers Development Trust and the Farmers Association. I was shown vast tracts of unused government acquired land, communal lands, indigenous resettled land and commercial farming land. I was taken to an agricultural college, and I had lengthy discussions with the president of the Commercial Farmers Union and the British High Commissioner, who were both most helpful. I have a clear understanding of the chronic need for irrigation for crops in Zimbabwe.
One of the reasons for my visit was that President Mugabe had announced that he would compulsorily acquire some 1,471 farms, the majority of which were owned by farmers who possessed only one farm. The statement was soon followed by a list of owners and farms published in the Zimbabwean Gazette dated 28th November of last year. It was also announced that the Zimbabwean Government would not give any compensation for land but only for improvements to farm buildings. There are some 15,000 United Kingdom citizens and a further 30,000 with dual nationality living in Zimbabwe.
When I left Zimbabwe on 10th January the position was that the Zimbabwean Government's approach to their land acquisition policy was softening. The Commercial Farmers Union had formed Team Zimbabwe, which consists of the four sectors providing the main input into the economy. These are agriculture, which contributes about 44 per cent. of the total export earnings; mining; tourism; and the banking and financial sectors, which make up the other 56 per cent. Team Zimbabwe is influential. All four sectors speaking as Team Zimbabwe clearly understand and have made it well known that if the agriculture sector fails the others would also fail, thereby destroying the economy.
All sectors of the community, including the white farmers, agree that there is an urgent need for land reform and the Commercial Farmers Union has good relations with the Government, but the process of land acquisition must be carried out in a logical, fair and
202
transparent way. It must be in accordance with existing criteria agreed after the Land Act 1992, which was that land should only be acquired if it was derelict, vacant and underutilised; owned by absentee landlords and foreigners; held under multiple ownership, and for social and political reasons under which alternative land would be offered to the farmers concerned. The perception that acquiring land without fair compensation would satisfy the demands of the electorate in general and the so-called war veterans is very wide of the mark and the majority of the electorate is against it.
These farms represent Zimbabwe's greatest employer of labour, its largest contributor to the gross domestic product (the principal measure of economic performance), the biggest single source of vital foreign exchange resources and the primary stimulant of economic activity in the industrial, commercial and financial sectors. The proposed method of land acquisition would alienate international support and totally destroy all incentive on the part of foreign and domestic investors to provide the country with the investment so essential to provide the economic growth for Zimbabwe's survival. Without economic growth there can be no possibility of poverty alleviation, which should be the overall aim of this country.
Prior to my return to London, President Mugabe had given welcome assurances to the CFU that genuine grievances in the land acquisition programme would be considered and provincial committees, including farmers, would be set up as part of the consultative process, in addition to other current consultations as the land acquisition exercise progresses. The CFU's policy states that the political imperative of land reform, land acquisition and redistribution of land should not be regarded only as an end in itself, but as a means to improve agricultural efficiency and contribute to increasing farm incomes, the eradication of poverty and the promotion of an economically, socially and environmentally stable path for economic development within the context of the current liberalisation of the economy. The acquisition of commercial farms by their government for whatever reason, including social and political interests, must be judged in terms of human rights, its contribution to economic growth, greater food security, job creation and stability, reinforcing balanced development of rural areas and facilitating trade in primary and processed agricultural products. Compulsory acquisition of land in the national interests for resettlement in terms of the Land Acquisition Act 1992 was accepted by the CFU, farmers and government as a means, in addition to negotiated land sales, of acquiring land within existing criteria. It will serve to underpin more equitable patterns of development to ensure economic growth and greater integration of the rural and urban economies with the main aim of enhancing the welfare and livelihood of all farmers in a peaceful Zimbabwe. In 1996–97 large-scale farming production was over 14 billion Zimbabwe dollars and the value of exports over 10 billion dollars. If the proposed land acquisition goes ahead, after taking only 1 million hectares commercial production will drop to

203
some 8.8 billion dollars, and exports will decrease to about 6.6 billion dollars. Employment will be reduced from 327,000 to about 180,000.
Those figures stress the absolutely vital necessity for land acquisition and resettlement to be carried out within the existing criteria if resettled farms are to be productively utilised and employment maintained. It is essential that single owner farms should remain outside the criteria otherwise the economy, without any shadow of doubt, will be ruined. As a primary industry in Zimbabwe, agricultural output and earnings, and farm workers' output and earnings are a massive multiplier in the whole economy.
In that connection, I spoke to a number of resettled farmers who had been trained at the Farmers' Development Trust agricultural colleges. During my conversation with them, I discovered that it was government policy not to release title deed to them. Those farmers will assist the economy with productive farming, provided that they have title deed to secure bank loans for seed, fertiliser, and agricultural equipment. Without title deed, the land cannot be used for farming and will become derelict.
In conclusion, the Zimbabwean Government should be encouraged to provide irrigation for farms; to give title deed to resettled farmers; and to accept the Team Zimbabwe policy on land reform. Furthermore, the international financial and banking institutions, the UK, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the European Union should not advance one single penny of aid without a clear mandate from President Mugabe that he will conform to their laid-down conditions, and that he will stick to the established land reform criteria and withdraw his policy of compulsory acquisition of single-owner farms.
The United Kingdom Government are to be congratulated on the firm line they have taken on the Zimbabwean land acquisition policy. The British High Commissioner, Martin Williams, is also to be congratulated on the determined lead he has taken to ensure that land policy matters are conducted in a fair, open and logical way. I am particularly grateful to the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, for all her advice and help on this somewhat sensitive and delicate Question. I am very much looking forward to her reply.
9.51 p.m.
Lord Acton: My Lords, at the outset, I must say that the farm of a Zimbabwean nephew of mine has been listed for compulsory acquisition and currently he awaits the result of his appeal. I was brought up on a Southern Rhodesian farm and after independence I worked for the new government from 1981 to 1985. I speak tonight not so much as an uncle, but as one who has an enormous affection for Zimbabwe and for all its people, black and white.
On 28th November 1997, the Zimbabwe Government listed 1,503 commercial farms, amounting to some 5 million hectares, for compulsory acquisition. Compensation would be paid only for improvements and not for the land itself, as the noble Lord,
204
Lord Vivian, said. The land is meant to be redistributed after the 1998 harvest mainly among war veterans and subsistence black farmers.
Since the listing, in Zimbabwe there has been a deep plunge in confidence in the Zimbabwe dollar and stock market. The Commercial Farmers' Union, which represents 4,000 mainly white, large-scale farmers, has calculated that there will be steep declines in farm production and exports if the land is taken. Moreover, the CFU stresses that 147,000 jobs are at risk. In a country where the average family is 6.4 people, nearly 1 million black people are directly threatened. Small wonder that the General Agricultural and Plantation Workers' Union of Zimbabwe has expressed serious concern.
Moreover, 200 of the 1,503 farmers who were listed are members of the Indigenous Commercial Farmers' Union, representing small and large-scale black commercial farmers. Thus, huge numbers of black people could be affected as well as the core white landowners.
Two shafts of light shone on to that bleak picture last week. The CFU presented to ministers a paper entitled Land Reform Programme, brimming with ideas of how it could help the government. I mention some of its suggestions. The CFU believes that a maximum of 1.5 million hectares of commercial farmland could be identified for settling the landless. It plans capital structures for war veterans on commercial and communal lands. The CFU believes that it could help black would-be commercial farmers by arranging concessionary loans from banks and also by offering advice and training. Furthermore, the CFU stresses that it can be of great help to the government in attracting international donor support.
The central suggestion of the CFU is the preparation of an overall land reform plan by the government, together with the CFU, the African Farmers' Union, which represents subsistence farmers, the indigenous Commercial Farmers' Union, which I have mentioned, donor agencies and others. The ideas cover seven pages and the minister of agriculture, Mr. Kangai, was fully briefed on them last week. The CFU tells me that he is supportive of its suggestions. So much for the first shaft of light.
The second shaft of light shone last Thursday, 22nd January, when President Mugabe spoke at a national economic consultative forum. He said that farmers, banks and donors should all be involved in land acquisition and the land reform programme. The mention of donors is of special interest for that is the first time President Mugabe has spoken of them being involved directly.
That statement brings to mind a meeting on 7th January of this year in Brussels between President Mugabe and the European Development Commissioner, Professor Pinheiro. At that meeting, the Commissioner suggested a donor conference where the Government of Zimbabwe and all the "stakeholders" concerned, including the donor community, could discuss the implementation of land reform. The European Union proposal of a donors' conference is only three weeks

205
old. President Mugabe's statement last week and the Zimbabwe minister of agriculture's reaction to the CFU's paper provide some hope that the donors' conference might, at length, come to pass. Certainly, Her Majesty's Government should and no doubt will make every effort to encourage all concerned to get together under European Union auspices to discuss a further plan about Zimbabwean land acquisition.
10.1 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Vivian for enabling us to discuss this important issue. From 1960 onwards, I visited Zimbabwe where I have friends and connections among the farmers who have farmed the land there for three generations. They have stayed there through good times and bad. They are Zimbabwe citizens wholly committed to their country.
I was brought up in Tanganyika, then a mandated territory, and later served as a diplomat both in the Congo before and after independence and in Zambia from 1964 to 1967, before and after Ian Smith declared UDI. At that time I had friends in both ZANU, President Mugabe's party, and ZAPU. Indeed, I was denounced on Salisbury Radio as a friend of terrorists and not infrequently threatened. Therefore, I am not ill-placed to understand and feel concerned for both white and black citizens of Zimbabwe, as well as for the stability of Southern Africa as a whole.
This is a delicate moment in the discussions which must be taking place behind the scenes between the farmers' union and Zimbabwean ministers. I believe that there is good will on both sides at the working level and a real wish to find a solution to a political problem which seems to have got out of control.
It was reassuring to read in the press last week that during the negotiations with the European Union and the World Bank, the Zimbabwe finance minister gave a written undertaking, said to be cleared by the president, that land reform would be carried out,
"in a transparent way, in accordance with the rule of law and the terms of the constitution".
However, the IMF, which has not yet agreed to a loan, proved to be right in making a condition of the first tranche that President Mugabe should make a public statement in Zimbabwe that his government would not only carry out land reform transparently but would pay for the land as well as for the improvements made by white farmers. It would also be essential for him publicly to confirm his commitment to the rule of law and thus allow appeals to the courts, which he has hitherto refused to permit.
Unfortunately, President Mugabe's most recent public statement last week was that he had no intention of abandoning his stated policy of seizing farms without compensation and that he will not turn back on the issue of land sequestration. That can only create major problems not only in relation to his hopes of support from the EU, the World Bank and the IMF, whose normal practice it is the world over to set conditions for economic policy once it is dispensing international
206
funds, but also for the stability of Zimbabwe and the whole area. I shall be glad to hear from the Minister whether the more hopeful view of the noble Lord, Lord Acton, as regards President Mugabe's most recent commitment is the right one. President Mugabe evidently assessed the political risks and concluded that he could best solve his internal problems by renewing his commitment to proceed against the farmers, although it is doubtful whether he even has the money to meet the scale of compensation which he has envisaged.
President Mugabe showed both magnanimity and statesmanship in his relations with the former Ministers of the Smith regime in the aftermath of independence. He has over many years retained a particular ideological respect for the Chinese. He is an African leader of standing and most of them are, like the Chinese, pragmatic and practical in their approach to political problems.
Zimbabwe has until recently been a successful country. What happens there has repercussions for all its neighbours. The president must be well aware that in a world where everything financial interlocks, no man and no country is an island. He will know that his people look to him to show wisdom, tense though the situation has become. He recently bowed to the party congress on another issue. He made a decision last week to stand by his original intention on the farms. Because he is the president and that was a presidential decision, he and he alone can change his mind and be seen to do so. It takes a big man to do that.
His Ministers, speaking with his sanction to the EU, promised that the process of land reform would not affect agricultural production or workers' security. That needs to be said publicly, together with the statement that the IMF asked for. It is indispensable to restore the morale not just of the farmers, the investors, the banks, tourism and all the other sectors of the country's economy upon which economic stability and viability depend, but above all of the black citizens of Zimbabwe. An unstable economy and widespread unemployment, not only in the agricultural sector, are something that no responsible head of state could contemplate, and must be far from President Mugabe's true intentions.
It is in his power to be seen to be both wise and strong enough to afford to change his mind, not only for the good of Zimbabwe but in the interests of the whole of southern Africa. Economic collapse and general unemployment will have serious consequences for Zimbabwe's neighbours and could destabilise the whole area, and especially South Africa at a critical time. The president can change all this and create confidence in the future at a stroke by saying that he now abandons the policy of sequestration in favour of a plan of land reform to be worked out with the farmers on the lines suggested by the IMF, which would then be coupled with a major sustainable development programme of roads, dams, better public transport and schools, and above all training for young African farmers. Such a programme is already being financed by the commercial farmers' union and many farmers already do this individually. The farmers have constructive ideas and the will to make them work once they have a guarantee of stability.

207
There are many Zimbabwean citizens, white and black, who are committed to their country and want to make things work. Of course there is a recognised need for land reform, but not at the terrible cost of the present plans for arbitrary confiscation and the mass unemployment which must follow, to say nothing of the waste of farms which will turn merely into land. Zimbabwe is potentially a hugely successful country. This is the president's chance to be remembered as the man strong enough to change his mind and wise enough to harness the good will of both white and black. The decision is his. It could mean life not death for his country and, politically speaking, for him too.
10.8 p.m.
Lord Plunket: My Lords, as I have lived and worked in Zimbabwe for over 40 years I must declare that interest. I am not a Zimbabwean citizen. If I were, I should not be able to take the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty and thus stand here and address your Lordships. However, the merits of that of course your Lordships can judge for yourselves.
When the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, about land reform and acquisition was tabled on the Order Paper, Zimbabweans were voicing their general disgruntlement but the civil unrest had not begun. The rioting was the result of the government's inept handling of the economy and unpopular measures to deal with the effects of rising inflation and the hike in the price of basic foodstuffs. It was not about land reform.
The economy and well being of the population depend on the Zimbabwean Government finding solutions to both problems. Proof of that is that only last Thursday there was a new initiative and the national economic forum—my noble friend Lord Acton mentioned it—was formed and had its first meeting attended by President Mugabe, his three cabinet ministers most involved, the leaders of industry and the president of the Commercial Farmers Union of which I am an ordinary member. At that meeting the CFU put forward a plan for land reform. It was well received and is at this moment the only structured proposal on the table. It is important that the emotional concept and the constitutional and legal position of land reform do not become confused.
The war, our war, as we call the senseless fighting in the late 70s, was about land inequitably distributed between black and white. Much has already been redressed. Where 100 white families lived between Chimanimani on the borders of Mozambique, where I grow trees, and Mutare, our nearest town 100 miles away, there is not one single white farmer left. No trouble, no fuss, my Lords. Then there are areas where thousands of hectares have been bought for resettlement which are lying derelict for lack of infrastructure, know-how and wherewithal.
That causes frustration and fosters the myth that the land was stolen and the people have the right to take it back. But it is not like that. Of the farms listed, 70 per cent.—it is important to get it straight that the 1,500 farms have been listed under the Land Acquisition Act: none of them has been designated to
208
be taken over—were bought by their present owners after independence and were conveyed to them under Zimbabwean law. The other 30 per cent. were all purchased.
The past, the present and the future were all given recognition in the new constitution, so patiently and successfully negotiated by my noble friend Lord Carrington. This has been amended in the meanwhile but it still remains and in the context of land reform gives internationally understood protection of property rights. The Land Acquisition Act lays down the procedure by which the landowners receive full compensation for the land and the improvements.
Today I believe that President Mugabe has a greater crisis on his hands than at any time since independence. How is he to close the gap between the expectations of the people who put him into power and the reality of rising inflation, dwindling foreign reserves, balance of payments problems and a budget deficit level which, if exceeded, would put off the IMF and donor countries?
However, the crisis has brought about a meeting of minds in the national economic forum. On the face of it one might be surprised that there is a problem. When one goes about one's daily business in Harare or elsewhere, in a bank for instance, the tellers are black and the bank manager is black, but there are few of them in the board room. The land reform question is not just about the resettlement of landless peasants. It is also about educated and ambitious blacks resenting that they are poorly represented in the corridors of commercial and industrial power, and in commercial farming. Land reform has been left too long; but I say as an optimist—I am still, at my age, planting trees—that it is not too late.
President Mugabe has to be persuaded that land acquisition is part of a clear strategy for the development of the country as a whole, and not a separate issue. He has to be persuaded that the support of the British Government, the IMF and other foreign governments and donors depends on that. Thus it is necessary that his ministers and their permanent secretaries responsible for land and agriculture are given a properly thought-out programme to achieve resettlement and the continuation of profitable commercial farming, and that they are allowed, without interference, to get on with what they want, and have, to do.
There is a lull at this moment in the rhetoric and the unrest. No one must be allowed to fritter away the goodwill that still remains. This opportunity to plan and carry out comprehensive land reform beneficial to all Zimbabweans, as part of an overall development strategy, must not be allowed to slip away.
10.16 p.m.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, we owe gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, for this timely debate. I wish to place on record my thanks to the noble Lord for this opportunity.
This debate on land redistribution in Zimbabwe is indeed timely. Many societies wonder about amelioration of past wrongs. President Mugabe is surely

209
neither alone nor unjustified in responding to such pressures. However, expropriation and dictated, abrupt revolution will not help Zimbabwe. While understanding land ownership problems in the post-colonial world, we need to encourage other solutions which will be in line with democracy, the rule of law and the preservation and enhancement of wealth producing activities. That is an historic task that we have already shouldered but not fulfilled.
I turn to the Supplement to Annex C, an extract from the chairman's statement to the plenary session of the conference on 11th October 1979 concerning the question of land. The chairman spoke as follows:
"We recognise that the future Government of Zimbabwe, whatever its political complexion, will wish to extend land ownership … the Independence Constitution will make it possible to acquire under-utilised land compulsorily provided that adequate compensation is paid.
"Any resettlement scheme would … have to be carefully prepared and implemented to avoid adverse effects on production.
"The Zimbabwe Government might well wish to draw in outside donors such as the World Bank in preparing and implementing a full-scale agricultural development plan.
"The British Government … will be prepared … to help … would be prepared to contribute to the initial capital … We should … be ready to support the efforts of the Government of independent Zimbabwe to obtain international assistance for these purposes".
The reply of the Patriotic Front delegation to the chairman's statement talked about such major issues as land, and reserved its position. However, a few days later, in a further reply on 18th October, the Patriotic Front declared:
"When the Conference adjourned we stated that we required clarification on the fund relating to the land question to which the Chairman had made reference. We have now obtained assurances that, depending on a successful outcome of the Conference, Britain, the United States of America and other countries will participate in a multinational financial donor effort to assist in land, agricultural and economic development programmes.
"These assurances go a long way in allaying the great concern we have over the whole land question arising from the great need our people have for land and our commitment to satisfy that need when in government".
Well, it never seemed to happen. That is perhaps why President Mugabe claimed the other day that it was immoral for 4,500 people to occupy 70 per cent. of prime farmland and talked about taking back the black birthright. Against this backdrop of social problems and apparent economic mismanagement since 1980, there were the 70 per cent. drop of the Zimbabwe dollar against the US dollar last year alone, inflation above 20 per cent. since 1991 every year, high interest rates, the civil servants' strikes which meant that President Mugabe gave them an increase of 35 per cent. in wages last July with an inflation rate of 22 per cent., the war veterans' demands, which had to be given in to. A 50,000 Zimbabwe dollar payment each was promised, with a 2,000 Zimbabwe dollar monthly pension. There was a union strike over the new tax to pay the veterans and the taxes were then scrapped, although the payments had been guaranteed. There was the new petrol subsidy. All those were combined with a rise in the cost of basic commodities of between 17 per cent. and 45 per cent. due to the fall of the Zimbabwe dollar, the increased
210
input costs in the last quarter of 1997 and the cost of maize meal—a basic staple which had a price rise not once but twice in January this year, first by 25 per cent. and then by a further 21 per cent. The government forced millers to withdraw the second rise.
The fact is that there are insufficient government funds to meet those stated obligations. The local currency has not been replenished as outside investors keep profits in external currencies. There is heavy reliance on overseas donors, but still no coming forward by the donor countries, particularly the United Kingdom, in the scale and manner described and accepted on 11th and 18th October 1979.
I turn to a Written Answer of 11th December 1997 by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. It mentions a total of about £40 million which the United Kingdom has given to Zimbabwe recently. However, the Answer states clearly and understandably this Government's policy of depending upon the Zimbabwe Government's commitment to the reduction of poverty as the basis for consideration of the possibility of establishing a partnership for further funding. So land reform is still not on the agenda in the way we earlier promised.
Of course, President Mugabe's recent land ownership pronouncements have had a debilitating effect on investor confidence, on capital values and on the economy, and abrupt actions in agriculture particularly can jeopardise 44 per cent. of the country's export earnings. We have heard already how productive Zimbabwe's farmers have been. Capital investment has now, I believe, stopped. Next year's fertiliser has not been ordered by many farmers and the consequent effects on long and short term production will be highly negative.
But Zimbabwe has many high value assets, much management expertise and a substantial skilled labour force. Surely the United Kingdom has to be cautious in intervening in another country's domestic affairs. We must not seem to be defending white interests against black interests. I believe we must remember our historic involvement in, and our responsibility for, past injustices by the state and the British people. To be blunt, land ownership moved under duress into white hands.
The International Monetary Fund, the European Union and the other external donor bodies in which we are active members can assist now in safeguarding the value of agricultural production and restoring investor confidence in partnership with government. That must be within the rule of law and with the resumption of democratic principles as an imperative.
Even at this late stage, 18 years on, I suggest that the United Kingdom should pick up its stated and accepted responsibility to act as catalyst and limited guarantor for international funding of Zimbabwe's land redistribution—but on a willing seller/buyer farm development basis.
10.24 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, since 1980 I have been lucky enough to visit Zimbabwe once every two or three years. I have enjoyed visiting that lovely

211
country. When I occupied the position that the Minister now occupies I used to ask myself on these occasions what business it was of ours to discuss such matters. In this instance there are three interests which affect this country. First, President Mugabe has said on the land acquisition problem that it is for the British Government and the British taxpayer to compensate white farmers for the loss of their land. The second interest is that 20,000 or 30,000 Zimbabwean residents are British citizens. The third interest is the overseas aid budget.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, referred to a Written Answer, which I was given by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, before Christmas, saying that our overseas aid to Zimbabwe is still quite considerable. One of the reasons it is being reviewed at the moment, as the noble Lord said in his Answer, is to alleviate poverty. I wonder what the land acquisition policy will do for the alleviation of poverty. I should be grateful if the Minister could give some indication as to how the policy will alleviate poverty.
The commercial farmers of Zimbabwe are responsible for more than 40 per cent. of the country's gross national product. If one goes to supermarkets one sees on the shelves Zimbabwe beans, Zimbabwe baby sweet corn, and so on. That is marvellous and it is something we would not have seen in earlier years. I wonder whether we will still see that happening under Mugabe's policy.
I said earlier that I first went to Zimbabwe in 1980. At that time the Zimbabwe dollar was worth 75p. There are now 33 Zimbabwe dollars to the pound. That is not good. I understand that, along with the land acquisition policy, the Zimbabwe authorities are threatening to confiscate foreign currency accounts, whereby if you earn money in foreign currency you can keep it. Farmers could spend it on parts for their tractor or Land Rover. If that is to be stopped—I do not know whether the Minister has any information on this—it will be a serious matter. If farmers do not have the ability to replace those spare parts, the business will go.
In recent days we have seen conflicting press statements. Some have said that Mugabe will accept the strictures of the EU and the IMF and that everything will be all right. Others have said that he does not like to take the advice of the EU and the IMF and that the land acquisition policy will go ahead. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what the latest situation is.
I should like to thank the Minister for the help that she has been able to give to those of us who are interested in this issue. This should not be a confrontational debate but, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, there are serious British interests involved.
10.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I join this debate with sadness; sadness for the Zimbabweans, sadness for its wildlife and sadness for the country. On 31st March last year, £1 sterling bought 18.4 Zim dollars. Last Friday, at the close of business, it bought 31.5. That is nearly 100 per cent. devaluation in less than a year. Businessmen are already buying forward in order to protect themselves. Inflation is running at 24 per cent. and rising. The IMF suspended multilateral credits, the
212
population growth is exceeding economic growth, and over 50 per cent. of the population is under 25 years of age. Sadly, it is a country with problems.
But thank goodness for democracy.
"The December issue of the First Merchant Bank's quarterly guide to the economy stated that the combined bill for the servicing of Zimbabwe's debt, public service and defence salaries, and the payouts to former Zanla and Zipra combatants will absorb the government's entire revenue from taxes and duties. All other expenditure will have to be financed by further local and international borrowings, which will, in turn, increase the debt service burden in future years. This means that every litre of petrol put into government vehicles, every bandage used in hospitals, every chair and desk bought this year, will he purchased with borrowed money. [President Mugabe] will go down in history as the man who halved the nation's wealth in a matter of weeks—and he cannot put the blame on anyone else this time. The land issue (over which there is no longer any opposition. in principle), has been handled with all the viciousness of a spoilt child".
Those are not my words but appeared in the leader in the Zimbabwean Sunday Standard of 18th January.
Who is going to suffer in all of this? Clearly, the African himself is going to suffer. As many noble Lords have pointed out, there is going to be considerable local unemployment. When the farms are taken away and resettled there will be a permanent addition to the unemployment roll of something like 88,000 people who are earning wages at the moment.
But that is not the end of the story. In addition there is a large amount of fringe benefits that the commercial farms pay for in the way of free transport, schools and education, help with hospital facilities, and roads. All of that will immediately cease. That will not be good for the local economies, particularly in rural areas.
One of the reasons that President Mugabe has given for this new or revised attack on the white farmers—and when senior leaders find themselves in difficulties they often turn to a minority as a whipping boy—is that the whites have taken the land from the blacks. If one goes back 100 years it is estimated that there were only 250,000 blacks in Zimbabwe. Most of the land which is now subject to the commercial farms was virgin bush. If anyone should get that land back it is the bushmen who were pushed out by the tribes from the north and the Zulus from the south a little earlier. They were the people who originally belonged to Zimbabwe.
The white farmers will also suffer. For many it is their only livelihood and only means of existence which they have either bought or had handed down. They have no other form of income except for farming. But they are facing quite a serious problem because, as I understand it, the compensation that has been promised will not be paid in respect of any improvements after the date of the listing. So what is the point of any farmer spending more on his farm and security and trying to improve and upgrade his farm if there is to be no compensation? As my noble friend Lord Plunket said, at the moment it is only a listing and not a designation. So we have a crisis of limbo among the farming community who do not know where they stand and who are not buying equipment that is needed. As a result, businesses are suffering, as my noble friend Lord Brabazon said. The whole agricultural industry is taking a breather at the present time.

213
It is more than that because the manufacturing industries in Zimbabwe, which also bring in foreign currency, depend very much on local agricultural produce. But if that is going to decline—it has done so where resettlement has taken place—then that, too, will suffer and there will be a lack of foreign currency coming into the country. That cannot be good for those in the country or for the country itself.
I turn briefly to the wildlife. For them, resettlement poses dangers as it has wherever it has occurred throughout the world on such a scale. If Model A, the current scheme, is used, every five hectares will be given to someone and the wildlife will suffer. I shall consider the plight of just one animal that has been brought back from the brink of extinction in Zimbabwe. I refer to the black rhino. At the moment, there are 324 black rhinos in Zimbabwe, half in national parks and half in private conservancies. Most of the farms in these private conservancies are on the listing, so the black rhino's future is again under threat. What a detrimental state of affairs! I am sure that President Mugabe would not want to leave that as his legacy. I am sure that he would want to take the opportunity in the name of conservation alone—if for no other reason—to rescind his current instructions on this matter and to negotiate with the IMF and the EU, of which Britain is president for the next six months. We therefore have a perfect opportunity to point out not only the fatal flaws in the policy, but also the potential, and the willingness of all of us to try to help that country in its land reform and to give further aid to try to alleviate the poverty which is only getting worse at the moment.
10.35 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Vivian on raising this important question. As he said, there is a strong case for land reform in Zimbabwe. Half the country's arable acreage is owned by 4,500 whites and the need to provide land for the landless has been central to the Zimbabwean Government's efforts to raise the standard of living of those in overcrowded, overstocked and overused communal areas.
The Zimbabwean Government's support policies have been successful in that the small-scale farmer has moved from virtual subsistence and independence to the current position where his or her maize, cotton and groundnut output accounts for over 70 per cent. of national output. That is why Britain has spent £30 million since 1980 to help Zimbabwean families to buy land.
It is vital that the British Government and the international community continue to aid Zimbabwe in supporting land reform as part of the partnership to eradicate poverty. However, it would not help the poor if land was acquired in a way which undermined agriculture or foreign investors' confidence. Clearly, the process of land redistribution must be carried out in a carefully planned, open and orderly fashion with a land register, consultation and fair compensation.
214
I fully supported the Written Answer given last week by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in which he stated that the land acquisition must proceed in accordance with Zimbabwe's laws, its constitution and international obligations. Zimbabwe's 1992 Land Acquisition Act requires the government to pay compensation and provides access to the courts if the amount of compensation is disputed. It follows that any programme which Britain might support would need to be phased over time and should include support from other donors. Failure to carry out undertakings to donors will make further funding for Zimbabwe almost impossible. The IMF abandoned the country because promises made for loans were not met.
I discussed this programme at some length this morning with Zimbabwe's High Commissioner. He confirmed that the land acquisition programme will go ahead "openly and transparently", but fair price compensation for displaced farmers would depend on discussions with the EU and the World Bank. He said that land would be passed on only to those who have an agricultural background, and no ministers or war veterans without this experience would benefit.
As the Zimbabwean Government have no funds for this exercise, they are looking to the international community to finance the project. As the noble Lord, Lord Acton said, I understand that a conference with EU governments will take place soon to discuss the land acquisition programme.
Lord Acton: My Lords, I did not actually say that. With great respect to the noble Lord. I said that it had been suggested and that I, crossing my fingers, lived in hope that it might take place. I wish that I could say: "Yes, it will happen."
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the High Commissioner told me this morning that it is definitely going to happen. Those were his words. It was agreed in Brussels the other day when President Mugabe was there.
I should be grateful if the Minister could answer the following questions. I apologise for the fact that I have not given her warning of these. First, if Her Majesty's Government do support this programme and the EU and the World Bank come up with the finance, will they make it crystal clear to the Zimbabwean Government that unequivocal undertakings must be given to compensate farmers in full for the land and the infrastructure they have lost? This is essential to prevent thousands of white farmers facing ruin.
Secondly, will Her Majesty's Government confirm that any aid package would be dependent on agricultural production not being hindered?
Thirdly, the Zimbabwean Government have already acquired 2 million acres of land under the willing seller/willing buyer system but, as my noble friend Lord Plunket said, there is concern in the farming community that much of this is standing idle. Will the British Government bring pressure on the Zimbabwean Government to address this problem before they acquire more farms?

215
Finally, the Commercial Farmers' Union has proposed to sell 740,000 acres for resettlement, as well as planning a low interest fund to finance the gradual acquisition of land by black farmers. Indeed, many farmers have offered to train would-be farmers. This initiative has received the support of other potential aid-donor countries who have been concerned with the process of compulsory land acquisition. In the event that international finance is not forthcoming for the acquisition programme, will Her Majesty's Government support the plan of the Commercial Farmers' Union?
10.42 p.m.
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, as has already been alluded to in this debate, further land redistribution is unnecessary because the Zimbabwean Government already have 2 million acres of unoccupied land. However, we may need to be careful about cutting off aid to President Mugabe for fear of making him more intransigent and, therefore, inflicting fresh sufferings on the white population.
The whites do not occupy the best land. They are on the higher altitudes, where it is cooler and there is less disease. Uncertainty over the future of white farmland may mean less willingness to plant crops. We must have regard to the plight of British families who, if dispossessed, will be without British passports and only able to leave the country with approximately £50 in their pockets.
The Foreign Office Minister from another place wrote to me explaining that, where land is acquired compulsorily, the Zimbabwean Government will give compensation for improvements but not for the land itself. The legal basis here is the Land Acquisition Act 1992. However, we understand that the Minister said that landowners can contest these actions under the Act, and possibly under the constitution.
The outcome here in the courts may raise very interesting questions about the independence of the judiciary. If the legal challenges are successful, the compensation bill will probably cause a currency crisis. We need to ask whether the confiscated land will go, not as President Mugabe claims to the landless blacks, but to his Ministers and government officials. We must note that few farms so far bought under resettlement programmes have shown any success. There has been a reversion here to a primitive subsistence slash and burn agriculture.
We also need to look back to the years 1980 and 1992. Under the white government, food was stockpiled against the event of drought. However, in 1980, the stocks were sold off as an easy means of raising foreign exchange. When drought arrived in 1992–93 £2 billion was provided by the west by way of relief but very little of it reached the black population.
I should like to end my brief remarks by putting two questions to the Minister which I hope she will answer when she replies to the debate. First, can the Minister provide any information on the offer made by the previous Conservative government of financial support for the purchase of white-owned farms for the resettlement of black farmers, which I understand was
216
turned down by the Government of Zimbabwe on 17th December 1996? Secondly, when the Prime Minister had discussions with President Mugabe at the Commonwealth Conference did he reaffirm that Britain's stand is only to provide grant money if, where farms are acquired, full respect is shown for the owners' rights and the land is not seized?
10.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords are enormously grateful to my noble friend Lord Vivian for initiating this debate. The debate has been of extraordinarily high quality. Not for the first time I find myself the least well informed person on the speakers' list.
Zimbabwe is a country which commands great affection among most people in this country. We have a long association with it. President Mugabe is a man widely held in great respect, particularly by those who remember him in the years immediately following independence, for all that he has achieved for his country. I hope that both Zimbabwe and the president regard themselves as friends of this country and that we in turn regard them as good friends.
But both the country and the president have fallen on hard times economically and politically. Government spending is clearly out of control. and the president appears not to have the control over his government that he once had. He has had to make promises and commitments to expenditure that he does not have the means to meet. This has resulted in a considerable economic crisis.
The particular aspect that concerns the House this evening is the land redistribution proposal. That in itself is not something to which we can have any objection. The idea that past history has provided patterns of land ownership that do not fit with the way a country is now and have to be changed by government action is entirely familiar to us. We refer to it as leasehold enfranchisement. That Zimbabwe should wish to do something along the same hoes cannot be a matter to which we object. But I believe that we can have reasonable concerns about the details of the proposal: the way the farms have been chosen; to whom they are to be passed; the payment or non-payment of compensation; the access or lack of it of those affected to the courts; and general concerns about human rights, legality and constitutionality. The word used by my noble friend Lady Park that sums it up for me was "transparency."
We also have a right to be concerned about the effects that the proposals will have on the economy of Zimbabwe. Agriculture is enormously important to the country. Even if the current proposals were carried through carefully, as they stand now in the name of benefiting the poor they would create a great deal of additional poverty in Zimbabwe.
I await with great interest what the Minister has to say. I hope that she will confirm what I sense is the Government's policy; namely, that they agree that where Britain gives aid it has a right and duty to see that it is well spent. Further, we should concern

217
ourselves with the way that the whole country is run. If the country is rotten it does not matter how well an individual project is run because the government always have the ability to siphon off money in different ways and misdirect it into other parts of the economy. Therefore, the way in which the whole country and a particular project is run must concern us.
In looking at Zimbabwe as a friend—I hope the Minister will say that Britain is willing to make a substantial commitment to Zimbabwe to help it out of the hole in which it finds itself—we must recognise that to give money without any conditions is to help Zimbabwe dig itself deeper into the hole. If we promise money but make it conditional we will strengthen President Mugabe's hand to deal with Zimbabwe's problems properly. To ensure that money is available only if he does that gives him power to deal with his domestic political problems and so achieve a much better outcome to the problems of that country than seemed likely perhaps even a week ago. I await the Minister's reply with great interest.
10.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, for giving us the opportunity to debate the question of land acquisition in Zimbabwe, and to other noble Lords who have participated in the debate.
The British and Zimbabwean people and their Governments have enjoyed a long and enduring friendship and the situation in Zimbabwe is a matter of particular concern to us. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, need have no worries about the depth of our concern about Zimbabwe. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, that our worries and concerns are for all Zimbabweans irrespective of their race or ethnicity.
I begin by saying that the Government recognise that land ownership in Zimbabwe is very unequal and that most Zimbabweans still live on communal lands in conditions of poverty. The Government have a clear interest in Zimbabwe's political, economic and social development. We are committed to the elimination of poverty worldwide. We have offered to assist the Government of Zimbabwe to find an acceptable solution to these issues.
As this is a short debate, your Lordships will not want me to go through the detailed history of this issue, which many of you are familiar with. I shall concentrate on the present situation but I hope the House will bear with me if I recall that land was an important issue for the liberation movement and for the Lancaster House Conference in 1980, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne, has reminded us. It was important to the British Government of the day, who
218
promised to help, and did so. I would remind the noble Baroness that Britain provided almost £40 million in a combination of project aid and programme aid for land purchase and resettlement in Zimbabwe. Britain offered more assistance in 1989 and again in 1996. Those offers were not taken up. However, we remain willing to provide further assistance.
The schemes we have supported have allowed the resettlement of more than 70,000 families. The Government of Zimbabwe have also bought land with their own resources, some of which could now be used for resettlement if they wanted to do so, as the noble Lords, Lord Vivian and Lord Sudeley reminded us.
Turning to the present situation, we have heard from many noble Lords that in October 1997 President Mugabe announced that his government intended to acquire 5 million hectares of land by the end of that year. As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has told us, in November 1997 the Zimbabwean Government officially gazetted a list of some 1,470 farms and sent the owners preliminary notices of compulsory acquisition in accordance with the law. Some 1,400 owners have since submitted appeals. The Zimbabwean Government have admitted that there are, what they term, "mistakes" in the list.
President Mugabe has said that his government will not compensate owners for the value of their land. This is one of the grounds on which many of the appeals have been based. As the noble Lord, Lord Plunket, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness have told us, President Mugabe has argued that the farms were stolen from the indigenous population. Whatever the basis for the original settlement, in practice most of the present owners bought their farms after independence and the farms are rightfully owned by Zimbabweans and others under the laws of Zimbabwe.
Her Majesty's Government have a number of other concerns about the programme announced by President Mugabe. It is taking place against the background of a serious economic and financial crisis. The value of the currency has fallen by around 60 per cent. in the past 10 weeks. We understand that the government have now agreed tight budgetary limits with the IMF and World Bank, and that there is very limited financial provision for the programme within their expenditure plans: the government appear to need to cut back on expenditure in other areas in order to accommodate the land programme. We therefore find it difficult to understand how the Government of Zimbabwe can successfully implement this programme. It is not clear who will acquire the farms or under what terms. Nor is it clear what plans the government have made for those currently employed on the farms and their families who will lose their jobs, as the noble Lords, Lord Acton and Lord Vivian, reminded us. We are not aware that the government have made any assessment of the social or environmental impact of the programme, the impact on agricultural production, or the cost-effectiveness of the programme.

219
President Mugabe's government have asked Britain to support this programme. I have to say that, in the light of the concerns I have just outlined, Her Majesty's Government are unwilling to support those proposals. Those concerns are shared by other countries, the international financial institutions, and by many Zimbabweans. We are concerned that the proposed programme is already having an adverse effect on the economy. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development, in a recent letter to the Zimbabwean Minister for Lands and Agriculture, warned that the present land acquisition programme would adversely affect agriculture and investor confidence. She went on to say that our future aid relationship with Zimbabwe, including the possibility of programme aid, would be considered in the context of the Zimbabwe Government's progress in their economic and transformation programme, and wider plans for the elimination of poverty in Zimbabwe. The current financial crisis, recently prompted by the impact on investor confidence by government statements on land, has increased the need for early agreements with the IMF about economic reform programmes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, challenged the answer to a Question given by my noble friend Lord Whitty. She said what was being promised was aid for the alleviation of poverty, but not for land reform. We believe that aid for poverty can be achieved through land reform. That was part of the point of the letter written by my right honourable friend who said that she believed that land reform would be an important component of a Zimbabwean programme designed to eliminate poverty. She also said that we were prepared to support such a programme. I hope that that answers unequivocally the point drawn to our attention by the noble Baroness.
Many noble Lords have asked what is the way forward. The Government welcome President Mugabe's commitment last week to consult Zimbabwean stakeholders. We hope that that will lead to an agreed programme that we and other donors can support. We recognise the need for major land reforms in Zimbabwe, as have many noble Lords this evening, which will allow poor people to share the benefits from rural investment and agricultural prosperity—a point forcefully made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park. We believe that President Mugabe now needs to confirm in public that the programme will be transparent, legal, and will not jeopardise the Government of Zimbabwe's budget deficit targets, and will aim to alleviate the problem of poverty. Zimbabweans need to know what is going to happen to the farms. President Mugabe is well known to us as a man of courage who is not afraid to take difficult decisions. The British Government hope that he will quickly bring this crisis to an end, so that we and other donors can move forward with the government and people of Zimbabwe to address the urgent problems of poverty and land.
The noble Lords, Lord Vivian and Lord Acton, raised the issue of the Commercial Farmers' Union. The CFU has offered to help develop a planned programme of resettlement. Her Majesty's Government would encourage the Zimbabwean Government to work with
220
the CFU and with the other farmers' organisations and with the financial and other qualified bodies to produce the land reform programme which would command the widespread confidence of those within Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe's many friends outside.
The question was also raised about a possible EU conference. Her Majesty's Government would welcome a proposal for a donor conference. The United Kingdom would be willing to take part in discussions on land reform in Zimbabwe along the lines I have already outlined tonight.
Several noble Lords raised the question about the IMF. Zimbabwe and the IMF agreed in 1991 an economic structural adjustment programme. It ended in 1995 primarily because the Zimbabwean Government were slow to implement public sector reform and failed to control budget expenditure. We understand that the IMF is presently considering a new standby agreement to help Zimbabwe through its current economic difficulties, which need to be submitted to the IMF board. We have encouraged the IMF to take account of the adverse effect of the present land acquisition policy on agriculture, the economy and investor confidence. Given what has been said tonight, I believe that such a line would have the support of your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, raised the fact that the government took over privately held foreign currency accounts in December. We believe that this has clearly damaged business confidence. We understand that the IMF team is currently in Zimbabwe—it was there last week—having discussions about how best to restore confidence in the value of the dollar. We hope that agreement can be reached on that important question.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, raised questions about the way forward and the attitude of the British Government to the issue of illegally acquired land. We must be clear about this. It is for the Zimbabwean Government to decide what to do in their own country. The constitution since 1980 has recognised that powers of compulsory purchase for land resettlement are necessary on the basis of fair, prompt and adequate compensation. Successive British governments have recognised that the powers of compulsory purchase may be needed to carry out successful land reform, but we have told the Zimbabwean Government that we are willing to consider a new programme of assistance for land reform which is transparent, which is affordable and which is set in the context of reducing poverty and accelerating growth.
We have had a thorough debate on this important issue. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. I repeat that Her Majesty's Government believe that President Mugabe is a man of courage. Zimbabwe faces a very difficult and worrying situation. Last week, the country witnessed some of the worst street riots and demonstrations since independence. And this is a country which was considered until recently one of the most stable countries in its region.
I am heartened by the words of many noble Lords tonight, but in particular the words of the noble Lord, Lord Plunket, who, after all, has vivid and current

221
experiences of life in Zimbabwe. We hope, as he does, that President Mugabe will act quickly and decisively to solve these problems and address out concerns and those of the Zimbabwean people. And we hope that, in so doing, he will again be able to end this present crisis and lead his country to the increased prosperity for which I am sure all your Lordships hope.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, in her very helpful reply she mentioned a number of factors that the Government would bear in mind. Will she also bring to the attention
222
of the Zimbabwean authorities the point which I raised about the conservation of animals, because that will be critical in relation to any resettlement programme?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lord, I believe, when the noble Earl reads what I said in Hansard, he will find that I made a reference to the importance of land and conservation in my address but, if that was not clear to the noble Earl, then I give him that undertaking now. Of course it is a matter of importance.
House adjourned at three minutes past eleven o'clock.